The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Eagles Nest: Video: CBS Sports: NFL 1978-Week-12-Miracle at The Meadowlands-Philadelphia Eagles @ New York Giants: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

There are games that can send mediocre teams to the playoffs and end seasons for teams that may think they are good and are in the playoff race. And 1978 Miracle at The Meadowlands is that game, because both teams were still in the NFC Playoff race at this point, but basically had to win this game. Especially the Giants at 5-6, or have to win out and probably get help from other teams to get the fifth and last playoff spot in the NFC. The Eagles-Giants rivalry is one of the oldest and best in the NFL, top 3-5 and has had a lot of staple games. But when you lose or win a game where the team that is leading late in the game, only has to run out the clock with victory formation and they blow that and fumble the ball instead, that becomes the staple game of this great rivalry.



Friday, November 22, 2013

New America: The Weekly Wonk: Mark Schmitt: Liberal Brain Freeze & Security Narcissists

New America: The Weekly Wonk: Mark Schmitt: Liberal Brain Freeze

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I disagree with this blog from the New America Foundation the author of it Mark Schmitt. Liberal Democrats have a clear agenda and clear proposals coming from President Obama who is a Liberal Democrat, at least on economic policy, even though he comes up short when it comes to civil liberties and the War on Drugs. But President Obama has clear liberal leanings when it comes to economic policy. And has had a liberal economic agenda since becoming President of the United States.

And Senate Democrats have had a clear liberal economic agenda since taking control of the Senate when Democrats won took back Congress back in 2007. And House Democrats have had a clear liberal economic agenda since they took back the House in 2007 as well. And so have liberal or progressive governors at the state levels as well. And it’s just that these policies and agenda have been blocked in many ways by a partisan Senate Republican minority that has only had one goal since losing the Senate in 2006. Win back the Senate.

Senate Republicans believe the only way to win back the Senate is through obstructionism and make Senate Democrats and President Obama look like they can’t govern. And House Republicans winning back the House in 2010 have only made these problems even worst for Democrats. Liberal Democrats aren’t out of ideas when it comes to economic policy. And neither are Republicans, it just that Republicans have a lot of bad ideas right now that aren’t gaining in popularity.

But the liberal democratic economic agenda is built around building an economy. Where everyone has the opportunity and good opportunities to succeed in life and doing a lot of this through the private sector. With the Federal Government laying out priorities and goals for building this economy. By empowering people who need it to be able to move ahead on their own. President Obama’s and other Liberal Democrats economic agenda is pretty clear.

Investing in around a trillion dollars in new infrastructure investment to rebuild this country. Which would create millions of private sector jobs in the construction and manufacturing industries.
A national energy policy designed to move America to energy independence by investing in American energy resources and investing in all of them so we can get off of foreign oil in the future.
Comprehensive immigration reform to bring in new workers with the skills to do the jobs we need done. And to bring millions of illegal immigrants out of the shadows and have them pay the taxes they owe. So American citizens do not have to pay as much in taxes.

Education and job training especially for our low-skilled adults so they can get themselves good jobs. And become members of the middle class and not need public assistance in the future.
Tax reform to encourage more economic investment inside the United States and that even includes lower corporate taxes on investments in the United States. And closing wasteful corporate welfare. Today’s so-called Progressives though seem to hate the notion of lowering corporate taxes inside the United States, even if that means cutting corporate welfare.

It’s not that Liberal Democrats are out of economic ideas and ways to expand the American economy. But we do not have the power that we need to put our agenda through right now. And are dealing with a Republican opposition that has taken the, “our way or no way approach to economic policy.” And only having one goal of retaining control of the U.S. House, winning back the U.S. Senate. To set up a Republican winning back the White House in 2016.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

The New Republic: Opinion: Michael Kazin: JFK's Assassination Made Governing Harder

The New Republic: Opinion: JFK's Assassination Made Governing Harder

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

There were columns and blogs written about a month ago talking about why there hasn’t been a liberal version of the Tea Party movement. Which is something I believe Liberal Democrats need if we ever want to move the country in a strong liberal democratic direction with the people behind us. So we have not only the troops behind us to get our agenda passed, but also the political support to stay in power once we get our agenda passed. And in 2009-10 we came pretty close when it came to the economy.

Health care reform obviously and financial reform, but didn’t have the political support to stay in power after we got these policies passed through Congress and signed by a Democratic President into law. Because the Tea Party in the Republican Party came to power and cost House Democrats not only their majority, but sixty-two seats and turned a large majority in the Senate, 59-41 to a tight majority of 53-47 going into the next Congress. So Democrats have come close and in recent years to moving the country in a clear liberal democratic direction, but came up short thanks to the 2010 Congressional midterms.

The future of the Democratic Party looks good if the aftermath of the Healthcare.Gov start up doesn’t ruin it of moving the country in that liberal democratic direction where personal and economic freedom will be available to everyone, where everyone in the country will have the ability to reach their full-potential in life. And not be judged by their race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality and not be denied the ability to succeed in life because they come from low-income families.

Where everyone will have the ability to get the skills that they need to live do well in life and where even low-skilled adults will have those opportunities as well. And I say this because the country is moving in a liberal as well as libertarian direction. More liberal than libertarian, but these are probably the two fastest growing political factions in the country. This doesn’t mean we are moving to an era where big government will become popular and where Americans will want an even bigger government, which is different.

Americans and the younger generations are part of this and aren’t interested in big government. Or small government, or looking for a bigger government or a smaller government. But a government that is a good government that is efficient and spends the tax dollars that it needs and spend those dollars wisely. Which is a good opportunity for Liberal Democrats to say, “we aren’t tax and spenders either. And we aren’t looking to gut the programs that people need as well.”

Liberals should say they want to create a society where everyone is treated fairly and where everyone can live their own lives and not be denied things simply because people do not like people like them, because of who they are and are bigots. And a country where everyone can succeed economically as well and these are the voters that Democrats should be speaking to. Because they can say, “we aren’t looking for the Federal Government to takeover everything, but instead empower people who need it to be able to takeover their own lives instead.”

The money is in the Democratic Party and on the liberal Left to build this movement. Barack Obama proved this in 2008 and someone like Hillary Clinton who’ll be looking to take the safest positions possible she can when she starts running for president in 2015 and go straight for Independents, is probably not the right person to build this movement. But someone with serious liberal credentials who’ll have the message that, “we don’t want government to try to do everything, but see to it that everyone can succeed on their own instead.” And that Democrat hasn’t emerged yet for president.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

VOA News: Video: Luiz Ramirez: Future Role of US Troops in Afghanistan Debated



The only thing that American troops in conjunction with NATO should be doing right now is helping to train and develop the Afghan military so Afghanistan can defend itself from domestic and foreign invaders including the Taliban and other terrorists groups. We’ve been there twelve years and have our own problems back at home economically and financially. That these wars being put on the national credit card have played a big role in. As well as security interests in other places that we need to address. And we can’t afford to occupy other countries indefinitely. So we should be and are working to develop the Afghan military and central government so they can govern themselves. As far as American troops accused of criminal acts, they should be tried in America, just as long as they are held accountable. And not given the message that they aren’t accountable under law.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

The Democratic Strategist: Opinion: Robert Creamer: How to Fight Economic Inequality

The Democratic Strategist: Opinion: Robert Creamer: How to Fight Epidemic Economic Inequality

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Perhaps someone should explain to me how someone with a good education, who works hard and is very productive and makes a lot of money for the work they do and what they produce, how that is unfair for that person to be as financially successful as they are compared with someone who doesn’t have much of an education and perhaps didn’t finish high school, who struggles financially to make ends meet, because they lack the skills to get themselves a good job and be economically independent.

Because that is what so-called income inequality is supposed to be. People who are very successful in life who did what they needed to do especially early on in life to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life and people on the bottom who made mistakes early on in life, like having kids too early or not even finishing high school. But somehow it is unfair that the successful is so successful and people on the bottom in life for them is a struggle.

I’m all in favor of empowering people on the bottom. Whether they are still in school and come from low-income families or are low-income low-skilled adults. Empowering these people to be able to get themselves a good education either while they are still kids, or as adults. And empowering them to either finish their education, or further their education so they can get themselves a good job. And one reason for this is a better skilled, or well-skilled workforce benefits everyone because it means more people with economic security and purchasing power.

And it would be mean that we would need to spend less money on public assistance in this country. Because we would have fewer people either living in poverty or close to living in poverty. Like being short one paycheck of having to live in poverty. But to say lawyers or doctors or business executives making a lot more money than people who drive buses or clean rooms or work in service industries is unfair, is flat false. Because we are paid based on our skills and the work that we do in this country.

The reason why I do not use the term income inequality and prefer to use the term income and education gaps, because income inequality suggests that it is somehow unfair for a doctor to make ten to fifteen times more than someone who cleans building or works in retail as an associate. When the facts are there is a lot more people need to do and be able to do to be a doctor and be successful at it than you need to be a sales associate at a store. And this is the main reason why high-skilled jobs pay so much more than low-skilled jobs.

Monday, November 18, 2013

The Hamilton Project: Blog: Melissa Kearney & Lesley Turner: Helping Lower-Income Middle Class Families

The Hamilton Project: Blog: Melissa Kearney & Lesley Turner: Helping Lower-Middle Class Americans

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Fifty to sixty thousand or even forty-thousand dollars a year might sound like a decent income in America. But when you count the fact the average American family brings in around fifty-thousand dollar a year, even with the Great Recession of 2008-09 and the fact that those salaries in large wealthy metropolitan areas like Washington, New York, Boston, San Francisco to use as examples, where that money is not that much in those areas because the cost of living is so high. Because with all the benefits of living in a big city or outside of a big city in a big metro area.

And that most Americans live in metropolitan areas and many us live in large metro areas like the ones I mentioned. And then you might have to add education if you have kids and you live in an area without the right public schools for your kids, or you have high health care costs. Fifty-thousand dollars a year give or take which technically puts you in the American middle class might sound like decent money, but not if you have a high cost of living. And not because you are bad with money, but simply you have high costs that you have to meet for your own good and family.

So those are the problems a large if not the largest middle class in the world here in America, but a middle class that in a lot of ways is struggling just to make ends meet. And struggling to afford housing, education, health care, putting money away for retirement. Things that they have to do, but since they aren’t technically poor, they aren’t eligible for public assistance. That is what happens when your cost of living increases over lets say a ten-year period, but your wages drop.

As a country with lack of economic growth, long-term high unemployment, all the jobs that were lost that haven’t been gotten back from the Great Recession and we are left with a percentage of the population the largest in our country our middle class that still have the same bills to meet and same obligations. But has fewer resources and again since they make too much money for public assistance, they have to meet these obligations out of their own pockets with fewer resources to pay those bills.

In the future I’ll be writing posts about how I believe we can and should address these economic problems. Through things like a new middle-income tax credit, job training and education for our lower- middle class workers. But with this post I just wanted to first address the problems and then go from there. Like any good doctor would, not that I’m a doctor, but to fix problems, you first have to know what the problems are.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

NY Giants: Video: CBS Sports: NFL 1985-NFC-WC-San Francisco 49ers @ New York Giants: Pat Summerall Intro


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The NFL on CBS was a great show for many reasons and Pat Summerall might of been the number one reason. But their timing and intros were classic and so well done and knew exactly how to put things and show things to people. First New York Giants home playoff game since the 1962 NFL Championship that was at Yankee Stadium, the day this wildcard game was played. Giants Stadium opened up in East Rutherford, New Jersey in I believe 1976 and this was the first Giants home playoff game there. And how does CBS Sports introduce this game, with Bruce Spingsteen singing Glory Days. The Glory Days of the New York Giants from the 1950s and early 60s. With Pat Summerall a former New York Giant of course doing the intro. A simple two-minute video or so and this is one of best NFL videos and intros of all-time. Just for those reasons.

Gear Master: Video: CBS Sports: NBA 1990-NBA Finals-Game 5-Detroit Pistons @ Portland Blazers: Highlights


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The Blazers probably peaked a season too early in 1990 and not prepared to play in the 1990 NBA Finals mentally as far as knowing what it took to win the NBA Finals. And they were playing a very veteran team in the Pistons who had just played in four straight conference finals and playing in their third straight NBA Finals and going for their second straight NBA Finals Championship. With the Blazers not even being to the conference finals with this group before reaching the 1990 NBA Finals.So this was a matchup of a very good experienced team in the Pistons, with a great player in Isiah Thomas and a great head coach in Chuck Daly. Vs. a young and very talented Blazers teams, without a lot of big game experience. And that showed up a lot in at least four out of the five NBA Finals games.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

ABC Sports: Video: MNF-NFL 1983-Week 1-Dallas Cowboys @ Washington Redskins: Intro


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Interesting matchup in 1983 between the Cowboys and Redskins in this great rivalry and when at least it was a great rivalry. Perhaps the best in the NFL at the time. How times have changed in the last twenty-years or so as the Redskins has become at best a mediocre franchise, with Cowboys being a consistent playoff contender, but even when they make the NFC Playoffs, they don’t tend to do much in the playoffs. But what I believe made this Cowboys-Redskins matchup even more interesting, is that the shoe was on the other foot so to speak. Pre-1983 when they played the Cowboys were either the defending NFC or Super Bowl champions if not both, or they lost the NFC Final the year before. With the Redskins trying to either get back to the NFC Playoffs, or lost in the first round the year before. In 1983 the Redskins were the Super Bowl champions and beat the Cowboys in the NFC Final the year before.

Merkin Muffly: Video: CBS Sports: NBA 1983-ECQF-Game 3: Atlanta Hawks @ Boston Celtics: Highlights


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The Hawks and Celtics had a pretty good rivalry with each other in the 1980s, especially in the late 80s where they seemed to meet in the Eastern Conference Playoffs every year. The Celtics won every series including 83, but 85, 86 and 88 as well, but the Hawks played them very well even at the Boston Garden and even won some games there. They probably should’ve won the 88 series and I believe had a better team. They were up 2-1 or 3-2 in that series, if not both leads in the series with the opportunity to close out that series at home. But lost both games. The Hawks in the late 80s always looked they were going to make a real run at the NBA Finals in the regular season, but always failed to even get to the Eastern Conference Finals. A difference between a good team and a very good team. The good team has potential, the very good team consistently moves on in the playoffs. And at least plays for conference championships.

Friday, November 15, 2013

PBS: Video: American Experience: JFK, Extended Preview


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The PBS version of John F. Kennedy is the best program at least I've seen of Jack Kennedy this month. Not that there has been a lot of quality programs and films about his so far in November. Because the rest of them have been about the assassination and why he was in Dallas in November, 1963. Or why he so highly regarded in pop culture as a cool president. But the American Experience program is truly about his life and his career. 

Jack Kennedy before Congress, in Congress, the famous 1960 presidential election against Richard Nixon, the Kennedy Administration obviously and all of the key moments that happened in his administration. How he put his administration together, the relationship he had with the Southern Caucus of right-wing Democrats in Congress that had the real power in the House and Senate. Even though he did have large Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate. 

President Kennedy's policies to stimulate economic growth and expand educational and college opportunities. The Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, his hard push for civil rights legislation. All of the things that you tend not to get from the commercial networks or the entertainment cable networks. But that you only get for the most part from PBS and films you see at the theater.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: ABC Sports: MLB 1982-NLCS-Game 3-St. Louis Cardinals @ Atlanta Braves: Full Game


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

An interesting matchup for a championship series with two teams that were almost nothing like. The St. Louis Cardinals as a team hit less than 100 home runs that season. George Hendrick who was a solid power hitter for a lot of his career, led the Cardinals with eighteen home runs. This was a team that would get on base by walking and slapping singles and the occasional double. And then stealing a lot of bases and stretching singles to doubles, doubles triples, scoring from first base. Playing great defense and getting great pitching. This was known as Whiteyball named after the great Cardinals manager Whitey Herzog. The Atlanta Braves in 1982 were a power hitting team led by Dale Murphy and Bob Horner with Chris Chambliss as well. So this was a matchup between a speed team in the Cardinals both on offense and defense. Vs a power hitting team that pitched and defended well enough to win the AL West in 1982.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

The New Republic: Opinion- David Greenberg- JFK Was An Unapologetic Liberal

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

JFK in a video from 1960 when he was running for President of the United States as U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy, gave a speech at the New York State Liberal Party convention defining liberalism and what liberalism is to him. And a couple of things from this speech that partisan right-wingers who like to view him as a Conservative and Progressives who are in love with the welfare state and based most of their politics around what the Federal Government can do for people should take from this speech. Which will be on this blog and that you can find for yourself on YouTube.

For right-wingers he was saying why he was a Liberal and what liberalism isn’t. Which should be enough evidence for them if that is what they are interested in seeing, instead just trying to score political points off it, as well as with his administration. And for the let’s say today’s Progressives who I prefer to call Social Democrats which is a little different, when you see this video about how Jack Kennedy felt about his liberalism and liberalism in general, they should know, again if they are interested in facts and not just scoring political points, from JFK while he was in Congress or as

President of the United States, wasn’t as far to the Left for them when it came to economic or foreign policy. So-called Progressives like to partially quote Jack Kennedy’s speech from 1960 on Liberalism. And they only use the part where he says, “if being a Liberal is someone who cares about the welfare of others, their education, housing, health care, their economic security” to use as examples, than he meaning JFK is a Liberal. And they use this one part of a much larger speech. And David Greenburg of The New Republic whose column today in The New Republic that you can read by clicking the link on this blog, his column was no different.

And so-called Progressives use it to make the case that JFK was a Liberal. But in the way that Social Democrats see Liberalism and Liberals, people who believe that it is the job of government to look after people and take care of people and that is how you secure freedom for everyone. Instead of empowering people to be able to make their own decisions and be able to take care of themselves. Which is the real definition and version of economic liberalism. Using government to empower those who need it in order to be able to take care of themselves.

I’ll just layout the other half of what Senator Kennedy said about liberalism from 1960, which again you can see by viewing the video from this blog. Senator Jack Kennedy said, “that if being Liberal is about being soft abroad, or being Liberal is about being against local government and local control, or being Liberal is someone whose not concern with people’s tax dollars”, than he meaning John F. Kennedy is not a Liberal. So there goes the social democratic version of JFK that today’s so-called Progressives or ‘Modern Liberals’, a term I hate as a Liberal myself and how JFK was not that type of Democrat. Now here is the liberal version of Jack Kennedy and how he described his own liberalism.

“If a Liberal is someone who looks forward and not behind, who welcomes new ideas, cares about the welfare of others, than I” meaning JFK is proud to be a Liberal”. But most people on the Left care about the welfare of others, because most of us have a role for government when it comes to the economy. Because we do not want a small percentage of the country controlling so much of the wealth. Where we disagree on the Left from Liberals on the Center-Left to let’s say Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists is where it comes to what type and how much government involvement in the economy.

Democratic Socialists on the Far-Left have big role for what government should do in the economy. And what it should actually be doing for people in these areas. And President Kennedy did not govern as someone who had a new government program or expansion of a current government program to meet most of it not all the economic and personal needs of people in the United States. He wanted government to be there to help people who needed it, but also to help them be able to help themselves.

Senator Kennedy also went on to say in his 1960 speech about liberalism, “that being Liberal is not about being in favor of a superstate, or being in favor of government force when voluntary action will do to solve our problems in society”. He was in favor of a strong effective Federal Government to so the things that we needed it to do. Not to try to run people’s lives for them. That government should be there to help people in need be able to help themselves. And meet the national security, law enforcement, equal rights protections meaning civil rights challenges, as well as foreign policy concerns of the country. That is what liberalism was to him, as well as myself. And what liberalism actually is and not how it has been successfully stereotyped by the right-wing and use to run with by the New-Left.


Sunday, November 10, 2013

University of Chicago: Video: George E. Kent Lecture: Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow



I do not agree with everything that Professor Michelle Alexander says about the American prison system. And the broader race relations in America, but I agree with her broader premise that we incarcerate too many people in this country and educate too few. And that this overwhelmingly effects racial and ethnic minorities in this country especially the African-American community. But I believe where I may disagree with Professor Alexander is that it is not racism that is the problem in this issue.

But the lack of good schools and the high poverty in these communities leaving students in these communities without the ability to make a good living and be successful in life. And dropping out of high school which is a huge mistake on their part and they end up hanging out with the wrong people. Who also made similar mistakes as young adults and end up in a life as a criminal in and out of the criminal justice system. Instead of finishing high school and going onto college and getting themselves the skills that they need to be successful in a legal profession in life.

The so-called New Jim Crow in our society is on two fronts at least as I see it. One how it gets started with our public education system failing too many people and the African-American community probably gets hit hardest by this, but also because of the mistakes that adolescents in this community make early in life. Like not succeeding and finishing high school, having kids before they are adults themselves and then walking out on their kids and leaving them with a life of poverty as well.

The second front has to do with what happens to many Americans of all races once they are in the criminal justice system after being convicted of crimes. That leaves them with very little if any opportunity to succeed in life once they are out of prison. That our prison system has become about warehousing people instead of improving inmates lives. And empowering them with the skills to succeed with and education and giving them legitimate work experience that they can take with them to get themselves a good job outside of prison.

The failed so-called War on Drugs is also a big problem here, but it is not the only problem. We do not deal with non-violent offenders very well and come down too hard on them. And use prison as the first and in many times only option too often. But we do not do a very good job with our violent inmates that need to be in prison and get them to improve themselves and be able to see a life not just outside of crime, but especially violent crime. So they no longer feel the need or want to hurt people.

Because we lock offenders up and then release them not much if any opportunity to succeed in life on the outside, what we do is just repeat the process over and over. The what is called the revolving door of our criminal justice system. While our schools continue to fail too many people and while too many of our students fail at school. And the never-ending cycle of life of poverty, crime and prison continues to turn with no end in sight.

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Classic Phillies TV: Video: ABC Sports: MLB 1978-NLCS-Game 4-Philadelphia Phillies @ Los Angeles Dodgers: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

This was a very good matchup for an NLCS between the Phillies and Dodgers. Because you had a more power-hitting offensive oriented team in the Phillies, going up against a pitching and defensive oriented team in the Dodgers that also had a very good lineup. With hitters like Steve Garvey, Reggie Smith, Ron Cey, Dusty Baker and others. And I think that was the difference in this series. The teams were fairly even, but the Dodgers had more pitching and I believe a more complete team than the Phillies.
On paper anyway, I think the Dodgers were better than the New York Yankees in 1978. I think they had more offensively and had just as must pitching. But the Yankees got better pitching and clutch hitting in the 1978 World Series and that was the difference. You can’t really afford any off games in a World Series or a championship series. Which is what happened to the Phillies in the first two games of the NLCS losing both of them at home. And having to win three-straight at Dodger stadium to win the series.

Friday, November 8, 2013

MLB Classics: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1980-World Series-Game 7-Kansas City Royals @ Philadelphia Phillies: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

1980 might have been the best Kansas Royals team that they ever had. They had a very good lineup offensively, good defense, good pitching both starting and in the bullpen, Jim Fry was their manager. Unlike the 85 team that was really just George Brett and Hal McRae offensively. Steve Balboni hit a lot of home runs for them, but drove in under ninety runs, which isn’t much for a guy who hits thirty-six home runs and also hit around 240 and struck out a lot. But the 80s Royals had balance offensively, defensively and in their pitching. But couldn’t even force the Phillies into a game 7.

The 1980 Phillies were just very good everywhere. Not a great lineup with a lot of great players, but very good hitters up and down the lineup. They were very good defensively and had excellent pitching. With Steve Carlton as their ace and Tug McGraw in the bullpen. Not a team with any clear weakness’ and they were just the best team in the National League throughout the 1980 season. And a team that finally put it all together after getting to the NL Playoffs in 76 and 78, but losing both NL Championships to the Los Angeles Dodgers. So 1980 was a year that the Phillies believed they had something to prove and came through.

Lamar Matic: Video: CBS Sports: NBA 1975-ECSF-Game 4-Washington Wizards @ Buffalo Braves: Bob McAdoo Scores 50 Points


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Anytime there’s a choice between having the player who scored the most points in a game and the team that scored the most points in a game, especially a playoff game I would always take the team. When one player scores fifty points and his team loses, it generally means he was doing most of the scoring for his team in that game. And that his teammates weren’t doing much damage to the other team. Classic example of Michael Jordan vs. the Boston Celtics in the 1986 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, where he scored sixty points in back-to-back games, but the Celtics beat the Chicago Bulls in both games and beat them badly.
That is how you defended Bob McAdoo when he was with the Buffalo Braves. You guarded him tough and you tried to stop him. But not to the point where it would free up other Braves to beat you with open shots and layups. Now it so happens that the Braves won this game and Big Bob was able to put the Braves on his back. But the Bullets won this series, because they had a better team, even if the Braves had the better player in the series. Good teams, or in the Bullets case very good teams, if not great teams generally beat teams that have a great player, if that player doesn’t have a very good supporting cast around him.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Mometrix Academy: Video: What is Social Liberalism

Social Liberals
Mometrix Academy: Video: What is Social Liberalism

In this post, I’m just going to get into what social liberalism is and what it isn’t. What it really is and what it really isn’t and I’m writing this especially this weekend when I hear people who are called ‘college Liberals’ who want to control speech they disagree with on campus. And have it eliminated, or outlawed as if these people are Liberals, or even Social Liberals. Because they want to eliminate speech that may offend people they want to protect. When the fact is for anyone who understands liberalism social, or otherwise knows that one of the key elements of liberalism is free speech and the right to free assembly.

Just look at the First Amendment which is one of the most liberal things ever written. Paraphrase- Congress shall make no law that fringes on free speech in America. So when talking about liberalism social, or otherwise, or studying it, make sure you are actually talking about liberalism and not fascism. Like these politically correct speech codes by the Far-Left in America that want to eliminate speech in America that they find offensive. Because these people aren’t Liberals, but Fascists, or leftist statists. Which is a bit different.

So free speech is a big part of social liberalism, but it is certainly not the only part. And when Americans tend to think of social liberalism, they tend to think of people are pro-choice on abortion and other women’s healthcare issues. And that even the state meaning government in general should have to fund these things for women who can’t afford them in general. As well as being pro-women’s rights in general and pro-gay rights and pro-minority rights. And that none of these groups should be discriminated against at all. When the fact is these things aren’t true. Liberals, are pro-individual rights which is different.

That we are all created equal with certain basic fundamental rights that can’t be taken away from us unless we hurt other people’s freedom. And being pro-individual rights covers everything from abortion to homosexuality. But also things like marijuana. But also gambling and pornography. And again free speech which even covers an individual’s right to quite frankly be an asshole and say and do offensive things. And that everyone is treated equally under law. And are not denied things based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationality or sexuality.

A good way to think of social liberalism, or a Social Liberal is someone whose pro-choice. Literally pro-choice across the board regardless of the issue. As long as people aren’t hurting innocent people with the choices that they are making. That people should have the right to make their own bed in life and make their own way. But then are also responsible for sleeping in their own beds. In other words, individual freedom and responsibility. And not being able to force others to pay for one’s bad choices in life.

As for what the women in this video had to say about social liberalism, who will go nameless simply, because she didn’t give out her name and I don’t personally know her, or know of her. She nailed the definition of liberalism in the broader context. And perfectly laid out how liberalism, or how she called it social liberalism is different from libertarianism, or what is called classical liberalism. Or even democratic socialism, even though she didn’t mention that. That liberalism, is about individual liberty and individual rights. But that those rights are for everybody and that where government in is not to manage our lives for us. But to help people in need be able to get by in the short-term and help them be able to live in freedom as well. And not need to be taken care of.