Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Joan Jett: Video: Do You Wanna Touch Me & Androgynous, In Concert: Joan Jett, the Rocker Chick For All-Time

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Joan Jett hasn’t been a great rocker chick for the 1970s, or the 1980s, or the 1990s, the 2000s, or today. She’s been a great rocker chick for all of those decades and times, because she has a style and brand that is of her own that she has perfected and made work for going on forty years now. She first hit it big in 1977 or 78 when she was still a teenager and has been going on ever since. And her music is about herself and her own life and what she has experienced. And is real and she isn’t someone who tries to be anyone else or has copied anyone else, or has needed to. She’s the ultimate American original.

Songs like Hate Myself For Loving You and I love rock and roll, are about her and her own life. Her own experiences and not some copycat of some other performer that has made it big, or has just made it big and trying to copy of that so they sound hot or cool as well. She’ll never be mistaken for a girl band performer, the female version of a boy bander that became popular in the late 1990s. Because she has her own act and her own style. And wouldn’t want to be part of that anyway.

Joan Jett is the ultimate rebel with a cause, because there really isn’t any other rocker chick you can compare her to. Not least as one who has been nearly as successful and has been as successful for as long as she has. I’m not a huge fan of hers, I like a few of her songs, but the thing I respect most about her is how real she is and original she is. Who does her own thing whether it is considered hot or awesome by the pop culture establishment, or not. And she’s taken a lot os risks and has been very successful as a result.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Alannah Myles Vevo: Video: Alannah Myles Official Black Velvet Video: One of the Top Rocker Chicks From the 1990s

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I first saw Alannah Myles black velvet in late 1990 or early 1991 when I was a freshmen in high school. And I was blown away by the video. The blues rock sound was about as good as anything I’ve ever heard from Eric Clapton and Bruce Springsteen, my two favorite blues rock artists. I was also blown away about how sexy Alannah looked in the video. The concert footage of the video with her in that black leather motorcycle jacket and the black leather chaps over black denim jeans and the black leather biker boots. She looked like a classic rocker chick in the video and the way rocker chicks should look.

VH1 played this video from when it came out in 1989-90, to early 1992 or so and the song did very well. But the thing that I’ve never understood about Alannah is how come her career isn’t bigger. With that beautiful blues sounding voice that goes great with blues and classic rock and how well written Black Velvet was written. I’m not an expert on the music business obviously, but you would think those qualities and her beautiful sexy look, would’ve led to more opportunities.

Alannah Myles career to me at least is a “what could’ve had been”. Because she is a talented writer and singer, but her career just quite hasn’t taken off. Joan Jett who I do like, whose been in the business going on forty years now, is not as good as Alannah. They have slightly different sounds and Joan is more of punk rocker than Alannah. But Alannah has a better voice and has better music, but right now over twenty years later , she’s basically a one hit wonder. She is known for Black Velvet and that is about it.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Mises Daily: Blog: Anthony Gregory: The Real Liberal Heritage: What Makes Liberalism Different From Libertarianism & Progressivism

A lot of Americans when they think of Liberalism and Liberals, they probably tend to think of people who believe in a big state in the form of the federal government that collects a lot of taxes. Because these so called Liberals do not trust the states and individuals to make their own decisions wisely. And that the Federal Government would spend those resources better than the states or individuals. And that we need a big state and high taxes to have as just of a society as possible so no American is left behind. 
As a Liberal myself I can tell you there’s nothing liberal in what I just wrote there. But what I just wrote there is what social democratic parties in Europe or the New Democratic Party in Canada which is a Social-Democratic Party, or what Social Democrats in America tend to believe people we tend to call Progressives. Who build their political philosophy around what government can do for the people. Rather than what can the people do for themselves if they just have the opportunity to do so.
A lot of Americans when they tend to think of Liberals, tend to think of MSNBC and its lineup and hosts and guests. Other than maybe Chris Matthews, as a Liberal I do not recognize a single Liberal on that network. Occasionally they’ll have a liberal guest like Dick Durbin the Assistant Leader in the U.S. Senate. But generally that network tends to showcase people as far to the left as Ralph Nader or Michael Moore or Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders. 
Current and former Progressive members of Congress and todays so-called progressive-activists. MSNBC represents the Green Party, the Democratic Socialist Party and the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party. And in a lot of cases so-called Progressive Democrats who are only in the Democratic Party to have a major voice in a leftist party. But most of the money in the Liberal Democratic Party as you could call it, is raised by and for Liberal Democrats to keep them in power and elect them to office. With Progressives trying to get what’s left.
To actually get to what Liberalism is and why I’m a Liberal. Liberalism is about the individual and protecting the individuals freedom to be able to make their own decisions and choices. Both from an economic and personal point of view. Not putting so many restrictions on them so they can’t make bad decisions at all. Which is what you tend to get from both the Far-Right and Far-Left in America.  
Its not the job of government to protect people from themselves, but protect innocent people from those who would do us harm which is different. That if you put all of the information out there, people by in large will make the right decisions regarding their own personal and financial lives if we are all educated with all of the good information and facts as possible. Which is why we should subsidize success and freedom and not try to stop people from making bad decisions. Just try to stop and punish people who hurt the innocent.
Liberals are not anti-government, which is what todays Libertarians tend to sound like. But we are also not pro-government, which is what todays Progressives sound like. We have a healthy skepticism of what government can do for us better than what we can do for ourselves. Which is why we want government limited to only doing the things that we need it to do. We even believe that government should help the disadvantage in society. But empower them to be independent and be able to take care of themselves. Rather than making and keeping people dependent on government for their financial well- being.

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

CBS News: Video: 60 Minute Special: Mike Wallace, Pelican Bay State Prison

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

Pelican Bay State Prison houses some of the worst criminals in California. Which means some of the worst in the United States as well when you have cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and other large cities with crime problems. But that doesn’t mean these people should be treated like animals either. And if you look at their solitary confinement unit that is essentially how those inmates are treated locked in a cage twenty-three hours a day or more. 

Inmates with nothing to do all day, but stare at walls, perhaps try to sleep and then be given what is called food. Stuff that you might serve animals instead that doesn’t fill adult men up for the most part without enough to eat. When you treat people like animals especially a violent criminal population that you see in a Pelican Bay, that is exactly what you are going to get animal behavior from people who’ve hurt and killed people in the past. 
Violent felons who won’t hesitate to hurt innocent people again in the future if they feel threatened. Because this is what they know and what they do and haven't been given help to deal with their violent anger. Which is my main problem with Pelican Bay because it makes its violent population even worst. Rather than working to improve the behavior of these inmates.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

TruthOut: Opinion: Laurie Jo Reynolds & Stephen F. Eisenson: "Tamms is Torture": The Campaign to Close an Illinois SuperMax Prison

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

I’m not against solitary-confinement by itself because  inmates who represent a serious threat to staff as well as other inmates and at times to themselves and because of this must be isolated until they not longer represent that threat to the prison. Prisons can’t function at all when there are inmates who are simply looking to hurt other inmates or have scores to settle and so-forth.  
And inmates simply can’t rehabilitate themselves under those conditions especially if they have out of control tempers. But isolation by itself even 20-24 hours a day does not rehabilitate inmates so they can function in general population. Especially if you make it torture for them with nothing to do all day, but to look at walls and build up anger and frustration about being in there without enough food to eat and so-forth without even having any reading material or being able to write letters. 
Isolated inmates with just their toilet, basic supplies like toothpaste and that sorta of thing, but nothing constructive for them to do with their time. An environment in a bare cell like that is torture. Solitary-confinement should be just like any other unit in prison. A place where inmates go for rehabilitation and to get better. Not be tortured and to get worst and you do that through not isolating anger-management issue inmates let’s say in 23-24 hour a day bare cells. But you put them in a cell where they can have constructive things that they can do to keep themselves busy. 
Inmates should have things like reading and writing materials, music, visits even so their families can see the condition of their relatives in prison and most importantly professional help doctors that can help them get their behavioral issues under control so they can leave isolation. And not be stuck there for years or decades like for some inmates and where isolation is a place like a penalty box to use a hockey analogy where inmates go when they commit a penalty, but then they come back. And if these things to do not work for inmates, then maybe the inmate has some type of mental condition. And prison is not the right place for them.
Isolation units by themselves are not a bad idea. I’m not one of these Neo-Leftists that emerged from the 1960s and 70s who's anti-authority. I’m a Liberal who lives in the real world and understands that responsible authority is a necessary thing for everyone to be able to live in freedom. But when isolation cells become torture, then you are just making the situation worst for the inmate, the staff and the prison which is something that needs to be fixed.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Sky News: Video: Should an Independent Scotland Be Allowed To Keep the Pound?

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger, January, 2014

A Federalist Union might be the only way to save the United Kingdom in Britain. Where each of these British states would have autonomy and the freedom to govern their own domestic affairs while the British Federal Government would handle national security, foreign policy, homeland security, interstate commerce and law enforcement. But where Scotland, England, Wales and North Ireland would be left with the domestic affairs of their own states. 

With a Federalist Union in Britain, Britain would be saved as a unified country. The socialist state even would still be in place it is just that the British states (for lack of a better term) would be left with the governing when it comes to their socialist systems of their own domestic affairs and be able to manage those programs and systems for their own state. But the British welfare state and the taxes to fund it would still be there, but carried out by the states themselves in their own states.
Scotland, England, Wales and North Ireland are all better off being part of the same national union. But even Socialists in each of these own states would like to see more autonomy and freedom over their own affairs and Scotland is as socialist as anyone in the United Kingdom. Is a perfect example of that and would allow the United Kingdom to stay in place. Because each of these states would be able to govern themselves inside of this Federal Union.
Rally For Scottish Independence

Rally For Scottish Independence

Saturday, September 20, 2014

Reason: Video: "How Medicaid & ObamaCare Hurts the Poor

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNow on WordPress, April, 2013

It’s not that we have a Federal health insurance program for the poor that’s the problem. But how it’s setup and run that is the problem because Medicaid was never setup to be run affordably and efficiently. The idea of Medicaid is that "we are going to have free health insurance for the people who are on Medicaid. With the states, doctors, hospitals and clinics having to figure out how to pay for most of it with the Feds not chipping in much". 

And what the states, doctors, hospitals and clinics are saying is that "we can’t afford that we need to be compensated for the healthcare that we deliver. Otherwise we are not going to be able to deliver it because we have our own bills to pay". Medicaid along with Medicare were setup in 1965, the difference being that Medicare was setup with a direct revenue source and increase in the payroll tax. Medicaid has never had that, it’s had to come out of general revenue from the Feds and states and what the Feds have basically said is that. "We do have the money for it" and have past the costs down to the states, hospitals, clinics and doctors.
So the way to fix Medicaid is to make self-financed with it’s own revenue source. And we could do that by having Medicaid be paid for by its customers like all other health insurance plans. Including Medicare so workers would pay for a portion of their Medicaid insurance, along with their employers. With these low-income workers being eligible for a tax credit at the end of the year. And people who are unemployed would get an additional payment to pay for their Medicaid. 
As well as giving Medicaid patients an option to choose another health insurance plan with their Medicaid dollars, but they wouldn’t be forced to and we would see less people taking Medicaid for another plan. And then I would do what’s called in Washington, block-grant Medicaid to the states for them to run under a couple conditions. That anyone eligible for Medicaid would have the option of taking Medicaid and getting that health insurance. And that their Medicaid dollars could only be used to pay for Medicaid.
The concept of Medicaid is sound so that even low-income workers can have access to health insurance and health care in America. But the way it was setup and run has created a hole for the states, hospitals, clinics and doctors to fill. And what they are saying is that "we can no longer afford to fill that hole" and as a result Medicaid patients are now getting stuck without having health insurance. Something by law they are eligible to have.

Friday, September 19, 2014

CATO: Blog: Ilya Shapiro: ObamaCare's Medicaid Expansion Violates Federalism

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNow on WordPress, January, 2012

I would’ve gone farther to bring down healthcare costs with things like preventive care, taxing junk food and drink, getting junk food and drink out of public schools, encouraging people to eat healthy and exercise, mandatory physical education K-12 and other things. And I certainly didn’t like the Medicaid expansion that was in the ACA that wasn’t paid for. And thats what I”m going to blog about.
Medicaid was set up in 1965 as part of the LBJ Great Society. To provide Health Insurance for low-income people who can’t afford it, sounds noble enough right. And that the Federal along with state governments would provide the funds to pay for it, another Federal mandate on the states. One problem with Medicaid has been the Feds haven’t lived up to their share of the costs of Medicaid that they wrote in their own law and as the cost of health care in America has gone up. 
Health care costs have gone up since Medicaid was created in 1965, so has the States Medicaid costs. But the Federal Government, has not only not paid for their share of what they originally said they would pay for, but of course they haven’t been providing the funds to pay for the new Medicaid costs that the states have picked up as well. Which have been made worse the last ten years with state revenue shrinking with a couple of recessions and everything else.
What I would like to do with Medicaid is take it off both the Federal and state budgets. Allow each State to have their own Medicaid as well as healthcare system. And then turn Medicaid into a semi-private non-profit health insurer. With each State having their own version of Medicaid. And make Medicaid self-financed as well by their customers and employers, Unemployed workers would get an additional tax credit to go along with their public assistance check to cover their Medicaid insurance. 
low-income workers would pay for part of their Medicaid insurance. And their employer would cover the other part. And both the workers and employers would be eligible for a tax credit to cover that. And you could pay for that out of corporate welfare. As well as workers and employers could use that tax credit and opt out of Medicaid for private health insurance.
I got this rule that I like to use in life, before you create a new mess, clean up your first mess. Which is how I would describe Medicaid. Its a Financial Mess, that no one wants to pay for. Because the money isn’t there, it has to come out of general revenue. And takes money out of other priorities. So before you expand something like that, you should first fix it.

Thursday, September 18, 2014

Los Angeles Times: Report: David G. Savage & Noam N. Levey: Medicaid Could be in U.S. Supreme Court's Sights

As part of trying to expand health insurance to uninsured Americans in 2010, when President Obama and Congressional Democrats created the Affordable Care Act in 2010, They put in a Medicaid prevision that required states to expand their Medicaid rolls by roughly twenty-million people. Democrats and I’m one of them, that by in large supports the ACA, added another unfunded mandate, meaning the Federal Government requiring States to do something, without giving them the resources to pay for it. 
They added a new unfunded mandate to a program thats already an unfunded mandate. The economy is not great today and states are still strapped, but the economy was worst in 2010. Roughly 2M more people unemployed in 2010 then today. Whether the Medicaid Prevision in the ACA is unconstitutional or not, I’m not a lawyer and thats above my pay grade, but to me anyway all unfunded mandates should be Unconstitutional, whether they are now or not. 
But the point is the unfunded mandate in the ACA is just bad law pure and simple. The goal of the ACA was to expand health insurance for the uninsured who can’t afford it. To be eligible for Medicaid, you have to be living in poverty. A lot of the people who can’t afford health insurance today aren’t in poverty at least by definition. But can’t afford health insurance through their employer or on their own. But make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid. And in the ACA 20M out of the 30M, that were going to get Health Insurance, were to get it through Medicaid.
The Medicaid prevision of the ACA is just another example of why Medicaid was never designed properly from the first place. It was designed to be a health insurer for low-income Americans, that would be controlled by the Federal Government, but that the States would have to implement. What Uncle Sam would want them to do or pay a financial penalty for not taking the Medicaid expansion. 
Unlike Medicare that was designed to a Federal health insurer run by Uncle Sam that is paid for by an increase in the payroll tax. I believe both Medicaid and Medicare are overly centralized. And that the States should have the authority to set up their own Medicaid and Medicare systems. With the resources to run them with the Feds serving as a regulator not operator.
Back in 1965 when Medicaid was created, it should’ve been set up as a health insurer for the poor but that was run by the states, or they would regulate it, that was self-financed so it wouldn’t have to be a financial hole that it is today and that would only cover the basics that people need to survive and to be healthy and it could’ve served as a model for health insurers ever since. And not be so expensive to run, with states wondering how they are going to pay for it.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Los Angeles Times: Editorial: Healing Medi-Cal: Let California Have Medi-Cal

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNow on WordPress, February, 2012

Los Angeles Times: Editorial: Healing Medi-Cal 

A lot of states are swamped in deficit and debt thanks to high unemployment. With a lot less people working and paying taxes as we had four years ago. And instead of working and paying taxes, they are instead consuming more public services. Paid for by less tax revenue, California being a perfect example of this. Medicaid was already set up in the 1960s as an unfunded mandate that has to come out of general revenue. 
Unfunded mandates makes it even harder to pay for Medicaid. And when we have less people working and more poor people in the country Medicaid or Medi-Cal as its called in California becomes even harder to pay for, especially with the Federal Government Continuing to pass down regulations without the funds to pay for them. The way to fix Medicaid not just for California, but every other state, there are a few of ways.  
One let each State have Medicaid to run. Each State would have its own version of Medicaid. Which would help make Medicaid self-financed, that would be paid for by its consumers and their employees. Unemployed workers would get a tax credit provided by the Federal Government to cover their health care costs and employers would get a tax credit from the Feds to cover their Medicaid costs. 
Two instead of even having the states run Medicaid, convert each Medicaid into a semi-private non-profit self-financed health insurer that provides health insurance for low-income people.  And let the States, Feds and locals regulate these health insurers instead. 
Medicaid wasn’t set up to be efficient or cost-effective. But to provide health insurance for people who couldn’t get it any other way. Which it has done for the most part, but it needs to be reformed. To make it cost-effective, especially when budgets are tight for everyone.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

NBC News: NBC Nightly News's Don Harris- Howard Jarvis, Jerry Brown & the 1978 California State Election

Source: NBC News- NBC News's Don Harris-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

The mid and late 1970s was a very rough time for America economically and 1978 is a perfect example of that and with California being the largest state in the union, perhaps Californians felt the rough economy with the high interest rates, inflation, energy shortages, high employment perhaps California was hurt the worst by this economic period. The country had already started moving Right politically starting in the mid 1960s, and by the late 70s the country was already thinking, "maybe we need a different economic course and new political leadership in charge".

Property taxes were becoming unpopular in California and I'm sure in other states. The property tax is about as regressive, not progressive of a tax you can impose on someone, especially if they are struggling to just pay their bills and perhaps are looking for work. And when the economy is down like it was in 78 and you are struggling, you feel the pinch of the property tax a hell of a lot more than someone who's home is fully paid for and runs or owns a successful business.

So when California businessman Howard Jarvis comes around with a plan to cut property taxes in California by putting it on a state referendum because he knows that State Legislature won't approve of it being controlled by Progressive Democrats, both the Assembly and Senate and has the money and backers to fund the referendum, people take notice even in a state like California which is overwhelmingly Democratic politically.
NBC News: NBC Nightly News- Howard Jarvis, Jerry Brown & The 1978 Elections

Saturday, September 13, 2014

ESPN Films: Video: The Legend of Jimmy the Greek

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Jimmy the Greek reminds me of Richard Nixon at least in one sense and he reminds me of Richard Nixon's great quote at his White House farewell address in 1974. Where President Nixon said "that you'll never know what it is like to be at the top of the mountain until you've been in the deepest valley". Meaning you'll never know what it is like to be on top until you are on the bottom. Both men were at the top of their professions and both fell to the bottom. Like falling off of a mountain and hitting the ground.

Jimmy the Greek was at the top of his profession, the gaming industry, perhaps the top sports better in the United States. He was so hot and successful and even popular that he lands himself a gig at the number one sports show in the country the old CBS's NFL Today. The top pre-game show in the country in the 1970s and 80s. With Brent Musburger, Irv Cross, Phyllis George the best pre-game show not just in this period, but still all-time as far as popularity, commentary, the interviews, the people they brought on.

The Greek goes from being at the top of the gaming industry and sports broadcasting profession, to at the bottom and for what, because of a stupid ignorant comment that he made about African-American athletes. Saying that they "are naturally superior athletes because of how they were bread from slavery". Breaded from slavery, it sort of sounds like someone talking about how animals are raised. Not the way you would talk about human beings. And because of that moment of stupidity he goes from the top of his profession, to someone that people didn't want to associate with and be with.

Friday, September 12, 2014

IronWorker Jeff: Video: NFL Films: The Chicago Bears 46 Defense, What Was it

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I wouldn't call former Bears defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan the father of the 46 Defense, but he certainly was one of the fathers. You could make a case that what former Atlanta Falcons defensive coordinator Jerry Glanville is the father of the 46 Defense. They just didn't call it that in Atlanta in the mid and late 1970s and even into the 1980s when Glanville was still coaching the Falcons defense before he moved on to Houston. In Atlanta this defense was called the Grits Blitz.

But what is the 46 Defense and why is it called that when the Bears didn't even line up four men up front and six right behind the defensive line. The Bears would line up four DL generally, two defensive ends and two defensive tackles. With Otis Wilson and Wilbur Marshal who were normally linebackers would line up next to either defensive end Dan Hampton or Richard Dent. With middle linebacker Mike Singletary covering the middle of the field almost by himself.

The 46 Defense to paraphrase Buddy Ryan was based off of a simple mathematic proposition. That if the offense lines seven up front and we line eight up front, at least one defender will always go unblocked and free to either rush the QB or stuff the runner. Which meant the Bears on defense would generally have eight guys lined up in the box. Not all of them on the line of scrimmage. Four down front, two linebackers again right next to one of the DE's, Mike Singletary right behind the DT's and a safety right near the line of scrimmage as well.

What also made the Bears 46 special was just because they generally lined up eight guys in the box, that didn't mean eight guys were always rushing the line of scrimmage. They wanted the offense to always believe that was a possibility and have to prepare for that. Most offenses fell for that trap and played the Bears 46 conservatively and tried to keep more guys in for protection and run blocking. Leaving fewer people in the play that the QB can throw the ball to and also making it harder to run the ball. Because instead spreading the 46 out, you leave everybody in making things very crowded.

The opposite is true in how you attack the 46. You don't go conservative especially if you are a good offensive team with a good QB and passing game. You bring in extra WR's and spread the defense out, which gives you more room to operate on offense. And once you establish the passing game and can even hit a few passes deep, now you got the Bears thinking about the passing game. Which gives you room to run the football.

As I mentioned last night, the Dolphins were the only team that figured out how to attack the Bears 46 in 1985 and have the personal to do it on offense. The Redskins studied that and used their own variation of that in 86 and 87. By using maximum protection, but not to run the football, but to hit big passes down the field. And spread the Bears out as well to throw short and that is how they beat the Bears in 86 and 87 in the NFC Playoffs. As well as being good enough on defense to stop the Bears.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

NFL Network: Video: NFL 1985: The Dominance of the 85 Chicago Bears 46 Defense

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The reason why the Bears 46 Defense isn't ranked as high at least by a lot of NFL historians as lets say the Steel Curtain Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970s or even the Ravens of the last decade or so, is because the Steelers and Ravens were great on defense for a decade and not just one season or a few seasons. After the Bears lost to the Redskins at home in the 1986 Divisional Playoff, the dominance and fear of the Bears I wouldn't say was gone, but teams knew how to beat them now. Which is what I'm going to get into.

I have a friend on Facebook who I met on YouTube who actually who disagrees with this. But Don Shula and the Miami Dolphins figured out how to beat the Bears defense in 1985 and not just figured it out, but had the offensive personal to get it done. And the Dolphins were the only team that beat the Bears in the 1985 season. Most NFL teams believed the way you beat the Bears was establishing the run so they can't kill you with the blitz. Well there are a couple of problems with that. The Bears were excellent against the run. Second with always having seven guys if not eight in the box, it makes it very difficult to run against that formation especially with the size and strength the Bears had on defense.

The Dolphins approached the 46 differently. One for strategic reasons that they had a great QB in Dan Marino with a very quick and accurate release who got rid of the ball quickly. They also always had at least three very good wide receivers in the 1980s with Marino when you are talking about Mark Duper, Mark Clayton and Nat More. The other reason being practical for the Dolphins. Lets be real here, the Dolphins didn't have a running game other than maybe Tony Nathan. Who was better suited as a change up back and a wing back, hybrid between a halfback and wide receiver. Someone who catches a lot of screens and passes out of the backfield and runs draws.

So what the Dolphins did is what they did better than anyone else in the NFL back then except for maybe the San Francisco 49ers was throw the football and throw it a lot. And just didn't throw the football a lot, but threw it very well. They spread out the Bears and threw a lot quick short routes to the guys I've already mentioned and forced the Bears with all of their big men to play a lot of pass coverage. So their horses upfront didn't have the time to get to Marino who was getting rid of the ball on quick drops anyway. The Dolphins turned their Monday Night game against the Bears into a shootout. Thinking the Bears couldn't keep up on offense and they were right.

I'm not saying the Bears secondary was a weak link and their linebackers sure as hell weren't. At least one more of their linebackers should be in the Hall of Fame, Wilbur Marshal comes to mind real fast. But they didn't have that one strong cover corner like a Rod Woodson or a Mel Blount. And they didn't have lot of speed and range with their safety's. Which meant they played their coverages and their assignments, but when something broke down, or they had to cover one-on-one against a very good or great WR, their defense became exposed.

The Dolphins beat the Bears in 85 by spreading the 46 out and throwing a lot of quick passes. The Redskins beat them in the 86 and 87 defenses by going maximum protection and taking shots downfield against single coverage with WR's Art Monk and Gary Clark. The Bears linebackers were hitters and stuffers first, but could get exposed when it came to pass coverage because of a lack of running speed and the fact they didn't play a lot pass coverage. There job was to hit and to destroy, not cover.

Now the positive aspect of the 85 Bears. If I had to take one defense for one season as far as how dominant they were, I take the 85 Bears over everyone else. Because of how dominant they were not just in the regular season, but in the NFC Playoffs not giving a single point against two good teams in the LA Rams and New York Giants. I think the 86 Giants had better overall personal on defense especially in the secondary and that their linebackers could play pass coverage as well. But nobody was more dominant on defense for one season than the 85 Bears.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Brad Palmer: Video: CBS Sports: NFL 1984-Green Bay Packers @ Chicago Bears: Fourth Quarter

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

Here’s and example of why the Bears-Packers rivalry is so great. The Packers didn’t even make the NFC Playoffs in 1984. I think they finished 8-8 under their first-year head coach Forrest Gregg. The Bears were 10-6 and got to the NFC Final where they lost to the San Francisco 49ers, who were the eventual Super Bowl champion that year. And yet the Packers come into Chicago and not only beat the Bears, but beat them in dramatic fashion at the end of the game. Costing the Bears 2nd place in the NFC and forcing them to win at least one playoff game on the road to get to the conference final.

The Packers not only beat the Bears in Chicago, a game the Bears needed to win, but they beat them without their starting quarterback Lynn Dickey. Who was a Pro Bowl caliber quarterback for the Packers in the 1970s and 80s. And beat them with a third-string quarterback. Now of course the Bears didn’t have Jim McMahon or even Steve Fuller as their quarterback for this game. But they still had their 46 Defense and were healthy there. Playing a Packers team that didn’t have any great players on offense, other than maybe wide receiver James Lofton.

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

NBC Sports: Video: Green Bay Packers and Chicago Bears: A Rivalry Through the Years

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Similar to the Redskins-Cowboys rivalry or the Steelers-Browns rivalry or the Raiders-Broncos rivalry, the Bears-Packers rivalry is not as great as it use to be. For one thing, the Packers have dominated this rivalry really the last twenty years or so when the Packers became a regular playoff team and divisional champion, as well as Super Bowl contender and champion. The Bears have been in, well hibernation (pun intended) really since they fired Mike Ditka in 1993. And have not found that one head coach who can not only make them consistent winners again, but champions as well.

But even with the Bears lack of success on the field in the last twenty years or so, because of all the games they've won in their history, including championships and of course with all the success that they Packers have had the last twenty years and throughout their history and with all of the history between these two great franchises, you'll have a real hard time finding a better rivalry in the NFL and probably a better rivalry in pro sports in general. I mean we are talking about Michigan-Ohio State as far as all of the history, games and championships won between these two great franchises.

Monday, September 8, 2014

NBC: Video: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Da Coach Mike Ditka From January, 1987

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Here’s a great comedy duo for you. Da Coach perhaps better known as Mike Ditka the former head coach of the Chicago Bears in the 1980s and early 90s. And of course The King of late-night Johnny Carson. In January of 1987 and I only know that because they were talking about the upcoming the Super Bowl 21 between the New York Giants and Chicago Bears. The Bears sort of had a disappointing season in 1986 which is why they weren’t back in the Super Bowl that season.

Johnny Carson seem more interested in at the time Bears quarterback Jim McMahon than anything else. And of course Coach Ditka’s famous temper as a head coach. And not talking about the Bears 86 season where they didn’t even get back to the NFC Final that year and instead lost the divisional playoff to the Redskins. I think Ditka pretty much nailed it when he said that “it is not that Jim McMahon doesn’t like him personally, but that Ditka is the coach and McMahon doesn’t like authority figures at all”. And Ditka was McMahon’s head coach that McMahon was directed by.
Da Coach

Friday, September 5, 2014

HBO: Real Time With Bill Maher-Penn Jillette Explains His Libertarian Philosophy

Source: Real Time With Bill Maher- Penn Jillette-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal

If you listen to the Republican Party in recent years, like the Tea Party movement, you might think they are the individual freedom, limited government, anti-government political party. "Let free people live their own lives and be free, we shouldn't spend more than we take in. And should only spend more than we need to". Unless you focus on social issues like marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, practice a non-Christian religion or no religion at all, sleep with or pay a prostitute, sell yourself for sex, gamble your own money have an adulterous affair, because you aint getting enough at home, check out pornography etc.

And if you have a pretty good understanding of American politics you might think, actually they sound more like an authoritarian big government party to me. What happened to the limited government individual freedom of choice party. If you listen to the Democratic Party at least the activists in the party except for the Progressive Caucus and their allies you might think they are the individual freedom, limited government party. "Let free people live freely and live their own lives". If you hear their positions on gay marriage, immigration reform, civil rights, anti-war, drug reform, decriminalization of Marijuana.

All issues I tend to agree with the Left and Right on as a Liberal Democrat. Until you get to the Progressive Caucus and their positions on economic policy with all the tax cuts they want to repeal and new taxes they want to pass to double the size of the Federal Government. Take away our freedom of choice in health insurance if not health care all together, as well as all of the high taxes they would impose.

If the Progressive Caucus/Progressive Party bringing their version of what progressivism is building a Great Society through government and high taxes people "don't worry about living your own lives and making it on your own. We'll do that for you by taking your money away and giving you back what we feel you deserve" ever got into power and you may say to yourself, again if you follow American politics. "Wait a minute these Progressives aren't big believers in individual freedom, limited government, freedom of choice either".

At least not on economic policy, I don't like big government socialism either. And if you're a Liberal such as myself or a Libertarian, you take the positions that you get to keep most of the money you earn. Smoke a joint, be in love and marry someone of the same sex. Defend yourself, watch a porno flick, pay someone to have sex, sell yourself for sex. Without your big Uncle Sammy getting on you about it and grounding you and locking you in a room until you learn your lesson.

If you're a believer in individual freedom and freedom of choice, great we have a big club, but we are always looking for new members. Membership is free and you won't have to pay taxes on it, as long as the Progressive Caucus is not in power and you won't have Uncle Sammy breathing down your neck because he thinks you might be a terrorist because you support Individual Freedom, as long as long as Neoconservatives aren't in power either.

Uncle Sammy has already been banned from our club anyway, we just have one rule though and you have to pass a test first. You have to know what limited government and individual freedom are before you can join the club.
HBO: Real Tim With Bill Maher- Penn Jillette Explains His Libertarian Philosophy

Thursday, September 4, 2014

Reason: Video: Nick Gillespie: The 2000s, Worst Decade Ever

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNowPlus on Blogger, January, 2012

I'm going to try to get through this blog without sounding like a partisan hack which will be difficult. Because if you're on the Right and ideologically disagree with me, you're probably going to disagree with this blog. Call it a hunch, but think about these facts for a minute, I know thinking for a whole minute thats like 60 seconds how do you get through that sober, but think about these things for OK 60 seconds and then take a deep breath.

When we close out the 1990s (and yes you're correct if your thinking 20th Century) America was at peace, we had a booming economy of something like 5% economic growth and a 4.5% unemployment rate, record low poverty level in the United States of around 13%, we just balanced three straight Federal budgets. The first balanced budget since 1969 and we haven't balanced one since. Our Federal Government only spent around 18-19% of GDP, instead of 25% like today. (A number I would like to get back to in a future blog)

The stock market hit 10K for the first time in American history I believe in 1998 and as powerful as Monica Lewinski was, she wasn't able to stop any of that success. We got through a Gulf War, the Balkan Wars, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by an Anglo-Saxon Christian man, not by a Middle Eastern terrorist that was stereotyped. The 1995 Federal Government shutdown, deficit reduction, two East African embassy bombings and America remained the Land of the Free, unless you were gay or smoked or sold pot.

Now lets move ahead to a completely new century and decade which sounds like forever right, actually move ahead from December 31, 1999 to January 01, 2000. You can literally get their in a second where we have a presidential candidate whose famous thanks only to his father in George W. Bush and the other presidential candidate who on paper looks like has the qualifications to be President of the United States. But can't beat the guy who had to cheat off the person who could barely speak english to graduate high school. (Paper doesn't win elections candidates and incumbents do)

Better known as Bush V. Gore or Gore V. Bush you get the idea and we were treated to new phrases like hanging chads, dimple chads, over-votes, under-votes, not knowing who the next President was going to be a month after the election. A 50-50 Senate in 2001 basically favoring Senate Democrats, a divided Congress with a Democratic Senate and a Republican House from 2001-03. Two unpaid for tax cuts, two Middle Eastern wars where we've borrowed all the money to pay for them now 2T$ and counting, a 500B$ Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit again all borrowed money.

Kerry-Bush in 2004 where again a schmuck for a President who locks himself out of his own Oval Office who declares Mission Accomplished and Victory in Iraq, just one problem there. President Bush was 8 1/2 years early, ah damn I forgot about 9/11, the Republican Party losing Congress in 2006. Thanks to the Afghan and Iraqi Wars all this happening in ten years and there's more. I disagree that the 2000s are the worst decade of all time or either in my lifetime, I believe the 1970s was worst even though I was only alive for four years of it. And actually only remember 1978-79 parts of it because I started nursery school then.

But the 2000s if I wasn't a political, current affairs and history junky I wouldn't want to relive or go through another decade like that because we've paid a heavy price for it and have had some of our individual liberty taken away from us. With things like the Patriot Act and is a decade that we'll be paying for at least another decade if not two decades with all of the money we've run up on the national debt card.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

CBS News: Video: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama: No Difference: Not Exactly

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNowPlus on Blogger, April, 2012

Trying to tell the difference between "RomneyCare" and "ObamaCare" is like trying to tell the difference between a couple of lemons. You have to feel each of them, look closely, get into the details. But on paper they are essentially the same plans. Expanding private health insurance through tax credits, patient protections and requiring that all Americans pay for their share of their health care.

But other than health care reform, telling the difference between Mitt Romney, depending on which Mitt he decides to be based on what day it is, how the wind is blowing, how the weather is, which clone he decides to be that day, it can be very difficult without x-ray vision. They are very different on Iraq and Afghanistan and Iraq. Mitt believes we should stay there, Barack believes we should get the hell out.

Mitt and Barack are different on deficit reduction. Mitt apparently believes that we can cut the debt and deficit, raising taxes on the poor and focusing on around 15% of the Federal budget. Or 555B$, he doesn't want to eliminate all of that by the way. Thats the non-defense and entitlement parts of the Federal budget. President Obama believes everything should be on the table, except raising taxes on the poor.

They are different on growing the economy. Mitt believes in more tax cuts and subsidies for corporate America and rich people. I don't have a problem with the tax cuts, if it comes with eliminating tax loopholes. Which Mitt views as tax hikes, apparently Mitt believes that if you eliminated all taxes on the wealthy and corporate America. And then eliminate all of the tax loopholes as well, Mitt would call that tax hikes, because you would be giving them less money. (Talk about fuzzy math)

 I believe thats what would come under George W. Bush's definition of "Fuzzy Math". The President believes the way to grow the economy is to rebuild the country, its public infrastructure, infrastructure investment. Developing a national energy policy that would expand and create new energy industries in America. Putting millions of Americans back to work, as well as incentivizing people to spend money in the country. Including tax cuts for the middle class that need tax relief. Here a few areas where Mitt and Barack unfortunately are similar and why I'm disappointed with President Obama as a Liberal Democrat and it relates to social issues and civil liberties.

Mitt and Barack both support the Patriot Act, indefinite detention and the War on Drugs. You expect Republicans today to take these Big Government positions. If Mitt Romney was truly a Liberal as critics in the GOP call him and if he's a Liberal, the majority of people living in the Bible Belt are Muslims. If this was the case, then Mitt Romney would be against these things. If Barack Obama was a real Liberal and not a Moderate Liberal he would be against these things as well. And this is where the President has been disappointing and why Liberal Democrats are taking a look at Gary Johnson the Libertarian Party nominee for president.

There's plenty of differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama that Ray Charles could see. I just wish there were a hell of a lot more. So to call them twins or clones, is inaccurate. Mitt Romney already has a clone but his name is Mitt Romney as well. And thats the only twin or clone that he needs.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

FORA-TV: P.J. O'Rourke- Conservatives and Fiscal Responsibility

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal

What is fiscal responsibility, well to me that means spending what you have and can afford and nothing else. You don't have to be a Conservative to believe in that, just have common sense. Just like you don't have to be an American to like apple pie, but if you are an American you probably have more access to apple pie than lets say if you're a Chinese living in, I don't know lets say China just to use as an example. But you would think Conservatives would believe in fiscal responsibility, because how often they preach about responsibility. But of course New Gingrich has preached about family values in the past, haven't heard one of his sermons lately, no idea why. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact he had an affair with one of his staffers when he was Speaker of the House.

Well the right-wing will say that President Bill Clinton had an affair with a White House intern. But Bill Clinton doesn't preach about family values, kinda the way Fidel Castro doesn't preach about the need for democracy in Russia. His consistency would be severely lacking there for obvious reasons which gets me to the point about the current Republican Party, the Party of Reagan. Low taxes, economic liberty, individual responsibility, they use to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Until they woke up and realized they had a Republican President and Congress back in 2003.

Then the Republican Party decided who needs fiscal responsibility, Congress has the authority to borrow at will. "If its legal, then it must be the right thing to do". Kinda like someone using the logic "everyone else is doing it, (fill in the blank) it must be all right". Well if all these people (not everyone literally, I hope) stuck knives up their noses until they were massively bleeding, would you do that to. Sometimes you have to use your own judgement and not play follow the leader like a six-year old.

By the way the Republican Party woke up again in 2009 and noticed that there was a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress with a 10T$ federal debt and a 1T$ deficit and decided, "oh boy (or something to that effect well they are republicans, perhaps they did say oh boy) now we'll be the party of fiscal responsibility and blame Democrats for the problems we created! Thats our ticket back to power"! Or at least some power and it worked. The GOP won back the House of Representatives in 2010. In case you've been in a coma for a year, or vacationing in a cave in Afghanistan, if you were doing those things, I hope you have some pictures or brought back some kabob. Or even survived the experience, I heard there's a war going on over there or something.

I'm not saying the Democratic Party is innocent here, even though I'm a Democrat we have what's called the Progressive Caucus made up of a bunch of 21st Century Socialists and want to move America to Sweden. Well actually design our Federal Government around the Swedish Government and double the size of our Federal Government. And if you think you pay too much in taxes right now, move to Sweden because your taxes would be lower there if the Progressive Caucus/Party ever came to power in America.

What was great about America back in the day lets says 1980s and 90s, is you had a real Conservative Republican Party in the classical sense and a real Liberal Democratic Party again in the classical sense. And of course you had your whack jobs, that would escape from the mental institution or get released by a drunk doctor and run and get elected to Congress. But those people weren't in charge, the adults in both parties were. Today the whack jobs in both parties have enough power, that if you don't do exactly what they want.You may lose your job and face a primary challenge which is why almost nothing gets done anymore because the adults in both parties don't have enough power to do what they want to do. And are afraid to work with the other side and if you're a believer in limited government like myself thats not always a bad thing. The least the Federal Government does, the more power the people have.