Kire Schneider Online

Friday, October 31, 2014

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Shields and Brooks on the MidTerm Mood


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Most likely and for me that means the best guess and best educated guess, Senate Republicans win back the Senate on Tuesday and perhaps add five seats to their House majority as well. I don't see a wave for 2014 where Republicans win 8-10 seats in the Senate and twenty or more in the House. But things are so bad for Democrats right now that Republicans despite their own problems with voters, do not need a wave to do well in Congress on Tuesday.

Democrats still have hope even in the Senate. They win Georgia and Kansas where they are currently ahead with Michelle Nunn over David Perdue in Georgia and Greg Orman over Republican Senator Pat Roberts has been in Congress since 1981 and maybe Democrats hold Republican gains to four or five and barely hold the Senate having to rely on a couple of new Independents to hold their majority. But they would also need to hold North Carolina and New Hampshire with Kay Hagen respectfully to pull that off. Also may need to hold Arkansas or Louisiana as well.

What may be the only victories for Democrats on Tuesday night could at the state level and not in Congress. But governor's races and legislature races where Democrats have real pickup opportunities in both areas. Pennsylvania, Florida, perhaps even Georgia, Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan. If they win those states or just a few of them and not lose any big states where they currently are in power, we could see better redistricting that could favor House Democrats in the future.


Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Lib Dem Voice: Barry Holliday- Electoral Reform, How To: How to Reform the U.K. Parliament



Source: Lib Dem Voice-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Things are already changing very fast in the United Kingdom. Thanks to the Scottish independence referendum in September, devolution and federalism is coming to Britain perhaps as early as next year. At least an agreement on what a federalist United Kingdom would look like. With the unitarian socialist state in Britain collapsing, with more power headed to the states as Americans would call it and the people of Britain over their own domestic affairs.

But devolution and federalism I believe will only work as an American outsider looking in on Britain, if they reform their Parliament as well. Because at the end of the day, for England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland to be able to function properly in the United Kingdom, they will need to be well represented in Parliament in London with a functioning bicameral Parliament so not all over the power and resources are not so centralized in London with the national or federal government and in England.

For a bicameral Parliament to work in Britain the House of Lords or whatever they may call it in the future, perhaps the U.K. Council or Lordship, perhaps even Senate, needs to function like the upper chamber of Parliament that it is supposed to be. Where they actually have a say in what laws are passed in Parliament and not just be a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. Where they can conduct real oversight of the U.K. Government and have at least the same power and authority as the House of Commons. And where members of this body can be part of Prime Ministers Questions.

The way I would reform the U.K. Parliament is similar to how the U.S. Congress looks. The lower chamber the House of Representatives where Representatives represent districts inside of states. And where the upper chamber the Senators represent the whole state in America. But since Britain is a lot smaller physically and in population to America, where they would represent districts as well inside of a state. But with each state lets say in the U.K. Senate getting an equal amount of Senators. But in the House the Commons would be proportioned based on population.

England would still have more Commons than anyone else because they are by far the biggest state in the United Kingdom. But this would be a real bicameral parliament and the Lordship or Council or even Senate, each state would be represented equally. So England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland would all have the representation in parliament needed to bring back the resources that their districts and states need from London to be able to function properly.
UK Parliament: Open Lecture- Reform in The House of Lords

Monday, October 27, 2014

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority Status in Flux?

National Journal: Opinion: Norm Ornstein: What If Independents Keep Senate Majority In Flux?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

What if, what if, what if, what question is more fun to ask and even ask yourself than what if? But the reason why it is such a fun question to ask, is because it gives people that chance to imagine and throw out countless hypotheticals and imagine all sorts of interesting things. But to speak about Norm Ornstein's what if, he may be on to something right now because of how partisan and divided America is politically right now. With an unpopular President, but an unpopular Republican opposition that Americans aren't crazy about having complete control of Congress, both the House and Senate.

This is where the centrists, or as I prefer the more independently minded Senators and Senate candidates come into play. Because let's say we do have a 50-50 Senate in the next Congress with Democrats still in control of the Senate because of Vice President Joe Biden, or a 51-49 Senate in the next Congress that goes either way, without either party having enough of a partisan advantage to run the chamber by themselves, that is where the Independents come into play. Especially if they don't caucus with either party, or are not in lockstep with the political or governing agenda that their leadership wants to push.

In a divided Senate like that, that is where the Independents have the power, Assuming the Leader and Minority Leader are actually interested in governing and passing legislation in that Congress. And not simply looking for the next partisan advantage that will give them a clear majority in the next Congress. When the leadership's in both parties aren't interested in governing and simply looking for partisan advantage, as we've seen a lot in the Congress from both parties in both chambers, Independents do not mean a hell of a lot.

Whoever the next Senate Leader and Minority Leader is, they will still set the tone as far as what that Senate can pass in the next Congress. And if you are like me, you are looking for new leadership at the top in both parties without Harry Reid Mitch McConnell leading their respective caucus's. And hopefully new blood will come in and decide to work with the other party. Because whoever will holds the next Senate majority, it will be paper-thin, perhaps 52-48 at best for one side. And if they decide to govern, the Independents will come into power and a lot legislation could get passed. 


Sunday, October 26, 2014

Swiss Habs: Video: NHL Network: NHL 1979-Stanley Cup Finals-Game 5: New York Rangers @ Montreal Canadians: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The Montreal Canadians accomplishing something in 1979 which may sound impossible today, which was to win their fourth straight Stanley Cup. Winning two in a row is a huge deal now and has been going back to the Pittsburgh Penguins of the early 1990s, 1991 and 1992 when they won back-to-back cups. The Detroit Red Wings did in the late 1990s in 97 and 98, but no one else had done it since. Because of expansion and free agency with the parity, it is very hard to dominate the NHL for more than one season now. 

The Canadians not only won four straight from 1976-79, but five overall in the 1970s. The team of that decade, which is what the Edmonton Oilers were in the NHL in the 1980s. And with the way the NHL is set up today, no other team has dominated an entire decade and been the team of the decade in the NHL since. Because there's so much parity and so much traveling and so many other things that players have to go through to get through a long 82 game NHL season. 

Saturday, October 25, 2014

Politico Magazine: Opinion-Richard Norton Smith- Nelson Rockefeller's Last Stand



Source: Politico- Governor Nelson Rockefeller, R, NY-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

To understand Nelson Rockefeller's politics, you have to first understand the politics of the Republican Party up until 1966-67 or so. When the Republican Party officially moved into a different direction politically and became the official right-wing party in America. That had already started in 1964 with Barry Goldwater's nomination for president, but the 1966 mid-terms is where it started paying off for the GOP in Congress and with governorships around the country.

See the Republican Party that Nelson fit into, was the GOP of the 1950s with Dwight Eisenhower. Nelson Rockefeller was no Liberal at least he wouldn't be today. He certainly wasn't a Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist or Social Democrat either of course. But he also wasn't a Rand Paul Tea Party Conservative Libertarian of today, or a Barry Goldwater Conservative Libertarian. If there is such a thing even sixty-years ago, Nelson Rockefeller would've been a Progressive Republican. And I mean that in the classical sense.

A classical Progressive in the sense of someone who believes in hard work, education and opportunity for all. A safety net for people who fall though the cracks of the private enterprise system. Someone who believed in rule of law and a tough internationalist foreign policy and national security. But someone who also believed in civil rights and equal rights for everyone. Nelson was to the Left of Franklin Roosevelt on social issues especially civil rights. But not as far to the Left of Franklin on economic policy and who wanted to create the next chapter of the New Deal.

Nelson wanted a safety net for people who truly needed it. Not a welfare state to manage people's lives for them. And for everyone who was physically and mentally able, which is most of the country, he believed those people should get a good education, work hard and be productive. And then get to enjoy the rewards of their production. That if you were on public assistance because you couldn't find a good job or not qualified to get a good job, that government could help you finish your education so you can become independent.

The Eisenhower/Rockefeller Progressives were no longer running the Republican Party by 1964. When President Eisenhower left office in 1961, Republicans were looking for a new direction and leadership. Senator Barry Goldwater filled that vacuum for them in 1964 and that is the direction they stuck with until President Ronald Reagan left office in 1989. And because of this there was no longer a base of support for Progressives like Nelson Rockefeller to step up and lead the GOP in that direction. Because they were now outnumbered by Conservatives.
The History Channel: Nelson Rockefeller Biography

Sunday, October 19, 2014

History Comes to Life: Nelson Rockefeller Announces For the Presidency in 1968

Source: History Comes To Life- Governor Nelson Rockefeller, R, NY-
Source: History Comes To Life: Nelson Rockefeller Announces For The Presidency in 1968

If Nelson Rockefeller was alive today and still involved in public service in some way, whether it was in public office or working for non-profits, which he did both in his very long and distinguished career in public service. What party would he be affiliated with? I think it’s clear that maybe outside of the Northeast and of course he was from New York I believe GOV. Rockefeller would’ve had a very hard time getting elected as a Republican today. Especially in a Republican Party that’s now dominated by the Christian Right and to some extent Neoconservatives.

But neoconservatism has lost a lot if influence in the Republican Party, at least in the last two elections. Which I believe is a good thing, but the Religious-Right is still there and powerful there. And of course now with the Tea Party movement that’s now run by economic Conservatives and Religious Conservatives and with GOV. Rockefeller being fairly liberal at least to some extent on social issues except for crime and punishment, I don’t see how Nelson Rockefeller gets elected in the Republican Party today. He would probably be a better fit as a Democrat today with his liberal views on some social Issues. And his beliefs in public service and infrastructure investment, but probably like a Joe Lieberman.

Nelson Rockefeller was a social Liberal and somewhat progressive on economic policy. But more conservative on crime and punishment and foreign policy. I mean the Rockefeller Drug Laws aren’t called that for nothing, GOV. Rockefeller played a big role in advancing the War on Drugs in America. And also served as President Ford’s Vice President. Mr. Rockefeleller clearly had conservative leanings, but not enough of them for him to be successful in the Republican Party today. So where would Nelson Rockefeller go politically or maybe he would work on a third-party Movement instead.

I don’t see Nelson Rockefeller as a centrist, but an independent and they are different. A centrist is someone who’s pretty much middle of the road on most major political issues. But Rockefeller had clear political views, some conservative which is why he was a Republican. But also some liberal and progressive which is why I don’t believe he would be a Republican today. So maybe the Independence Party or a movement for that would’ve taken off with Rockefelller and George Wallace as their Leaders.

Nelson Rockefeller would be a prototypical Independent candidate and perfect for that type of political party as well. Someone who could help advance an Independence movement and would’ve been a great third-party candidate today. I don’t think he would’ve gotten elected President this way, but definitely been a factor as a presidential candidate. Sort of like George Wallace in 1968, Jack Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot in 1992. And perhaps because of this we could’ve ended the two-party-system that under represents a lot of American voters and we could’ve had more choices in who to vote for.

Saturday, October 18, 2014

Billy Hill: Tattoo TV Episode- Questions For Danielle Colby Cushman


Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I'm not a big fan of History Channel's American Pickers. But I am a big fan of Danielle Colby Cushman on American Pickers, who is way underused on the show. And basically treated by Mike Wolfe and Frank Fritz who own American Pickers, as a little girl who can't handle big responsibility. Danielle might be as cute as a little girl physically, but she's clearly a grown up, at least physically who can do more than just answer the phone and try to bring in new perspective clients for the business.

American Pickers is a real life business owned by these two guys, somewhere in Iowa, which could be said about a lot of towns in Iowa. Who find old pieces that people have had forever that still have value. And they try to buy them a a fair price and then try to sell them for profit. The guys do most of the traveling and picking, why cute Danielle stays at home so to speak, answers the phone and try's to find perspective clients and people that Mike and Frank can work with.

But the few opportunities that Danielle gets to hit the road, you not only get to see her knowledge for the business. Which granted is not as deep as Mike's or Frank's, but she has also hasn't been doing it as long. But you get to see her personality, her humor, how adorable she is physically and personally. And last, but certainly not least, her great body. Tall, curvy, athletically built women who fills out a pair of Levis denim jeans well enough to get her a modeling contract for Levis.\
Billy Hill: Questions For Danielle Colby Cushman


Friday, October 17, 2014

PBS: Video: Shields and Gerson on Ebola and 2014 Elections


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger 

Anyone who uses Ebola to gain political power Right or Left, is unfit for office and perhaps should resign or give up their request to win the office that they are pursuing. This is a serious issue that effects millions of people that the U.S. Government and others have to deal with effectively, or millions of people could get hurt by it. And they need all the resources and people necessary to handle this problem as effectively as possible.

As far as the U.S. Senate elections. Mike Gerson might be right and maybe Senate Republicans are ahead in 8-11 elections right now. But I'm still seeing Kansas where Republican Senator Pat Roberts is in the fight for his Congressional career and is losing to Greg Orman. And I don't think the debate this week helped Senator Roberts. And I'm seeing Georgia where Democratic Senate nominee Michelle Nunn has a small lead against David Perdue and they are competing for a Republican Senate seat.

In Kentucky, Allison Grimes has probably shot off two many of her own toes to win that election. You know a centrist or center-left Democrat not being able to admit that she voted for a Democratic President in Barack Obama, who is also center-left, shows she may not have the character and political knowledge as far as how much that could hurt her by not being able to admit the obvious, to win a U.S. Senate seat. Even against an unpopular Mitch McConnell who is also the Senate Minority Leader, Leader of the Senate Republicans.

Senate Democrats path to retaining the Senate even at 50-50 or 51-49, is not run the table and hold all of the close Senate Democratic seats. They need to hold probably half of them and pick off a few Republican seats as well. Like Kansas and Georgia and they do that by holding North Carolina, where Senator Kay Hagan as a lead there. Holding South Dakota, which seemed impossible even a few months ago. Hold Colorado with Senator Mark Udall and somehow pull out Arkansas or Louisiana. And put Senate Republicans in a position where they have to run the table to even win a net of six seats, after dropping a couple of their own.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

SPPN Channel: All The King's Men- Broderick Crawford Playing Huey Long

Broderick Crawford as Governor Huey Long-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

I think the best way to describe Huey Long aka Louisiana Kingfish would be compared him with the recently deceased President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez. Even though Huey was a lot more Democratic than Hugo and believed in a greater deal of freedom. But they were both basically dictators who were corrupt who meant well and wanted to do good things. But weren’t really cutout to be chief executives and people with strong Progressive-Socialist leanings.

Both Huey and Hugo spoke about share the wealth and Social Justice, but wanted as much power as possible even centralized all the power with them to do these good works for the people. Huey Long was clearly a Democrat as far as party and politically and believed in democracy except when it went against him. And Hugo Chavez was a Socialist, but certainly not a Democratic Socialist.

Hugo was not a full-blooded Communist like Fidel Castro, but probably more like Neo-Communist. Someone who allowed for political opposition and a certain level of economic and personal freedom, but someone with strong dictatorial leanings as well. Huey was probably more Democratic than Hugo, but politically they were similar.
SPPN Channel: All The King's Men


Monday, October 13, 2014

Kings of Boxing: Muhammad Ali vs. Jerry Quarry-10/26/1970

Source: Kings of Boxing-Muhammad Ali-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

As I mentioned yesterday, Muhammad was simply to big, strong, tall and quick for Jerry Quarry. Muhammad was 6’2 or 6’3, 215 pounds or so of solid muscle, speed and intelligence. Speed in his hands and feet and you combine that with his strength, his ability to both take a good punch and deliver several great punches in a few seconds, plus his accuracy, he was simply too much for Jerry Quarry. Who was 5’10 or 5’11, under 200 pounds. For Quarry to make this a good fight, he simply had to get inside of Muhammad and pound on him.

The problem being that the only short heavyweight boxer to have any success at that, was Joe Frazier who was bigger and stronger than Quarry and could take more punishment and still move in on you and pound your body. Quarry left both of the Ali fights a bloody mess, because he took so much punishment in both fights before he was able to deliver any punishment. The two Quarry fights were a tune up to fight for Ali to fight Joe Frazier for the first time in 1971 and the second time in 1973.
Kings of Boxing: Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry- 10/26/1970

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Sweet Fights: Muhammad Ali vs. Jerry Quarry 2, 1972

Source: Sweet Fights-Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

Jerry Quarry simply didn’t have the defense to fight a big strong fighter like Muhammad. And ended up taking too much punishment in these two fights. Muhammad was simply too big, strong and fast for a brawler like Jerry Quarry, who needed his opponent to be in front of him and not have the great footwork and quickness to beat him. Jerry Quarry was the ultimate fighter’s chance boxer. Meaning he had a fighter’s chance to win fights. That if he delivered enough punishment, especially against a stationary boxer, he could win the fight and beat his opponent before his opponent beat him. The problem that he had against Ali, was Ali was not a stationary fighter. But someone with great quickness and footwork. Who could punch hard and hurt you.
Sweet Fights: Muhammad Ali vs Jerry Quarry 2- 1972

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Monstr Migit: Video: History of the Montreal Expos, 1969-2004


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on Blogger, January, 2013 and then reposted

The Expos for the most part were never marketed well in Montreal or the broader Province of Quebec. They seemed to believe that fans would automatically come to their games if they just won or were competitive. Apparently not being aware that Montreal was really never a baseball market and is a big city of over 1M people. In a market of over 3M people with plenty of things to do besides just baseball. And that there were other sporting events to go to besides baseball and not just Canadians hockey but CFL football and pro soccer. 

Other pro sports have done well in Montreal because these are sports that Quebecers grow up with, enjoy playing and watching. But that wasn't the only problem with the Expos. They started off playing in a real ballpark in Jarry Field. But then in the late 1970s move to the huge Montreal Olympic Stadium. Which by that point with its 65-70,000 seats was a football stadium that the Montreal Allouettes played in as well. And  pro soccer was being played there. Big mistake on the Expos management part. 

The Expos needed to market their club better and actually explain baseball to Montreal, which is not Toronto. A big market near Detroit and other Major League Baseball cities where Toronto already liked and enjoyed baseball before it got there. But Montreal was new to baseball and Montreal Olympic Stadium was simply too big with the fans being too far away from the games and not enough people wanting to go there to watch baseball. And these are the main reasons why the Expos left Montreal for Washington. 


Friday, October 10, 2014

PBS: Video: NewsHour: Mark Shields & David Brooks on Same-Sex Marriage, Voter ID & U.S. Senate Elections

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

As far as same-sex marriage where right-wingers have a 5-4 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and tend to be respected by the Christian-Right in this country. Same-sex marriage is dead as an issue when not even the U.S. Supreme Court will take it up to hear appeals being made about anti-gay marriage bans that were thrown out by lower courts. Only the Christian-Right cares about this issue as far as seeing it as some threat to the country that must be defeated. Republicans need to move off of it and find issues where they can appeal to Independents and people not as far to the right as their far-right base.

The voter id laws getting thrown out in Wisconsin and North Carolina helps Democrats. Why, because those laws are designed to prevent young Americans and minorities from voting. Lets just be real about that and those voters tend to vote for Democrats because Republicans haven't done a damn thing to try to appeal to them, at least since Ronald Reagan. Close U.S. Senate race in North Carolina between Senator Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis. Close governor's race in Wisconsin where Republican Government Scott Walker is fighting for his political career.

As far as the U.S. Senate races. Good news for Senate Democrats this week in North Carolina where Senator Hagan has opened up a lead and where Senate Democrats have good poll numbers nationally. Greg Orman has a lead over Republican Senator Pat Roberts in Kansas. Allison Grimes with a small lead in Kentucky against Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. But her failing to answer who she voted for president in 2012 could erase that lead. She could turn that around by clearly winning the debate this Monday. So a good week for Democrats, not including President Obama.

Tuesday, October 7, 2014

PZI: Tight Denim Jeans For Curvy Women- PZI Jeans 2010 Commercial


Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

Tight jeans for curvy women. Just hearing those words in that sentence makes me feel like I've already died and gone to heaven. Or perhaps have moved to paradise and wasn't aware of that until I actually got there. Like a surprise vacation where you are blindfolded and your wife of girlfriend takes you somewhere and you're blindfolded the whole time while you are there. Might sound like an unbelievable story to anyone in touch with reality. But if you watch enough TV, something like that might seem believable to you.

Forget about tight jeans denim or leather for rail-thin women, or obese women. How about instead how about we talk about tight jeans for healthy women and that includes big bone women who aren't fat, but have big bones and curves and are strong. Women who physically take care of themselves and eat right and know they are healthy and want to show off that success with the right denim jeans. To show the world how sexy they are at least on the outside.
PZI Jeans: Curvy Jeans Commercial


Monday, October 6, 2014

Franklin D. Roosevelt: Video: President Dwight Eisenhower on Little Rock Integration Plan

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, September, 2013

Dwight Eisenhower, America’s first civil rights president. Not Lyndon Johnson who was our third, after Jack Kennedy who got involved in it strongly late in his presidency. But President Eisenhower was our first because he took on segregation from the executive level before the 1960s and when the civil rights movement became strong. 

By taking on civil rights at the federal and executive level, President Eisenhower immediately gave credibility to the movement. Especially by being in favor of it and against school desegregation, by essentially saying that "African-Americans have the same right to a quality education as Caucasian-Americans. And that government can't force African-American kids to go to poor schools. When Caucasians are going to good public schools". 



Sunday, October 5, 2014

US National Archives: Video: You Gotta Have Heart: A History of Washington Baseball

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

A history of the Washington Senators can be summed up in one word, cheap. And perhaps throw in a names like Bob Short, Clark Griffith and Calvin Griffith to go along with cheap. Unlike the Washington Redskins in the NFL and the Baltimore Orioles just up the road, who are essentially also a local team, especially if you live in Maryland, who were known for winning and paying for the players to win. And having the right coaching staffs to make that happen, the Senators management just wanted to stay in business.

There are other factors as well. Griffith Stadium, even though it was a nice ballpark, was small and needed to be replaced in the early 1960s, which it was. But what the City of Washington should've done to allow for both the Senators and Redskins to be successful, was to build a football stadium for the Redskins and a baseball park for the Senators. And under the right management, both clubs would've been successful. The Redskins obviously had the right management obviously and the Senators never did.

The City of Washington finally figured out what they need to do make MLB baseball profitable in Washington. The right ballpark and the right management group to run the club. They have both now in Nationals Park, which is one of the best places to watch a baseball game in MLB and has a great fan atmosphere. And the Lerner Family that runs the club and now the Nationals are one of the better run clubs in MLB. Two division titles in the last three years and three straight winning seasons. And now the Nationals are a very good big market club, with a very solid fan base that is here to stay.

Friday, October 3, 2014

Market Ex: Video: President Dwight Eisenhower on the American Safety Net

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, August, 2013

Dwight Eisenhower certainly wasn’t a Tea Party Republican economically or anything else. Whatever a Tea Party Republican is supposed to be, because there are many types. But Ike was not a classical conservative economic libertarian Tea Party Republican. Not a Rand Paul Conservative Libertarian, which is what I’m getting at. But more like a Newt Gingrich Republican at least when it came to economic policy or what they use to call in Canada a Progressive Conservative. 

Progressive Conservatives believe in the basic safety net for people who needed it, including the New Deal. But someone who also believed in freedom when it came to economics as well as personal freedom. Someone who didn’t want a big welfare state for America. Someone who believed that Americans should have the freedom to be able to do as much for themselves as possible. 

That the safety net are for those people who needed it. He certainly wasn’t a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist, which are very common in Europe. But someone who believed in using conservative principles to accomplish progressive goals. That you needed both freedom and a safety net for the country to be as strong as possible economically. 


Thursday, October 2, 2014

MOX News: Video: C-SPAN: President Dwight Eisenhower's Farewell Address & Warning For America

This post was originally posted at FRS DailyTimes on WordPress, May, 2013

So what’s so impressive about this speech is that it was given by the most distinguished and successful person to ever serve in the United States Military. And who was proud of his service and who loved the United States Military. Dwight Eisenhower was not some far-lefty who emerged in the 1960s or 70s who believes that authority and force are never the answer. 

Ike didn't believe that America is an evil country part of some evil-empire, that has nothing but capitalist greedy pigs. Or something holding the rest of the world down, the opposite was true. Because Dwight Eisenhower was a real American hero and American patriot. Who loved his country, but saw the American Military growing faster than he believed it needed to. 
And that the growth of our military industrial complex was a threat if it went unchecked. And gave civilians who never served in the military some feeling that our military could do anything and that "we have all of the resources both economic and in weapons to police the world or something." What President Eisenhower believed was that a strong military is a military that’s limited to only do what we should be doing and that there’s an actual limit to what it can do to secure our nation and be a force for peace in the world.

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Haka Velliss Canal: Video: ABC's Wide World of Sports: Muhammad Ali & Howard Cosell

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, May, 2013

Before ESPN and other twenty-four hour sports networks, there was ABC’s Wide World of Sports. That was a combination of SportsCenter, 60 Minutes and sports coverage all in one show. But it was all about sports and not news that provided sports news, news magazine stories and actual sports coverage. Like boxing and olympic action, international sporting events and pro soccer and other sporing events. 

It even had a talk show aspect to it that was anchored by Howard Cosell. And Cosell and Muhammad Ali made this show and made it work along with Jim MacKay in the 1970s. And made this show the place to go to on weekends from ABC Sports if you wanted the latest sports news and sports coverage. And was network sports at its best and sports TV hasn't gotten better since.

Cessesion: Video: ABC Sports: Muhammad Ali-Howard Cossel Interview

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times on WordPress, May, 2013

Muhammad Ali and Howard Cosell were a comedy act talking about serious things, well as serious as pro-boxing can be. Who without each other working together, their careers wouldn’t have been as good and they wouldn’t have been as successful. Because of the chemistry that they had, as well as their intelligence, they both had great sense of humors. 

But Muhammad and Howard had similar sense of humors. And not only knew each other very well, but themselves as well and didn’t try to be anyone else. What really made these interviews classics, were because they were truly unscripted and how real they were. Two good intelligent friends with real quick wits who had great chemistry together.

Malcolm X Network: Muhammad Ali- The Greatest of All-Time


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Times Plus

How to explain Muhammad Ali, the challenge of this blog and the challenge of the day for me. Imagine a big tall man 6’2-6’3, probably more like 6’2 whose built like a statue and looks more like an NFL linebacker or running back than a boxer because he’s also 215-220 pounds depending on the fight. And who was all muscle and well-built like a statue. Muhammad was certainly not invincible as we all know now with the state of his health. 

And we also know he was declining both physically and mentally when he was still fighting as early as 1975 with the third fight against Joe Frazier. Taking a serious toll on him, which should’ve been the fight that forced Muhammad into retirement. But Muhammad was so much stronger both physically and mentally than most of the fighters he fought. 
That he could take so much more than most if not any other boxer who ever fought. Which allowed him to be able to deliver all of the punishment that he did to his opponents. Muhammad Ali fought with a shield that you had to break in order to beat him. If Larry Bird is the genius when it comes to basketball players, then Muhammad Ali is the genius when it comes to boxers. Because he was a boxer that could see fights developing before they developed. 
Muhammad knew his opponents as well as himself better than they knew themselves or him. So he was always at least a couple of steps ahead of his opponents and even his own corner. He won most of his fights before the fights happened because of all of the preparation he put himself through. And being able to sike out his opponents and get them to hate him and wanting to knock Ali out instead of trying win the fight. And Ali would use that against him and simply do his job, "I can hit you and prevent you from hitting me". 
Muhammad, "even if you land shots, I’m strong enough to take them and hit you back harder. Because I’m built like a tank and with the amount of punishment that I can deliver to you I’ll beat you simply by wearing you down". This happened against Ron Lyle where both fighters delivered a lot of great shots, but where Ali could simply take and deliver more than Ron Lyle had to offer. 
Another way to look at Muhammad Ali is not to look at him as a knockout artist. Someone who could knock you out in one or two punches like a George Forman or Mike Tyson. But look at Muhammad as a power-puncher who knocked people out unless they were strong enough to go the distance with 5-10 punches in a row or a hundred punches. 
Muhammad got his knockouts by simply punishing his opponents and wearing them down. And what makes Muhammad Ali the greatest heavyweight of all time is his physical strength and stamina, as well as preparation. But also because of his intelligence that he knew his opponents a lot of times better than they knew themselves. And used that against them.