CBS Sports: NBA 1988-Chicago Bulls @ Detroit Pistons: Fourth Quarter

Source:CBS Sports- the start of a great NBA rivalry.

Source:The Daily Press

“NBA 1988 Chicago Bulls vs Detroit Pistons”

From Follkert Lefring

The Chicago Bulls weren’t that bad in 1988, they were actually good winning fifty games, but were still developing as a team and still not good enough to beat a team like the Detroit Pistons, Boston Celtics or Los Angeles Lakers.

The Bulls had Horace Grant developing at power forward with Charles Oakley still having that position, who was very solid and very good for them. But the Bulls by the late 1980s were moving to become a quicker, more athletic, trapping type of team on defense. That moved the ball a lot on offense to the open scorer.

The Bulls traded Oakley in the offseason. And made Grant their starting power forward for the next season. Scottie Pippen wasn’t even starting for the Bulls during the 1988 season.

So the Bulls were still about Michael Jordan on offense, with Orlando Woolridge as their second option. Who at times was very good, but not a great player. 

And the Pistons were one of the teams that they had to get by in the Central Division to accomplish what they wanted, which was to win the NBA Finals. And this was the start of the Bulls-Pistons rivalry, which is still alive today, but not as strong. 

The Pistons in 1988 were an NBA Finals contender, but better than they were in 1987. Because they had already gotten to the Eastern Conference Finals and lost it and knew they were very close to what they wanted which was an NBA Championship. 

And if Isiah Thomas doesn’t sprain his ankle of game 6 of the 1988 NBA Finals, who knows maybe they win the championship that year. The Celtics were getting older and no longer had a good bench and the Pistons already knew they were good enough to beat the Celtics.

Colgate University: 'Liberal Democracy and Its Limits'

Source:Colgate University- talking about liberal democracy.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"As a regime type, liberal democracy is defined in terms of its limits - respect for personal freedom; reliance on market mechanisms; governance through the rule of law, articulated through representative government, responsive to the peopel in periodic elections. It also limits its aspirations - it seeks to secure rights, rather than to save souls or mold the character of its citizens. Through limited, could liberal democracy be the "final" form of government, the end of history?" 

From Colgate University 

"Slides regarding Liberal Democracy for an undergraduate course in Political Thought that I taught between 2003-2005." 

Source:Slide Share- with a look at the real liberalism.

From Slide Share

I’m not sure there is an actual limit or limits to liberal democracy, other than the fact that people who aren’t fans of liberal democracy and individual freedom have the same freedom as people who believe in freedom. Even as much freedom that comes from liberal democracy. Whether they are on the Left or Right and because people who have more of a statist, or authoritarian beliefs when it comes to government. And can and do use their freedom to work for, donate, work and elect people whether they are on the Far-Right and Far-Left to put in their authoritarian form of government in place.

But the whole ideas and notions of liberal democracy and the liberal form of government and constitution, is built around a Constitution and Bill of Rights. And I would argue that it is built around the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. That is the people have a basic set of constitutional rights built around free speech, free assembly, right to privacy, freedom of press, the right to be educated, the right to practice, or not to practice religion. And that religion is separate from state in the sense that society isn’t governed based on religious beliefs.

But the best available facts not faith on the ground and the United States Constitution as well as the right to self-defense. And what separates liberal democracy from social democracy or majoritarian democracy, is that the constitutional rights that individuals have are constitutional and can’t be taken away from us, because they may seem to be unpopular at the time. That we are essentially guaranteed these basic rights our entire lives.

Just to add one more, property rights and self-ownership: that the people and not government own the economy and own their own property including themselves. And what comes with that is not only economic freedom, the right for one to chart their own course in life and make out of life what they can make of it and keep the rewards of what they produce for themselves. And society and not government collecting most of what people produce and giving it to other people, or spend that money for the people because they believe they better know what people in life need to live well.

And where a limited government comes in is to see that everyone has the ability to access freedom in their lives. To do for the people what they can’t do for themselves, or not do as well. And that we all have access to get the tools that we need to be successful in life and to live in freedom. And to me that comes with education, regulation to protect workers and consumers, not run business’s. And law enforcement and defense so the society has the freedom to move around and operate with a certain level of security.

You want to know what liberalism and liberal democracy is about, it’s these things. Individual freedom and rights and not having a superstate that is there to take care of us for us. And to protect us even from ourselves. Like having to see or hear speech that they may offend us to use as an example. Someone who believes in a superstate is not a Liberal, but a statist, or a paternalist whether they come from the Right or Left.

CBS Sports: NBA 1984- ECSF Game 1- New York Knicks @ Boston Celtics: Highlights

Source:CBS Sports- the New York Knicks and Boston Celtics, from 1984.

Source:The Daily Press

"Opening game of the legendary 1984 ECSF series between Boston Celtics and New York Knicks. Game 1 was all about the best frontline in basketball history; Bird, McHale and Parish dominated in the first encounter of 7-game war.

Larry Bird: 23 points, 12 assists (amazing passes by prime Bird), 9 rebounds, 10/16 FG.

Kevin McHale: 25 points, 11/14 FG.

Robert Parish: 19 points, 12 rebounds, 9/16 FG.

Celtics won this one 110:92" 

From Larry Legend

The Celtics-Knicks, a rivalry with a great history. This was a classic series in one of the best rivalries and two of the best franchises in the NBA, the New York Knicks and Boston Celtics, where you have four Hall of Famers in it in Bernard King for the Knicks and Larry Bid, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish. Dennis Johnson for the Celtics, should also be in the Hall of Fame, but thats a different story. 

The Celtics actually had four Hall of Famers if you include their head coach K.C. Jones. And that is really the difference in this series. The Knicks were so dependent on one player in Bernard King, whereas the Celtics had several great players and great role players. People like Cedric Maxwell, Danny Ainge, Scott Wedman.

The Knicks, similar to the Atlanta Hawks and Chicago Bulls of the mid and late 1980s, were very dependent on one great scorer to lead the way. And when that one player was having a good game that would free up scoring opportunities for other players. The Hawks, had Dominique Wilkins and the Bulls of course had Michael Jordan. But neither team had another great scorer they could go to when their best player had an off game. 

All great scorers in the NBA have off games, but if they’re playing on very good teams, those teams have other scorers and generally multiple scorers that can pick up the slack when their best scorer has that off game. With the Knicks, it really was Bernard King. And sometimes Bill Cartwright and Ray Williams. But they needed King at his best for most games.

I believe that was the main difference in this series. The great team in the Celtics, vs the great player in Bernard King. If King has one of those great games and scored in the high thirties and forties, the Knicks could play with the Celtics, if they played good defense. 

But the Celtics had Larry Bird who by himself was about as great of a scorer as the NBA has ever seen. The reason why he didn’t score as much as the other great scorers was because he didn’t have to. Teams would do a lot to stop him and Legend was such a great passer and playmaker and would free up his teammates for scores. As well as a great rebounder and team defender. He didn’t have to have a great scoring night to beat the Knicks. Because he had a lot of help and did so many other things for the Celtics.

History Channel: The Manson Family Murders

Source:Lana Hodges- Welcome to the world of Helter Skelter?

Source:The Daily Press

"The first victims fell on August 9, 1969, at the home Roman Polanski had rented located at 10050 Cielo Drive in Benedict Canyon, an area just north of Beverly Hills."

From Lana Hodges

Source:FRS FreeState- Manson Family chief prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi.

Charles Manson had the perfect group to do his evil deeds, )so to speak). Because his group was similar to him in the sense that they didn’t seem to fit in very well in mainstream society. Even though Manson’s soldiers all came from solid middle class backgrounds and could’ve all ended going to college before they went to prison for their murders. But instead ended up with Charlie Manson, because they felt for some reason that their families no longer wanted them.

Charlie, had just gotten out of prison for the last time, in 1967-68 and ends up in the San Francisco area. And meets up with these very young women and Tex Watson, in their late teens. And sees that they are lost and offers them his love and takes them in. And they embraced him and the Manson Crime Family is formed as a result.

Bob Parker: ABC News 45-85- Post-World War II

Source:Bob Parker - ABC News anchor Ted Koppel.

Source:The Daily Press

“45/85 Part 1 an ABC News television documentary. It aired on September 18, 1985. The three-hour program combined archive film and television footage with new interviews to document post-World War II history, focusing especially on the Cold War. Hosted by Ted Koppel and Peter Jennings. End of World War II, Levittown.”

From Bob Parker

It would be another thirty-years until I was born when World War II was officially over in 1945. So it’s not like I can talk about post-World War II America with any personal experience. I’m going off of what I’ve learned about it from books, publications and documentaries. But this was a time when America came back and came back stronger than it ever was, at least to this point. The Great Depression was finally over and America was moving again. Emerging as the economic, diplomatic and military power of the world. Russia was obviously a major competitor to us from both a military and diplomatic perspective. But America was the power because of what we stood for.

America transitions from a depressing time of economic depression and war, to a period of peace at least abroad, but not at home. To where we were the military and economic power of the world. And where we could influence any part of the world that wanted what we already had. Peace, freedom an independent and developed economy. We rebuild Europe after Europe destroyed themselves. We rebuilt Japan after they attacked us and we practically destroyed them to end that war with them. America had it all from an economic and military perspective and we’re prepared to use it to further our interests around the world. When Harry Truman became President of the United States in 1945, he really was inheriting a powerful great giant of a country. That had never been stronger.

America was not just moving again, but moving to not just be as strong as we can at home, but abroad as well. Neoconservatives I think love this time, because America was fighting to expand democracy and freedom around the world. Not just in Europe, but in the Orient in Japan and the later Korea. America perhaps overestimating their strengths and power and underestimating China’s and Communist Korea by trying to unite all of Korea under a democratic system. And as a result we left Korea deadlocked between a communist North and a democratic South in the 1950s. But South Korea thanks to America, is one of the strongest countries in the world today as well. This was an incredible time when America almost seemed invincible.

The Onion: Senator Ted Cruz: ‘Fills Few Hours of Marathon Speech With Rousing Pro-ObamaCare Argument’

Source:The Onion- In a marathon Senate floor speech Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas) finally ran out of Tea Party propaganda and decided to embrace ObamaCare. If he had 5 more minutes, he would've endorsed President Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) for a third term. But every man has to eat and even use the bathroom, go to sleep before they can crash on the Senate floor from exhaustion, etc. Not necessarily from The Onion. LOL

Source:The Daily Press

“The world’s insect leaders meet at the G20,000,000,000 Summit, a bullied 8th grader incorrectly thought classmates would leave him alone during a field trip to the 9/11 memorial, and a man experiencing his first real moment of peace in years is resuscitated. It’s the week of September 27, 2013. More from The Onion." 

From The Onion

Only The Onion would report that Ted Cruz spoke in favor of so-called ObamaCare. Otherwise Senator Cruz could be both drunk and high and awake for seventy-two hours straight at the Guantanamo Bay Prison and even forced to take truth serum and still find away to be against ObamaCare.

Actually, maybe Senator Cruz’s speech happened at Guantanamo Bay Prison on one of his visit’s there after visiting his relatives in Cuba. And decided to stay back and give his big speech there, instead of flying back to Congress to speak on the Senate floor.

Or maybe Senator Cruz just ran out of things to say. That even phone books have a limited amount of pages that you can go through and read. And he was starting to fall asleep reading the phonebook, or got tired of listening to the presiding officer snore in their chair.

Or perhaps the Senator just lost his train of thought. But actually he doesn’t much have much of a train of thought to begin with, because he keeps missing that train. And decided after going into every single thing that he doesn’t like about the Affordable Care Act, including a lot of the stuff that is actually not in the law, he would then go through what he actually likes about the law.

Me personally, every time I see a story from The Onion, I gotta take it with at least one train of thought. I realize they report more facts than Fox News even and perhaps are the most trusted news organization for Millennial’s. But hear them report that Senator Cruz, whose perhaps the most prominent Tea Party member in Congress, come out in favor of the Affordable Care Act, would be like hearing Rick Santorum come out on favor of prostitution and bigamy, in the same speech.

But again you give a twenty-hour speech and anything can happen, including finally running out of stuff to say and saying things you don’t believe.

Yale University: Nicholas Wolterstorff- On Faith in Liberal Democracy

Source:Yale University- Professor Nicholas Wolterstorff. 

Source:FRS FreeState

"Miroslav Volf interviews Nicholas Wolterstorff of Yale University about the place of faith in liberal democracy. Wolterstorff discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various secular and  faith-based conceptions of justice and the public sphere, making a case for the relevance of religiously shaped discourses in deliberative democracies." 

From Yale University

Faith in liberal democracy is about the freedom of and from religion. But that they are separate from the state and that all of these things come from the Constitution. 

People have the right to practice, or not practice religion and that we have separation of church and state based on the Constitution. And that even though we have the freedom to believe what we believe. But we do not have the right to force our views on others especially through law. The right to be heard, but not the right to harass people with your views who disagree with you.

Liberals, get stereotyped as being anti-religion and that if anything we would want to see religion eliminated if not outlawed in society. Even though Liberals created the Freedom of Religion when we wrote the U.S. Constitution and created the United States. As well as the Bill of Rights that gives us all of these individual rights and freedom of choice to make these decisions for ourselves. Not the right to force our views on people who disagree with us. Which is much different and fascist even. But the fact is liberalism is built around individual freedom, rights and choices. And not statist, or fascist at all.

Now, I do believe that Liberals tend to be more secular than let's say Christian Conservatives, or Islamists. That goes without saying, because a big part of liberalism has to do with reason and evidence. That you go where the best available facts and evidence are. And take your positions and make your views based on that. Instead of using faith to make those decisions for yourself. 

But this is much different from saying that just because I or someone else is secular, that everyone else should be, or they have to be as well even through law. But again, liberalism is about individual freedom, choice and rights. That the individual can make these decisions for themselves.