Bring Back The LA Rams: NFL Films: NFL 1979-A Tale of Two Seasons, The Story of the 1979 Los Angeles Rams

Bring Back The LA Rams: NFL Films: NFL 1979-A Tale of Two Seasons, The Story of the 1979 Los Angeles Rams

A Tale of Two Seasons is the perfect way to describe the 1979 Los Angeles Rams. Because they were essentially a 500 team or worst in the first half of 1979. I believe the traditionally lowly and last place New Orléans Saints were poised to not only record their first winning season in 1979, make their first playoff appearance and win their first divisional title.

The Saints had a pretty solid team and with a better coaching staff and avoiding key injuries, maybe the Saints make the NFC Playoffs in 79. But all of these things happening weren’t because they were real good, but the Rams weren’t in the first half of 79. Because they were real beat up in 1979. With all sorts of key injuries in the backfield, offensive line, receivers and on defense as well.

The second half of the 79 Rams season were the real Los Angeles Rams that year. Because they got their players back and found their starting quarterback in Vince Feragamo. Who not only got healthy, but took over the starting QB position. They figured out who they were offensively with Feragamo. A running ball control team, with both short, middle and vertical threats in the passing game.

Which meant defenses including the great Pittsburg Steelers in Super Bowl 14. Because the Rams could run the ball with either Wendell Tyler or Cullen Bryant, but could also beat you deep with Vince Feragamo in the passing game. And had a defense that only the great Steel Curtain Steelers were better than in 79. The 79 Rams were a 12-4 or 13-3 team on paper that were even better than the Dallas Cowboys in the NFC. But with all of their injuries, we didn’t see the great Rams team until the second half of 79 and in the playoffs.

The Intelligent Channel: Michael Lind- 'The Global Roots of The 2008 Economic Crash'

Source:The Intelligent Channel- economist Michael Lind talking about the social contract.

"Michael Lind, Policy Director of the New America Foundation's Economic Growth Program and author of Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States (2012), on recent U.S. trade and foreign economic policy... 

From The Intelligent Channel

Reading this report from the New America Foundation goes to highlight the two competing ideological factions in the Democratic Party today. And how we view what the role of government especially the Federal Government should play in the economy. 

The so-called Progressive or as I tend to call them the Social Democratic faction, people like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, the only self-identified Socialist in Congress. And the New Democratic or real Progressive faction of the party that I come from with people like Barack Obama, John Kerry and Bill Clinton, and many others.

Today’s so-called Progressives not only want to protect current social programs in the country, but to expand them and create new ones. And tax more and basically view the Federal Government as underfunded and too decentralized to take care of the entire country. And would like to create new programs and take more power way from the private sector to give to government to take care of us. Like nationalizing the retirement system, to use as an example as we see in this report.

Today’s so-called Progressives would go much further than Franklin Roosevelt or Lyndon Johnson perhaps ever even imagined. And would like to see a big centralized government that’s common in let’s say Europe especially in Scandinavia. That would be there to protect us and take care of everyone to prevent us from making mistakes with our own lives especially financially. 

The social democratic theory is that once power is given to the states and individuals and things become decentralized, there’s less security in the system. And they are right about that, but you can have so much security to the point that individualism and creativity get’s stifled.

Social Democrats would like us to be dependent on the same source in this case the Federal Government to take care of us for us. And I do not want to see all the power in the hands of a central government or any government. Or all the power in the hands of organizations corporate or otherwise. But most if not all the power in the hands of an educated workforce and individuals. To be able to control and manage their own lives for themselves after getting the tools to be able to do that for themselves.

In this report from the New America Foundation, you see proposals to nationalize the retirement system and make Social Security the lone provider of pensions in this country. A proposal to nationalize the Unemployment Insurance system, to give the Federal Government complete control over it. Right now the states play a role helping their own unemployed workers and help them get back to work. A proposal to nationalize the Medicaid system so the Federal Government has complete control over the health insurance program for the poor.

We are a huge country with fifty states, we do not need a top-down approach when it comes to health insurance. And there are developed countries that are much smaller than us like Germany, that have a decentralized health insurance system including health insurance for their poor as well. And have universal health insurance for their entire country. 

And today’s so-called Progressives (Social Democrats, really) would also like to go back to the old Welfare system pre-Welfare to Work of 1996. Where people on Welfare Insurance weren’t expected to go back to work.

Middle class Americans are not under-taxed especially if they are struggling right now. And if anything thanks to the expiring payroll tax cut they are probably overtaxed right now. We do not have an underfunded government with too little authority over our lives. We have underfunded workers with too little authority over their own lives. 

And I separate the social contract from the safety net and to have real economic security in this country. Not that it would ever be perfectly secure, no system could provide that, all developed countries have a certain level of low-income and struggling middle-class workers. But to have a real social contract that provides as much economic security as possible.

We need a social contract that empowers more Americans to be able to take care of themselves. And that get’s to things like a modern infrastructure system and actually rebuild this country. So we can all get around and move products around better, efficiently and affordably. And real universal access to quality education in America that’s life-long. That would also be there for the unemployed and low-income workers so they can get themselves better jobs.

The difference between a social contract and a safety-net, the safety net is a foundation that empowers Americans to be able to do for themselves what they need to take care of themselves. And live in freedom in America. 

The safety net is a social-insurance system that people collect from when they need it and have nowhere else to go. So they can take care of themselves in the short run as they are working themselves to becoming independent.

There are Americans who for the first time in their lives became economically free, because of assistance that they received from the safety net. And what New Democrats (or Progressives) want to do is build a real social contract in America. So we can all live in freedom. And what today’s so-called Progressives are really talking about is creating a centralized welfare state run by the Federal Government. That would be there to take care of everyone. And this is main difference between the two factions in the Democratic Party on economic policy and where we want to take the country.

The Economist: Americas View: Affirmative Action in Brazil: Why America Should Abandoned Affirmative Action as Brazil Implements it

Affirmative action in Brazil: Slavery's legacy | The Economist

As a Liberal I take Dr. Martin L. King's I have a dream speech to heart that he had a dream that one day his  children. Would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. I have that dream for the entire United States and a reason why I'm against affirmative action at least in the. Sense that people of any race or gender should have access to education and employment and so fourth based on race even if race is just one of the factors. While others are denied based on race even if race is just one of the factors. That if we are going to have an equal protection clause and civil-rights which we do. That it should apply to the whole country not just 80-85% of it meaning racial-minorities and Caucasian-women. That all Americans are entitled to equal-access and justice under the law and being denied things based on race. Is simply racist no matter who it's aimed to help or deny. Do we have racial bigotry and sexism in this country, of course we do and have had for our entire history as a country. Which is probably not going away anytime soon but the answer to that is not to have more or just target it to one race of people.

What we should do instead is have strong enforcement of our anti discrimination laws to the point that no one. Would discriminate against people based on race, ethnicity or gender or even sexuality because it would be in their worst interest to do so. With the sanctions that could come down on them as a result and the people who remain that still practice racism, ethnic-bigotry and sexism. Would pay a heavy price for doing so and even be forced out of business depending on how bigoted they have been. Along with having a real public education system in America that provides universal access to quality education for. Anyone who goes to public-schools in this country which would benefit minority students, as well as rural Caucasian students. Where everyone has a shot at being successful in life no matter how they start out and where adults who are low-income and low-skilled. Would have the opportunity to get job-training and education so they to can be successful in life as well.

The cure for racism in this country is not more racism and same thing with sexism. But to punish those things when they are being practiced to the point that it discourages bigots from practicing those things. Again and to have a real education-system that empowers everyone to get themselves the skills that they need to be successful in life. So even bigots would have to think twice about turning people down because of their race, ethnicity or gender. Because of the people that they would lose as a result, which is the direction we should be heading towards in the future.

The Daily Press: Dr. James Dobson- Ted Bundy's: Last Interview

Source:The Daily Press- Focus On The Family, Dr. James Dobson, interviewing serial murderer Ted Bundy, days before he was executed in 1989. 

Source:The Daily Press

Some background is needed for this interview.

Dr. James Dobson is one of the leaders of the religious-right or the so-called Moral Majority in America. That looks down on alcohol, tobacco, pornography, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s to be more specific. And Ted Bundy is one of the most successful serial murderers we’ve ever seen in the United States. Ted Bundy is trying to simply save his life. And Dr. Dobson wants to show Americans the dangers of pornography.

And late in his life I guess after Ted Bundy finally admitted that he was guilty of the murders he was convicted of he started explaining why they happened and how they came about. And as he says in the interview he’s not blaming alcohol and pornography for what he did. And takes responsibility for these murders at least in this interview. But saying that he was under the influence of alcohol and pornography during these crimes. Which gave Dr. Dobson an opportunity to push his message of why alcohol and pornography are bad for society.

This was about Ted Bundy trying to save his life and show people that he’s not as evil as he was portrayed because of all the horrible murders and rapes that he committed. That was Bundy’s motivation here and why he also admitted to other murders that he wasn’t convicted of. Because he wanted a stay of execution and not be executed. Even if that meant living the rest of his life in prison. Dr. Dobson at the very least was smart enough to see that. But I believe used this interview anyway to try to showcase what he sees as the dangers of pornography in America.

HTN Sports: MISL 1979- Philadelphia Fever @ New York Arrows: Highlights

Source:HTN Sports- Philadelphia-New York has always been a great rivalry in football, baseball, hockey, and basketball. But it has never materialized in soccer.

Source:The Daily Press 

“Thanks to seven goals by Steve Zungul, the New York Arrows took game one of the inaugural Major Indoor Soccer League championship series, 14-7 over the Philadelphia Fever at Nassau Coliseum on Long Island on March 23, 1979. Leading just 6-5 in the third, the Arrows turned it on with a huge fourth quarter to win going away. Two days later, they would cap off the series with a 9-5 win in game two, giving New York their first of four consecutive MISL titles.”

From The Celebrated Misterk 

The MISL got of to a good start in the 1979 season with the Philadelphia Fever selling out the Philadelphia Spectrum. Drawing crowds at the Spectrum that the Flyers and 76ers drew. The New York Arrows who won the MISL Finals in 1979 also drew good crowds at the Nassau Coliseum.

Arena soccer is an American sport designed for American sports fans with all the fast paced action, with teams being able to score a lot if they are that good offensively. But for goalies able to be successful as well, especially if they have a good defense in front of them. Because unlike with outdoor soccer, the rules indoors do not favor ether the defense or offense. And because of all of these factors I’ve never understood why the MISL has never been more successful in America. And even become the fifth major sport in this country.

A&E: Video: Biography: The Manson Women

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

The Manson girls were the female members of the Charles Manson’s family what was known as the Manson Family which was basically a cult. But it wasn’t a religious cult, but a crime cult, a crime family, a gang. They were basically a criminal gang that included murder. But also robbery and even torture to get things they wanted because they didn’t have the character to work for it or earn it. And these somewhat smaller crimes eventually led up to murder, but not random murders.

Even though the Manson Family didn’t know who they were murdering, because the people they murdered to them represented what they wanted to eliminate. Which was the establishment or the power-structure in America that the Manson Family especially Charles Manson believed were holding the Manson Family down and why they needed to come together to move away from mainstream society. Where they were failing to make it, especially Charlie who already at this point in his early and mid thirties, had already spent more than half of his life in prison in one form or the other.

And Charlie Manson just getting out of prison in the late 1960s and ending up in the San Francisco area and not knowing what to do with the rest of his life. Sort of catches onto the Hippie movement that was going on then. And saw these people or some of them as his chance to get back at society for all the things he believed were done to him. That cost him half of his life in prison and sees these young women and men late teens and early twenties who were somewhat lost and not knowing how they fit into society.

These young people struggling to make it on their own and showed them the respect and love they weren’t getting in life and formed this family or gang. And now had the soldiers he needed to get back at society. The people he believed were holding him down as well as his cult members. And ended up brining in people who otherwise would’ve been in college at that point and all had the skills and knowledge to of done very well in college and been successful in life.

In Leslie Van Houten’s case, she was beautiful and intelligent. Probably could’ve made it in Hollywood or in college and had a very successful career in entertainment or business or something had she never of met Charlie Manson and never fallen into his cult. But she made a really bad decision early on in life which led to even worse decisions later on in the Manson Family. Which can sum up the rest of the Manson Family and all of the waste that they represent. And what could’ve been had they just made better decisions in life.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1982-3/26-St. Louis Steamers @ New York Arrows: Highlights

Source:Joey Teefizz- the St. Louis Steamers & New York Arrows.

Source:The Daily Press 

“MISL Soccer, St. Louis at Arrows in the 2nd half…Zungul game winner”

From Joey Teefizz 

The St. Louis Steamers were one of the better franchises in the MISL. I believe they’ve been in the league since day one of the 1978-79 season. And are still there and are sort of like the Boston Celtics or Los Angeles Lakers of that league as far as the amount of success that they’ve had. 

St. Louis is a great arena soccer market, but for whatever reasons they still do not have an MLS soccer franchise. New York on the other hand, a great soccer market at least as far as the old North American Soccer League and now Major League Soccer. But never caught on as a very good arena soccer market.

The MISL alone tried three clubs in New York and went to Long Island with the Arrows and Express. And East Rutherford, New Jersey with the Cosmos. The MISL could succeed in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and add Washington and Boston to that list, this league could take off. Because they would be successful in the biggest markets in America.

Fat Hawaiian Man: Video: The Tomorrow Show: Tom Snyder Interview of Charles Manson in 1981

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

I’m glad that Tom Snyder would be wiling and even wanting to interview Charlie Manson. And that Charlie would be willing to do an interview like this and probably wanting to do this interview in the first place. Perhaps looking for the limelight and the chance to show Americans what he was about and what he’s been up to and so-fourth. So the country could see what this guy was about and how people can end up like this if they aren’t given a good opportunity to be successful in life.

The Manson Family felt that society is against them and so-fourth, with all that anger building up and once he gets the opportunity to strike back at the people he believes have done him harm and so-fourth and his chance to get those people back which is a lot of what the Manson Crime Family was about. Taking on the establishment and bringing them down. And that there are people like this in society and this not how you want to end up.

No good reason for Charlie ending up the way he did and how his cult ended up. But when kids aren’t raised right like in Charlie’s case and always moved around from home to home with no one seeming able or willing to love them and raise them right, it is really hard to come from an environment like that and not be angry. To not get involved with people with similar backgrounds growing up. And feel now its their turn to strike back or get back at the people they believe did them harm.

As far as this interview. Tom Snyder was about as good as anyone when it came to doing the difficult interview. Which are interviews where the person being interviewed is not there to talk about them self. Even though that is why the interviewer is talking to them in the first place. And Snyder got Manson to talk about things he probably didn’t want to talk about. Like his cult and how he came up and why he’s been in prison for so much of his life. Which makes for an interesting interview because the interviewer keeps coming. And is so tough and gets the person to say things about themselves that they normally wouldn’t.

StopTheDrugWar.Org: Mandatory Minimums: Phillip Smith: Justice Safety Valve Act Introduced in The U.S. House of Representatives

Justice Safety Valve Act Introduced in House | StoptheDrugWar.org

You want to know why we have so many people in prison in America and why we have so many overcrowded prisons. And why we now spend more money on prisons then we do schools and infrastructure. Of course look at the War on Drugs but also look at what are called mandatory minimum sentences. Where people can be sent away to prison with their prison sentences being based on how much in illegal-narcotics that they are in possession of. Not what they sold illegally or have used but what they are in simple possession of and as a result we now have thousands of people in prison. In this country doing five, seven, ten years in prison for simply being in possession of illegal-narcotics. People who are real criminals and certainly not professional-criminals, perhaps college students or people with. Good jobs now serving time in prison for being in possession for a certain amount of illegal-narcotics. That's all just simple possession of illegal-narcotics.

Marijuana should obviously be legalized for reasons I've already blogged and have argued for. And what the Obama Administration should at least do is draft an executive-order. Unless they could get it approved by both chambers of Congress which might not be likely that would say the administration. Will no longer enforce or prosecute people for marijuana  offenses at least in states where marijuana has already been. Legalized or decriminalized which would encourage more states to decriminalize or legalize marijuana in their states. And this should include medical-marijuana as well which would be a huge first sept to drafting an effective, intelligent and sane narcotics-policy in the United States. There's already a Bipartisan bill in the U.S. House that would do this, not likely to be passed in a Tea Party House of Representatives.

The bill in the House is a good first step and maybe the Liberal-Democrats and the real Conservative-Republicans in the House. Would form an interesting coalition to pass that bill and Senator Rand Paul already has a bill like this in the U.S. Senate as well.  But what we should be doing is going even further  and get rid of mandatory minimum sentences all together. And look to decriminalizing narcotics period and get heroin, cocaine and meth addicts into drug-rehab and halfway-houses at their expense and keep. These people out of prison all together.

Joey Teefizz: Video: SportsChannel: MISL 1987-12/19/86-New York Arrows @ Chicago Sting: Highlights

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

I guess the Chicago Sting struggling to draw fans to their games. And moved from the Chicago Stadium, which was one of the better downtown sports arenas for both hockey and basketball, as well as concerts and other events in America. And out to Rosemont, Illinois one of the suburbs of Chicago. Chicago was never a great market for the MISL. The Sting and other clubs that they tried in that huge market which is one of the better soccer markets in America, was never great for arena soccer. Not that arena soccer can’t work there, but the sport needs to be better marketed in that market. Same thing with New York, Los Angles, Washington to use as other examples. Where there are several other sports franchises in those markets. But also where there’s also a lot for people to do there outside of sports.

Intelligent Channel: Economic Historian Michael Lind- On The Need For Economic Reform

Source: Intelligent Channel-

Source: Intelligent Channel: Economic Historian Michael Lind- On The Need For Economic Reform

What is the social contract, which is probably the best way to start this. What are Americans entitled to for being an American and what are our own responsibilities for governing our own lives and what should we expect from ourselves.

Well, if you look at the United States Constitution it has lines in their like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And thats exactly what the social contract should be about in a liberal democracy. It doesn't say that the have the right to happiness but the right to pursue happiness which might sound similar but is very different. Because it means we are not entitled to make a good living and to live happy and to live well. But the right to pursue those things on our own and how successful we are is about what we make with our own lives. So where government comes in when it comes to the social contract is having the responsibility to make sure that all Americans have access to the tools that they need to be able to live in freedom and to pursue their own happiness.

It doesn't say in the United States Constitution that we are entitled to make a good living and live in a nice home. And we are entitled to people being polite to us and that governments job is to make sure we do not see things that we do not like. Or that we are entitled to have a good pension or we are even entitled to health insurance or even health care.

Now, under law all Americans are entitled to emergency health care and I believe in that. We are not entitled to a job but what we are entitled to is the pursuit of happiness and freedom for ourselves. And that government's job is to see that all Americans have access to pursue that happiness and freedom for ourselves. And thats the difference between a liberal democracy and a social democracy that so-called Progressives like Michael Lind want to build in America. Where the social contract would be about all of these government entitlement-programs for people just for being an American citizen, including the right to have a good job.

In a liberal democracy which is what the United States is and what I want to build on as a Liberal Democrat that makes us even more liberal and democratic and with more liberty for everybody so its just not for people born to wealthy parents and not just about economic freedom but personal freedom as well, is where we all have the right to pursue our own happiness and liberty.

And you do that by applying yourself and making the best out of your own life that you can. And where government comes in is to make sure that we all have access to a quality education. So we all have access to get a good education and get the good skills that we need to be successful and live in freedom in life. Which is about universal access to quality education K-college all four years of college where we are able to go to the best school for us, rather than being forced to go to school based on where we live.

The other responsibility that government has when it comes to the social contract is to have an insurance system. Not there to take care of everybody and makes us all dependent on the welfare state for our well-being. But an insurance system thats only there when we need it like when we are out-of-work and income to use as an example. But the social contract in a liberal democracy is the ability for people to pursue their own happiness and freedom for themselves.

Joey Teefizz: Video: USA Sports: MISL 1983-3/15-Chicago Sting @ Cleveland Force: Highlights

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

This is what the MISL has needed from day one and have only had from time to time which is TV coverage and especially network TV coverage. A lot if not most of their clubs had local or regional sports coverage. But only from time to time have they gotten the network TV coverage so people around the country can watch the MISL and become fans of what could’ve been a great successful league by now, if not sooner. The MISL has never figured out how to market themselves and promote their league which is designed for American sports fans. Not European or Latin American soccer fans who like the slower outdoor game where scoring is not considered necessary in order to be successful. Arena soccer is designed for both the offense and defense to be able to play as well as their players and coaching will allow for them. With basic rules that protects the players. Which is how basketball, baseball and American football are all designed for.

Redskinrey Hail: Redskins Super Bowl Week 1972

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

I’m sure, actually I’m positive that the Redskins wanted to beat the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowl 7. But beating the Dallas Cowboys in the 1972 NFC Final was their Super Bowl victory and championship that year. That is the goal that they set out to accomplish. Not that different from the 1982 Redskins that admitted to feeling better about beating the Cowboys in the 1982 NFC Final than beating the Dolphins in Super Bowl 17. The Super Bowl was sort of icing to the Cowboys victory. That is how important these rivalry games are to teams. Especially the team that isn’t traditionally as successful as the other team. Which the Redskins are in the Redskins-Cowboys rivalry and perhaps hate the Cowboys more than the Cowboys hate the Redskins. And may if anything see other teams and games as more important to them.

Broadway Baby: Pepe 1960- Pepe Meets Kim Novak

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press Plus

Pepe meeting a Goddess. Not just any Goddess, but Goddess Kim Novak. Which would be like meeting Queen Nore from Jordan, or some gorgeous adorable Goddess like that. A women who when you see her at least for the first time, your brain goes blank. Because your eyes and what you’re thinking about what you’re seeing, simply overwhelms the rest of your brainwaves. Kim Novak, the Goddess who cut her own career short. Because she’s a somewhat shy, perhaps even aloof women, who never saw herself as good as the people she worked for, worked with and who wrote about her. And thought she would be happier doing other things.

And here Kim is in this scene, (I imagine playing someone else) who sees a very charming cute little Latin fellow. Whose new to America and wants to buy his girlfriend a very expensive gift that he can’t afford. He’s in luck, because he not only meets a blonde Goddess, but a very sweet and not just physically, Goddess who is also very generous. And just happens to run the jewelry store that Pepe is at. And decides that he’s worth her generosity and gives him a fat discount on the ring for his girlfriend. The gift of a lifetime for this man and many other men. Which goes to show you that some Goddess’s actually are sweet as they look. Kim Novak, a hot baby-faced adorable Goddess, who personally is as sweet as she looks.

NFL Films: The Story of the 1988 San Francisco 49ers

Source:Alamy Stock Photo- the 49ers taking on the Washington Redskins, at Candlestick Park in San Francisco, California.

Source:The Daily Press

“San Francisco, California, USA. 21st Nov, 1988. San Francisco 49ers vs Washington Redskins at Candlestick Park Monday, November 21, 1988. 49ers beat Redskins 37-21…

From Alamy

“The 1988 San Francisco 49ers”

Source:NFL Films- San Francisco 49ers defensive coordinator George Seifert.

From Lafayette Catfey 

The 1988 San Francisco 49ers might be the most consistent inconsistent Super Bowl team of all-time. The 2012 Ravens might be close though, but the 88 49ers were a 10-6 team that on paper looked like they could’ve easily won 12 or 13 games. But 10-6 teams tend to be somewhat inconsistent and have great stretches followed by poor stretches. Otherwise they don’t lose six games and just barely win their division. But win their division going away, unless they play in a great division.

The reason why the 88 49ers struggled and had ups and downs, was their offense sputtered and were up and down. They had two starting quarterbacks that year, because Joe Montana was hurt in the season. So young but somewhat inexperienced Steve Young who would also go on to be a great Hall of Fame quarterback, was given the chance to be the 49ers starting QB. But Young was up and down as well and committed too many turnovers. The only consistent thing about the 88 49ers, was their defense which was usual in the 1980s was one of the best in the NFL.

The 1988 49ers are the perfect example of why their soft finesse label didn’t stick and was never accurate. They were about as strong and physical on defense as any team in the NFL in that decade and 1988 and Super Bowl 23 is a perfect example of that. They shut down the Cincinnati Bengals power ball control offense that moved the ball down the field and scored against everyone else in the league. And won several blowouts, but the 49ers stuffed Icky Woods, James Brooks and their running game and held them to 16 points.

The 49ers offense got hot late in the 88 regular season and that carried through the 1988 NFC Playoffs, but only RB Roger Craig and WR Jerry Rice and perhaps their offensive line was consistent during that regular season. But their defense was very good the whole season and dominated the 1988 NFC Playoffs against the Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears and dominated the Super Bowl. Which is how a 10-6 inconsistent team can win the Super Bowl. You have something that carries you through the regular season, get hot late and carry it into the playoffs and win the Super Bowl.

Mox News: Video: CNN's The Point: Drug Warriors Continue the Anti-Marijuana Propaganda

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeState on WordPress

So to sum up where the drug warriors are now when it comes to the War on Drugs specifically when it comes to marijuana. Is that the War on Drugs is not working according to Margaret Hoover, but we should continue to support it anyway. Continue to support something that is not working. That makes a lot of sense, what’s conservative about continuing to support something with tax dollars that's not working. And then Margaret Hoover who I do not mean to pick on, but she lays out exactly perhaps unintentionally why the drug warriors are losing this argument. 

Margaret Hoover said that "if we legalize marijuana it would suddenly be available to kids". Apparently not realizing that if marijuana were to be legalize it would be regulated like alcohol. Twenty one or over to use, possess or purchase marijuana in America. So if you think marijuana would be too available to kids in this country, you should also be looking at alcohol and tobacco. Two drugs that are just as bad or worst than marijuana and how available they are to kids right now and they are legal today.

But there’s more and just to show that I’m not just picking on Margaret Hoover, but also to show why the drug warriors are losing now.  You go to Jason Taylor in the video who says that "if we legalize marijuana, heroin and cocaine would be next". Even though there’s no polling data that supports legalizing heroin or cocaine in this country. Except for maybe when it comes to cocaine and heroin dealers. Mr. Taylor use to play for the Miami Dolphins so perhaps, he met a few of them in South Florida. And that's why he made that point.

In another brilliant statement Taylor made had to do with "if we can’t successfully fight drugs in this country, why don’t we just legalize bank robberies because we can’t stop bank robbers". It's similar to the people who are against gay marriage who say "if we allow men to marry men and women to marry women, what’s next men will be allowed to marry their children and the same thing with women". When there’s no polling data thats shows any serious support for any of these things.

This is why I believe the marijuana legalization argument as well as the gay marriage argument is no longer liberal vs. conservative. It's no longer Left vs. Right even because now we have leftists and rightists who support marijuana legalization and gay marriage. Or at least allowing the states to make these decisions themselves. 

Liberals and Progressives on the Left who support marijuana-legalization. And Conservatives and Libertarians on the Right who support it. People who believe these decisions are about freedom and individual choice vs prohibitionists on the Left and Right who are against it even though they are now struggling to explain why. 

NFL Films: Jim McCusker- '1960 Philadelphia Eagle Champions'

Source:NFL Films- Tommy McDonald: WR for the 1960 NFL Champion Philadelphia Eagles.

Source:The Daily Press

"On Feb. 3, 2008, the community showed highlights from the 1960 Philadelphia Eagles v. Green Bay Packers N.F.L. Championship game at Jim McCusker's Pub. Here he comments on the Eagles win. Jim was the starting left tackle for the Eagles and earned a championship ring. Jim is a native/resident of Jamestown N.Y. Jim is a member of the Chautauqua Sports Hall of Fame."

From NFL Films

1960 was an interesting NFL season for several reasons. You had a different NFL champion for the first time since 1958, because the Philadelphia Eagles won the championship in 1960 dethroning the Baltimore Colts who won the championship in 58 and 59. The great Giants-Eagles rivalry went to a new level as Eagles LB Chuck Bedmarik closed line which was legal back then, but he closed line New York Giants star RB/WR Frank Gifford. Knocked him out cold which cost Gifford an entire season. The Chicago Cardinals moved to St. Louis and I’m sure people in Chicago helped the Cardinals pack. Because they were an awful team and Chicago is Bears country anyway.

But perhaps the most interesting part of the 1960 NFL season were the Eagles. A blue-collar team with a great quarterback in Norm Van Brocklin and a great head coach in Buck Shaw. And the team they played in the NFL Championship the Green Bay Packers who hadn’t been an NFL contender since the early 1950s. And 1960 was Packers head coach Vince Lombardi’s first shot at the championship. And last playoff game he would ever lose. Interesting matchup because the Eagles were a pure passing team without much of a running game. And the Packers were a power running team that could also throw the ball when they needed to. But didn’t throw the ball very often.

The Eagles in 1960 were sort of like the Miami Dolphins of the mid and late 1980s. With a much better defense, but they moved the ball through the air primarily and would run when the defense was completely focused on taking away the pass. Similar to the New England Patriots of the last ten years or so. Where the Packers were a run, run, run team that would beat you up on the ground and up the middle. And could get to outside with their power sweep. And hit big passes in running situations and when you were expecting the run. Which made for a great championship matchup especially since both team were also good on defense.

NFLN: Pat Summerall- A Life Remembered

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

As Pat Summerall’s former partner at CBS Sports and FOX Sports during the NFL season John Madden said, “Pat Summerall was the voice of the NFL. The best whoever was and is when it comes to calling NFL games.” Because he had a great voice and also because he knew what he was talking about. He was the play by-play announcer with an analyst’s voice because he not only could see what was happening, but he knew what it meant because he use to play the game himself. So you were getting an insiders look not just from the analyst, but the guy calling the game. Similar to Frank Gifford when he did play by-play for ABC’s Monday Night Football. Frank Gifford not only being a great announcer, but a hall of fame player for the New York Giants and a teammate with Pat Summerall.

I also feel lucky to be able to hear Pat Summerall as the lead play by-play announcer when I did. He and John Madden became partners and CBS Sports lead announcers for the NFL on CBS in 1981 or 82. Which meant they got the top game in the National Football Conference every week. My first year watching football was in 1982 just as the Redskins my team were starting their big run in the 1980s. Winning two Super Bowls in that decade and three NFC Championships. So I got to see Summerall and Madden calling a lot of Redskin games that decade.

And it seemed like every Sunday at one point Summerall and Madden were calling the Redskins game and they were either playing the Giants or Cowboys or Eagles on Sunday afternoon at 4PM. And if they weren’t playing at 4PM they were the Monday Night or Sunday Night game. A big reason why I fell in love with football so early in life was because I was fairly athletic early on as a kid. And enjoyed playing football for fun, as well as the Redskins being so good early on. But also because I got to hear the best broadcast duo of all-time calling so many Redskins games.

When I think of Pat Summerall I think of the voice of the NFL and especially the voice of the NFL when it came to intros to games. And a lot of those intros involved Redskin games. Again I feel lucky to of heard him call so many Redskin games, because he would do the intro almost as if he wrote it himself. It seemed so natural to him and his ability to deliver when it came to calling game action. Or talking about the NFL seemed so natural which is why he is the voice of the NFL. And while he be missed because there will never be someone as good and as talented calling NFL games.
NFLN: Pat Summerall- A Life Remembered

Chicago Tribune: NFL 1963- NFL Championship -New York Giants @ Chicago Bears: '63 Bears Reflect on Championship Season'

 

Source:Chicago Tribune- The 1963 Chicago Bears: the last last of the great George Halas teams.

Source:The Daily Press

“Chicago Tribune photographer Michael Tercha sat down with former Bears players to talk about the chemistry and attitude of the 1963 team. For more video, visit:Chicago Tribune."  

From the Chicago Tribune

This was an end of an era because this would be the last time that the Giants and Bears would play each other for the NFL Championship. Because even though both teams were still competitive for the rest of the 1960s, they were no longer NFL Championship contenders. And by 1970 they were now playing each other in the same conference what is today known as the National Football Conference, after the NFL/AFL merger.

So the 1963 NFL Championship wasn’t the end of one of the best NFL rivalries, but it certainly changed and was no longer very important as far as the current league. Because both teams were fairly mediocre for the rest of the 1960s. Both teams were bad in the 1970s, only making the NFL Playoffs a total of two times. The Bears both times in 1977 and 79. With both clubs not becoming contenders again until the 1980s.

Old Gym Jag: Video: NFL 1967, The Atlanta Falcons First Campaign

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on WordPress

The 1966 Atlanta Falcons I guess could go down as one of the worst NFL expansion teams of all-time. Especially if you consider that they gave up over thirty-one points a game in the mid-1960s NFL where the rules still benefited the defenses. So take that up to the 1980s and we are definitely talking about one of the worst defenses of all-time. There offense wasn’t much help either only scoring 204 in fourteen games. The great defenses are going have a hard time being successful when their offense is only giving them less than fifteen points a game to work with. But a franchise’s expansion year isn’t really about having a good season. What you do with that season is use it almost as an extended preseason and look at a lot of players unless you find some very good ones early on and just go with. But generally you use that year to see where are strong early on and where you need to improve going forward. On a positive note, the Falcons did win 3-5 games in 1966 to finish at 3-11.

David Von Pein: NBC News- Huntley Brinkley Report: Outtakes From An Interview With President John F. Kennedy

Source: David Von Pein- President John F. Kennedy, being interviewed by NBC News in 1963 

Source: FRS Daily Press

President Kennedy, getting a rare opportunity at a retake of an interview that he had before. David Brinkley and Chet Huntley, interviewing President Kennedy about Vietnam. Which of course in 1963 was going through a civil war between Communists in the North and Democrats in the South. The Eisenhower Administration decided to back the Democratic North in a limited way through aid and other resources. That the Kennedy Administration decided to continue when they came into office in 1961. Almost three years later in late 1963 President Kennedy was in a position where he needed to decide how much should America help the Democratic South after they sent advisers into Vietnam to assist the South. But I think it was clear that he wasn't in favor of sending American troops in to fight the Vietnam Civil War.

The second question being about the Kennedy tax cuts of 1963 that President Lyndon Johnson finally got through a Democratic Congress in 1963 after the assassination of President Kennedy in November of 63. The American economy of 1963 wasn't that different from the American economy of 2011-12. As far as economic and job growth. The economy in both periods was growing and creating jobs, but not very rapidly and slowly recovering from previous recessions. What President Kennedy wanted to do was put through an across the board tax cut and pay for it by cutting loopholes. To drive consumer spending and economic growth. There were concerns in Congress about how a tax cut that size would affect the deficit. And that is what the President was dealing with then.

Jack Kennedy, was a true Liberal Democrat, because he believed that liberty was worth defending here at home. That America had to be strong at home first economically before we try to show strength abroad. And the we way we should try to show strength abroad was not to try to police the world by ourselves, but work with our allies to preserve peace and expand freedom to people who were looking for it, but didn't have it. Because they were being held down by an authoritarian dictatorial regime. Where they have very little if any say on what goes on in their own country. And these were the reasons that the President wanted to help Democratic Vietnam, get the Senate to pass the Test Ban Treaty and to pass a large tax cut. Because he wanted to defend freedom at home and abroad and strengthen the American economy. So more Americans could live in freedom.
David Von Pein: NBC News-Huntley Brinkley Report: Outtakes From An Interview With President John F. Kennedy

MoxNewsDotCom: Video: Drug War Profiteer's Cheerleaders Justify Continued War On The American People: Why The Drug Warriors Are Losing The Argument

http://youtu.be/fokIZnsmBNY

So to sum up where the drug-warriors are now the people who are in favor of the War on Drugs. Even though they've admitted the War on Drugs is not working. Is that if we legalize marijuana, cocaine or heroin would be next. Even though there's no polling data that suggests, except for maybe if you poll. Cocaine or heroin dealers that if we were to legalize marijuana, that there would be a move to legalize cocaine or heroin next. Another argument that I heard from Jason Taylor was that if we can't stop thieves and other types of crimes not relating to drugs. We might as well just legalize those activities as well because we can't stop them. From a women on the panel that, if we legalize marijuana it would be available to kids and now kids would start getting high. Apparently unaware that if we were to legalize marijuana it would be regulated like alcohol. That you would have to be twenty or over to possess, purchase or use marijuana in this country. So if you think marijuana would be too available to kids, why don't you look at alcohol and tobacco as well.

The whole opposition to the marijuana debate is similar to the opposition in the Gay-marriage debate. In that they do not seem to be able to come up with an intelligent and persuasive argument against them. Other then that they just do not like them. The Conservative argument about marijuana would be a states-rights or Federalist one if you are actually a Conservative. This is not the Federal Government's business, besides the War on Drugs is not working and we are spending billions of dollars every year. Fighting a so called war that is simply not working and we have better things to do. Which is why the marijuana and Gay-marriage debates aren't about Liberal vs Conservative and to a certain extent. Left vs Right but more of just Pro vs Con, the Pros being a mixture of Leftists and Rightists, Liberals and. Progressives, as well as Conservatives and Libertarians vs Prohibitionists and Paternalists on the Right and Left who think that. The people shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions of these issues.

I forget her name but the women in this video whose against marijuana-legalization apparently. But then admits that the War on Drugs is not working sums up the contradiction in the drug-warriors argument. Perfectly she doesn't need anyone to contradict her because she's already taking care of that herself. Why continue to support something you know is not working and maybe now is the time to change course. And try something else.

NBC News: Update With John Dancy: December, 1979

Source:NBC News- correspondent John Dancy.

"From December 1979, here is a NBC News update.  All copyrights acknowledged, uploaded for historical purposes.  This one features John Dancy talking about Ayatollah Khomeini allowing independent observers to view the hostages in Iran, Jody Powell saying it's a step on the right direction, President Carter overseeing the lighting of small Christmas trees but not the big tree until the hostages come home, (OPEC) oil prices rising by $6 per barrel, rising price of gold.  Ends with a commercial for Geritol."

Source:Jacky 9BR

1979 was a very rough year as the summer showed with an energy shortage and high inflation and interest rates and so-forth. And this was after the so-called crisis of confidence speech from President Carter in I believe August of that summer. And after the Iranian Hostage Crisis in November that year. 

One of the ironic things about 1979 economically, was that the economy was growing and jobs were created before the recession later that year. But people weren't feeling that because whatever economic growth there was, was getting wiped out by high inflation and interest rates. The economic malaise and the Great Deflation of the 1970s, a combination of high inflation and interest rates, was the worst economy America had at that point at least since the Great Depression.

But the bad economy was obviously bad enough for President Carter and the Democratic Congress then. And probably enough reason for President Carter to lose reelection and for Democrats to at least lose a lot of seats in Congress, even if Republicans didn't win back the House or Senate. The Iranian Hostage Crisis late in 1979 was simply the toper to that. 

The country was still dealing with an energy crisis that a very cold winter and very hot summer that year obviously didn't help. I actually remember a little of that summer. The country was essentially in crisis mode that year and except for what was going in entertainment and sports which was great that year, especially the World Series and Super Bowl which were both classics that were both won by Pittsburgh, there wasn't much to be happy about.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

The Economist: Staff Writers: Margaret Thatcher: Freedom Fighter: Moving a Socialist-State To The Right

Margaret Thatcher: Freedom fighter | The Economist

To understand Margaret Thatcher's Conservatism or lets call it Thatcherism which was probably a different form of Conservatism then even Britain is use to. You need to understand the differences between British-Conservatism and American-Conservatism and even Canadian-Conservatism. Because American-Conservatism in its classic sense is a form of Libertarianism, Conservative-Libertarianism. That at times anyway sounds antigovernment but pro-freedom that balances economic with personal-freedom. That also believes in a strong national-defense but that it has to be limited and that the best government is the. Government thats closest to home and slow in willing to expand government at all forms especially at the Federal-level. Thats the Barry Goldwater American-Conservatism that to a certain extent Gerry Ford and Ron Reagan embraced as well when they were President. And that to a certain extent is the even the type of Conservatism thats going on in Canada today. But less antigovernment and anti Federal-power.

The American-Conservatism that I just laid out is not the British-Conservatism of today or back when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister. And to also understand Thatcherism you need to know the political and economic situation that Britain was going through in the late 1970s when Maggie Thatcher. And the Conservative Party came to power where it was basically a Socialist-paradise ideologically with not only a huge welfare-state and with trade-unions. Having a lot of power but also with nationalized industries like airlines and banks and in the energy-sector. So any move to the right at that point would've looked very Conservative compared with the situation that Britain was going through at that. Point even though it would still be pretty far to the left by American-standards with a nationalized healthcare-system to use as. An example and with the Central Government in the U.K. having so much power over the education-system. As well as a very large welfare-state.

Its not as if Maggie Thatchers transformed Britain from a Socialist-state to a Libertarian-paradise. Thats not her legacy but what she did was transformed a Socialist-state thats still pretty Socialist even today. Compared with America and even Canada to a state where government-benefits are still pretty generous. But where Brits who are able to take care of themselves are expected to do so and where people who lack those skills. But who are physically able are expected to educate themselves so they can be independent of government financially and where most industries and companies in Britain. Are now privatized, what Prime Minster Thatcher did was make Conservatism mainstream in Britain.

Washington Post: Opinion: Dana Milbank: Barack Obama’s Intransigent Backbench": The Advantages of Being Reelected President

Dana Milbank: Obama’s intransigent backbench - The Washington Post

When you are running for reelection, as much as your base or in President Obama's Far-Left flank might seem weird or cooky. To the average Joe or Jane in America, the average American whatever their background who doesn't take politics and current affairs as seriously as people who I don't know. Write and read blogs and editorials about politics and current affairs, might find the Far-Left or Far-Right flank. In either party nuts lets say, but the leaderships in both parties have to take their their far-flanks seriously because. They need those people to get reelected, it doesn't mean you have to give them everything they want. Or in President Obama's case almost nothing that Progressive/Social-Democrats wanted in the first term. But at the very least you have to make them believe lets say, even if your fingers are crossed behind your back. Look buddy or sweetie, I'm really with you I just can't make that public right now. Because I have that other party over there that I have to negotiate with and besides I have to get reelected because if you don't. Like me wait until the other team is in charge.

But after you've just been reelected going away even especially in an election you probably should've lost. Considering the situation the country was still in going into the election. Now you are on top of the world so to speak and you still have a Democratic Senate thats now picked up seats and can push your. Agenda for you and to hold the Republican House that just lost seats at bay so you never even need to bring out your veto pen. At this point in Barack Obama's Presidency, I'm not sure he even has a veto pen, I do not believe he even has a veto to his name yet. So by putting things on the table that Democrats generally would never even consider, like changing the cost of living increase in Social Security. And Republicans at least in the House still saying. "No, no, no!" To quote Margaret Thatcher to any compromise that involves new revenue even as it relates to tax-reform and bringing down the. Corporate tax rate in exchange, which is something that Barack Obama actually wants to do. The President can look reasonable while Republicans and the Far-Left look stubborn.

From what I've seen about President Obama's 2014 budget proposal is that its not a serious attempt. To balance the budget certainly or even achieve serious deficit-reduction but a serious attempt to bring. Congressional Republicans to the negotiating table to get a balanced deal that the leaderships in both parties can live with. And sell to their caucus's in the House and Senate so both sides can move on to other priorities and we'll see how successful it is.

ABC News: Iran Hostage Crisis: 11/11/1979

Source:ABC News- One of the American hostages in Iran. 

"The U.S. embassy in Tehran was stormed by students, protestors on November 4, 1979, trapping and holding dozens of people inside."

From ABC News

What a year and what a way to close out 1979 with a group of Americans being taken hostage in a third-world country in the Middle East.

If I had to guess the worst year in Jimmy Carter's life whether it was in politics, or out of politics. With the economy basically crashing and stagnating with a high combination of high interest rates and inflation. With high unemployment, with those things basically wiping out whatever the economy did as far as economic growth. And then you throw in an energy crisis with a high cost of living. The economic problems that America were facing in the late 1970s actually started in 1978 rather than 1979.

But it's 1979 when they came into full force even leading into a recession. It was just one huge problem after another for the Carter Administration and perhaps too much for any President or administration to deal with especially all at once.

But 1979 and the Iranian Hostage Crisis was great for ABC News. It is where they truly became a national news division that could compete with both CBS News and NBC News. 

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger.

The New Republic: Cass R. Sunstein: 'Why Paternalism is Our Friend'

Source:The New Republic- New York City Nanny, I mean Mayor (slip of the tongue) Michael Bloomberg.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“The nanny state is in the news. A lot of people have been outraged by Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort to restrict soda sizes, recently overturned by a state court, and some people do not much like his proposal to ban cigarette displays in New York stores. If you share the outrage, you should recognize that various forms of paternalism are all around you, and at least some of them aren’t so bad. 

Last year, new government regulations required automobile companies to increase the fuel economy of their cars, to a point where the fleet-wide average must exceed 50 miles per gallon by 2025. True, those regulations will reduce air pollution and promote energy independence, but the majority of the benefits come in the form of gas savings for consumers. For those who abhor paternalism, here’s the problem: Consumers can already buy high MPG cars, and many of them just aren’t doing so, even though they might well save money over the life of the vehicle. If the government is making the fleet a lot more fuel-efficient than consumers demand, is it operating as the national nanny, or the Gasoline Police? Should people be outraged about that? 

Paternalism comes in a lot of shapes and sizes, and to come to terms with it, we need to offer a working definition. What seems to unify paternalistic approaches, however diverse, is that government does not believe that people’s choices will promote their welfare, and it is taking steps to influence or alter people’s choices for their own good.” 

From The New Republic 

“New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, a two-time Nanny of the Month and 2009’s Nanny of the Year, is back to save us from ourselves yet again!

In order to promote breastfeeding, Bloomberg has ordered all public city hospitals to lock up free samples of baby formula. New mothers who are unable to breastfeed – or simply choose not to – can still get formula, but only after enduring a lecture from a hospital employee on the benefits of the boob over the bottle. 

Reason TV’s Kennedy spoke with Susan Burger, a certified lactation consultant, who supports the mayor’s initiative on the grounds that “the real intent of that law is to protect breastfeeding mothers [and] their freedom of choice to breastfeed.” 

Source:Reason Magazine- New York City Nanny, I mean Mayor (slip of the tongue) Michael Bloomberg.

From Reason Magazine

Before I get into what I really want to talk about, I’m going to start this post off with a question: What the hell happened to the New Republic? Because before they got new management and Chris Hughes became its new editor, this was a real liberal democratic magazine. The official liberal democratic magazine in America that had a healthy skepticism about governmental power. That all seems to be gone now and now they are sounding like defenders of the state, especially the nanny state.

The current version of The New Republic seems to believe  that freedom is dangerous and that it shouldn’t be our goal or the job of government to protect our freedom, but literally to protect the people, as if we are morons or little children and can’t do that for ourselves. And even if that means protecting people from themselves and even locking them up for their own good when they make choices that aren’t in their best interest.

Reading the New Republic now, except for Jeff Rosen who is a real Liberal, is like reading the The Nation magazine or the AlterNet, or listening to the political commentary on MSNBC: it’s “big government knows best and has all the answers and individual freedom and choice are dangerous”.

They are paternalists on the far-left, people who I really don’t even call Progressives any more but paternalists or prohibitionists. Prohibition is a statist idea by the way, but I generally what I call people who think like this whether they are on the Far-Left or Far-Right, are nanny statists or nanny staters. People who believe that it’s the job of government to protect people even from themselves.

And when you combine paternalism when it comes to personal or social issues with socialism as it relates to economic policy and you believe in things like nationalizing the healthcare and health insurance systems, as well as the retirement system and perhaps even the banking system, maybe even the energy industry and you combine that nanny statism on social issues, you really have what looks like communism. You got a King Kong size big government there to protect people from themselves: “Because big government is our friend and freedom and freedom of choice is our enemy”. That it’s not big government that’s the problem, but that big government is our friend and should direct how we live our own lives.

Paternalism whether it comes from the Far-Left as it relates to the War on Drugs, alcohol prohibition, tobacco, junk food, soft drinks, or whether it comes from the Far-Right as it relates to violent video games or pornography, or trying to outlaw pre-marital sex, or adultery or divorce, it doesn’t work. Because if people want to do things bad enough, they’ll find a way to do it and damn the consequences.

One of the reasons why we have taxes and regulations in America is to encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior. Not to manage people’s lives for them. That if you want people to make healthy choices, you subsidize that and penalize them when they make unhealthy choices.

To respond to the argument that Cass Sunstein is trying to make which really sounds like he’s trying to pick up the pieces for the nanny state proponents: the regulations he’s talking about are regulations regarding businesses, not individuals. Businesses are also not allowed to hire people to whack out the competition for them. That’s also for the welfare for the general public, but that doesn’t help his case.