CBS Sports: NFL 1966

Source:CBS Sports- the game that kicked off the Super Bowl in America.

Source:The Daily Press

“LOS ANGELES – JANUARY 15: Green Bay Packers’ Elijah Pitts #22 runs with the ball during Super Bowl I against the Kansas City Chiefs at Memorial Coliseum on January 15, 1967 in Los Angeles, California. The Packers defeated the Chiefs 35-10. (Photo by Focus on Sport/Getty Images)”

From I'm a Sportsphile 

1966 was a huge transition year for the NFL because it was the first season of the Super Bowl to decide who was the pro football champion of America, not the world. The championship game between the Green Bay Packers of what eventually became the National Football Conference and the American Football Conference, and the Kansas City Chiefs of the American Football League that would become the American Football Conference. 

It was the first year of divisional play in the NFL where the Eastern Conference and Western Conference was broken up into four team divisions. Pre-1966 the NFL Championship was played between the Easter and Western Conference’s regular season champions. No playoff games at all before the Championship, unless there were ties for first place in the conference’s. 

Big year for the NFL because they won the first Super Bowl and was at the beginning of the end of the NFL-AFL rivalry as they became of league by 1970 with the NFC and AFC. So the NFL was certainly in transition in 1966-67 and becoming a much larger national league.

New America Foundation: Expanded Social Security

"The conventional wisdom about Social Security is profoundly misguided. According to today’s mistaken consensus, the U.S. as 

a society cannot afford to allocate the money to pay for the present level of Social Security benefits for retirees in future 

generations. The solution, it is widely argued, is to cut benefits – either directly by means-testing or indirectly by raising the 

retirement age or allowing inflation to erode their real value over time. In this narrative, tax-favored private savings vehicles like 

401(k)s and IRAs should be expanded in order to compensate for the allegedly necessary cuts in Social Security... 

From the New America Foundation

Ginoong Kamote: Vintage NBA- Moses Malone: The Chairman of The Boards

Source:Kimoong Kamote- Moses Malone, when he was still with the Houston Rockets, playing the Boston Celtics, perhaps in 1981.

Source:The Daily Press

"Moses Malone is an American former National Basketball Association (NBA) basketball player who also played in the American Basketball Association (ABA), as well as on the NBA's Atlanta Hawks, Houston Rockets, Milwaukee Bucks, Philadelphia 76ers, San Antonio Spurs and Washington Bullets. Malone played 21 seasons in the NBA. Before retiring from basketball, he was the last ABA participant to still be playing in the NBA. In 2001, he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame."

From Ginoong Kamote

Moses Malone was simply a bull with a lot of skills who was almost impossible to box out with his brute strength, quickness and determination. Whose one of the top five centers of all-time because of what he could do in the paint both offensively and defensively. Who also might be the best offensive rebounder of all-time as well. Kareem, Wilt, Bill Russell and maybe Hakeem and that would be the only centers I would take over Moses and I could easily have Moses over Hakeem, but that would be a tossup.

Imagine a man 6’9-6’10 260 pounds or so, of brute strength and muscle, but who was also very quick and athletic. The man was impossible to box out for the most part, I’m not sure Wilt Chamberlain could box out Moses in his prime. The man was simply a bull physically as a man, but with a heart bigger than that. And when he was finally put on a very good team, a great team, one of the best teams of all-time in the NBA, the 1983 Philadelphia 76ers, you really got to see how great he was and how great he could make other players, including other great players.

Minister Malcolm X: ‘Our History Was Destroyed by Slavery (1963)’

Source:Loviso Guma- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, on the Chicago City Desk in 1963.

Source:The Daily Press

“MALCOLM X – Our History Was Destroyed By Slavery (1963) Check all our videos/docs and share to your friends:Unstripped Voice." 

From Unstripped Voice

"Malcolm X: Our History Was Destroyed by Slavery"

Source:Loviso Guma- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, on the Chicago City Desk in 1963.

From Loyiso Guma

Malcolm X’s message was about empowering African-Americans who were simply being held down in America because of their race, to have the same freedom to live their own lives as Caucasian-Americans have. It’s really what his message is about and doing whatever it took to accomplish that and allowing for African-Americans to be able to decide for themselves how best to get to freedom in America. Even if that means going their own way and simply living in their own communities. And as he grew and developed personally and professionally, he realized that not all Caucasian-Americans were evil and devils.

Malcolm X, concluded and rightfully so, that it was the ignorant people in the Caucasian community that were the problem and need to be confronted and taken on. But the goal of Malcolm X’s message was always the same: empowering African-Americans to be able to own their own business’s and homes and so-forth. And not have to be dependent on anyone including government for them to live. But he wanted them to have the power to be able to take care of themselves.

Minster Malcolm, was a big believer in education, economic development and economic opportunity. Something that Liberals such as myself and Conservatives, should really respect about him.

Minster Malcolm X and Dr. Martin King, were both great men and both wanted freedom for the African-American community. They just went about it different ways and had different messages in how to accomplish those goals.

Dr. King, wanted African-Americans to be freed from poverty and racism. Minister Malcolm, wanted the same community to be free. And be able to live their own lives and be able to take care of themselves. Not have to live off of government even though very generous benefits. Not have to live off of government at all. True individual freedom including economic freedom. The ability to take care of yourself and be able to defend yourself. Malcolm, was a true freedom fighter.

Think Progress: John Halpin- ‘The Obama Coalition, The Working Class, And RFK

Source:Think Progress- the Obama Coalition is a beautiful portrait of America.

“The potential of the new Obama coalition is truly impressive, given its 2012 performance and how many of its constituent parts are likely to grow in numbers over the course of the decade. But the word “potential” should be stressed. There is no guarantee that turnout and support levels will stay as high as they have been going forward. And there is definitely no guarantee that these constituencies will remain active and involved in the legislative battles that must be fought to turn progressive policies into law. Thus, implementing a progressive agenda will, to a large extent, be dependent on the mobilization level of the Obama coalition both in future elections and between those elections.

This is a big challenge, but Obama and his team have taken some significant steps to address it. These steps have been driven by the recognition that the best way to maintain enthusiasm and support is to deliver for the groups that put you in office. Thus, the administration has been aggressively pushing a number of policy priorities that resonate with the concerns of different groups in the coalition: immigration reform, curbing gun violence, same sex marriage, climate change and universal pre-K.

This strategy is a good one. These fights are all substantively important in policy terms and may, with luck, result in some important victories. And they should indeed pump up enthusiasm levels as different groups in the coalition see how strongly Obama is willing to fight for their priorities. Nor does it seem likely that a big political price will be paid for touching on issues that have a social dimension; the country has moved rapidly in a progressive direction on most of these issues and these issues lack the power they once had to elicit a backlash.” 

From Think Progress 

I think the main advantage that the Republican Party has over the Democratic Party has do with with their voters. I’m not talking about race, ethnicity, gender, etc, but cultural and generational. Republicans tend to show up and show in big numbers and when they lose, it’s generally not because their voters didn’t show up, but Democrats had record turnout, at least when you are talking about competitive elections in swing districts or states, or at the presidential level.

Republicans tend to get stereotyped as people who are all or nothing voters:

“You do exactly what I want you to do and say exactly what I want you to say and believe in the exact same things that I do, or I won’t vote for you.” When the fact is Republicans tend to vote for the candidate in the Republican primary who has the best shot at beating the Democrat in the general election. And the Republicans who didn’t vote for the most mainstream Republican in the primary, turn out and vote in the general for the Republican that they didn’t vote for in the primary, because that person isn’t the Democrat and is to the right of the Democrat, and they probably at least tend to agree with that Republican on economic issues.

Democratic voters are just very different. They tend to be younger and less politically active, more ideological, and tend to vote for candidates based on personal issues. They want someone who they like, who they have personal and cultural connections with. And they’re also voters who won’t show up in the general election to vote for Democrats just to beat the Republicans. But they have to like the Democrat personally and ideologically before they can vote for them.

So if you are a leader in the Democratic Party right now, especially at the Democratic National Committee or at the state level, you should be focusing on Democratic turnout. How do you get Democrats to show and vote during every primary and general election, even if the Democratic candidates or incumbents aren’t ideologically pure (according to the left-wing) and get those folks to turnout and vote for the Democrats anyway. Because at the end of the day, political parties are in the business of winning political elections. Not advancing partisan, ideological, political movements. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Karen Nussbaum: ‘New Culture War Addresses Fairness of Wealth Allocation’

Source:Working America- leader and labor organizer Karen Nussbaum.

“Jonathan Haidt has an interesting post, “Of Freedom and Fairness: The new culture war is about economic issues, and the side that better sells its idea of fairness will have the upper hand” up at Democracy Journal. With the old culture war moving off center stage, Haidt argues that,

…Economic issues such as taxation are moral issues–no less so than social issues like gay marriage–and neither side has full control of the key moral foundations that underlie economic morality: fairness and liberty. Both sides are vulnerable to being outflanked and outgunned. Both sides could use a detailed map of the moral ground on which economic battles are waged.

In this essay I offer such a map, showing the territory currently controlled by Democrats (equality and positive liberty) and by Republicans (proportionality and negative liberty). What remains up for grabs is “procedural fairness”: the integrity of the process by which we decide who gets what. Both parties are open to charges that they don’t want everyone to “play by the same rules.” Both parties have ways of answering this charge and persuading the broader public that its concept of fairness is the better one. The party that wins that point will have the upper hand in this new culture war.”

From The Democratic Strategist 

“GRITtv: The US’s largest labor federation, the AFL-CIO, pledged at its ’13 Convention to work more closely with community-based affiliates & its grassroots organizing arm, Working America. Laura Flanders talked to WA Director Karen Nussbaum after the vote.” 

Source:The Laura Flanders Show- talking to Karen Nussbaum from Working America.

From The Laura Flanders Show 

Someone should define what positive and negative liberty means, whether you are left-wing or right-wing.

Just a thought, but when I hear let’s saying leftists (people who I tend to call Socialist or Social Democrats, that others call Progressives) talk about positive liberty, they’re talking about the freedom for people to not have to worry about themselves, not to have to go without the basic necessities in life and that government will make sure that no one has to take personal responsibility over their own lives, because government will either take care of everyone financially or outlaw certain individual personal and economic decisions that big government believes is bad for us and bad for society.

And when leftists are talking about negative liberty, they’re talking about people having the freedom to make mistakes with their own lives that government (according to them) has to pay for. That according to leftists, the world is too big and complicated of a place to let people make their own economic decisions:

Pick their own health coverage

Plan their own retirements

Where to send their kids to school

How much individual wealth that they should have, and unfortunately I could go on, but hopefully you get the point by now. And that we need a government big enough manage everyone’s life for them, because the world is too big and complicated a place to allow individuals to live freely. According to leftists.

I like Andrew Jackson’s 1820 presidential campaign slogan as well: Equal opportunity for all, special privileges for none” that’s where I am as an Independent Democrat with classical liberal and progressive leanings. Almost 200 years later that’s the America we should be trying to build.

We shouldn’t be trying to go back to the 1940s or 50s when minorities and women were treated like second-class citizens compared with Anglo-Saxon men. Which is what the Tea Party seems to want to do. Or try to move America Scandinavia economically, politically, and culturally. Which is what the New-Left (Socialists or Social Democrats) want to do with us.

What we should be doing instead is create an America where everyone has a real opportunity to succeed and live in freedom in America and then get to enjoy the awards of their successes and pay for their own mistakes themselves. Which is what personal freedom and responsibility is all about. Which the America that we should be working to create instead of on Christian-theocratic monarchy, or some socialist utopia. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

The Heritage Foundation: Jim DeMint- Socialism Conservatism & Fiscal Conservatism

Source:The Heritage Foundation- U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (Republican, South Carolina) speaking at The Heritage Foundation in Washington.

"Senator Jim DeMint spoke at the morning session of the fifth annual Values Voter summit. Among the topics addressed at the summit were the role of the tea party movement, the economy, the 2010 midterm elections, and the conservative legislative agenda."

Source:The Truth According To Scripture

As far as Senator Jim DeMint goes: he was actually one of the few Republican members of Congress that I actually respected when he was there in the 2000s and so far in this decade, before he left the Senate this year, to run the right-wing Heritage Foundation in Washington. Having said that, I didn't respect him because I tended to agree with him. I respected him because at least I knew what he believed, because he was honest enough to tell people what he believed, instead of constantly worrying about what political statements and positions could help or hurt him politically.

Now, I believe in fiscal responsibility as well. But it's one thing to say that government is too big, spends too much of our money, puts too many restrictions on individuals on one hand and then on the other argue that we have too much freedom on the other. 

In late 2010, Senator DeMint came out in favor out outlawing from the Federal Government, not just same-sex-marriage and pornography, but adultery as well. Is government too big, spends too much, does too much, or not?