ESPN: Bill Buckner Behind the Bag

Posted on November 8, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The Daily Post

The 1986 MLB World Series is one of the greatest World Series of all-time. Not because of the Bill Buckner error at first base in Game 6. But because it was a matchup of two great teams, the two best teams in baseball in 1986. Who played about as well as they possibly could. This was a World Series with 3-4 great games, where both teams had opportunities to win each of these games, with a few blowouts mixed in.

You could make a very good case that the Boston Red Sox should’ve won both Games 6 and 7, they had leads late in both games and didn’t finish the job. Yes first baseman Bill Buckner made a big error late in that game. But what you gotta remember about that error is the ground ball going through his legs that led to Ray Knight scoring the winning run, was that the game was tied at that point. It’s not like Buckner blew the lead for the Red Sox in that game.

The Red Sox had a two run lead going into the bottom of the 10th Inning. Its the bullpen that blew the two run lead in that inning. And they gave up all the hits and runs, after already having two outs in that inning. Including the tying run coming off of a wild pitch from reliever Bob Stanley. This is something that Red Sox fans even though they watched this game, have just recently figured out.

I’m not making excuses for Bill Buckner, who was an accomplished first baseman. Who was more than capable of making that ground ball even with the bad feet he managed to put himself in position to make that play. He got to the ball and got his glove down in time. But misplayed it, tried to pick it up before the ball got to his glove and as a result the ball went right through his legs.

I’m just saying that to put all the blame on Buckner for the Red Sox losing the 1986 World Series, is unfair and borderline nasty by people who were so frustrated about losing a World Series that they should’ve won actually. They outplayed the Mets, especially in Game 6 and 7, as well as winning the first two games at Shea Stadium. Before you put the blame on Buckner, you should look at all of those runners that the Red Sox Offense left on base in that World Series.

Especially all the runners the Red Sox left in scoring position and the Red Sox Bullpen for blowing those leads. Even with the two bad feet that Bill Buckner was playing on, including I believe a broken ankle and yet he was their full-time first baseman. Even with the broken foot the Red Sox don’t beat the Anaheim Angels in the American League Championship, a team that might of been better than the Red Sox on paper without Buckner.

The Angeles were up 3-1 in that series over the Red Sox and the Red Sox don’t get to that World Series either, they wouldn’t of been good enough to without Bill Buckner. So what the Buckner Family has been put through as a result, has been really unfair and there are Red Sox fans who should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted in MLB Classic, The Daily Post | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Movie Clips: (1958) Starring Jimmy Stewart & Kim Novak

Posted on November 8, 2014 by Erik Schneider

.
Source:The New Democrat 

I wouldn’t say that Vertigo is a great movie, especially not a great Alfred Hitchcock film. There are at least three others and probably more Hitchcock movies that are better. North by Northwest my favorite, Rear Window and To Catch a Thief and I’m sure others are definitely better than Vertigo. Vertigo is not Kim Novak’s best movie either. But Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart made Vertigo a very good and entertaining movie almost by themselves by how they worked together and the chemistry they had.

Vertigo does have a very good plot. Jimmy Stewart plays a former San Francisco police detective who is now in semi-retirement. His old buddy from I believe college gets a hold of him with a job for him, but now as a private detective. His old friend who hasn’t seen a long time is a very wealthy San Francisco businessman who has a gorgeous baby-face goddess of a wife in Kim Novak. He wants Stewart to believe that his wife is going crazy and wants her to tail her to see what she does during the day.

What Stewart’s character isn’t aware of is that this couple is using him and is in on a murder plot. They want Scottie played by Stewart to think that Madeline played by Kim Novak is dead. When the fact is she is alive and well and comes back in the movie playing another character that just happens to meet Scottie. And Scottie is blown away by her because of the incredible resemblance and falls in lover with the same women again. A very interesting and good movie, but certainly not the best Hitchcock movie.

Posted in Classic Hitch, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Politico: Dylan Byers: Chuck Todd: ‘Senate Democrats May Overthrow Harry Reid’

Posted on November 6, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

First of all, I hope that Senate Democrats will overthrow Harry Reid as their leader which will be the Senate Minority Leader in the next Congress and I’ll explain why. If there are two faces that are the faces of Congressional gridlock in this Congress and previous Congress’s going back at least since 2009, it is current Senate Leader Harry Reid and current Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Leader Reid because he won’t allow amendments to major legislation in the Senate, especially from Senate Republicans, but even from Senate Democrats. And Minority Leader Mitch McConnell because of all the legislation that Senate Republicans have blocked under his leadership because of the sixty-vote rule.

Senate Republicans won huge on Tuesday. So you could argue that the McConnell tactics have worked and that Mitch should be rewarded for that with the promotion to Leader of the Senate. Senate Democrats lost big Tuesday night and even lost their majority. Not all Leader Reid’s fault, but the fact that so many Senate Democrats who lost were tied to President Obama an unpopular President and the fact they couldn’t offer and vote on amendments in the Senate to separate them from the President, contributed to their losses’ on Tuesday. Whether that is fair or not, the fact is it worked.

But here’s another reason and why Leader Reid should step down as Democratic Leader or be defeated for reelection in the Senate Democratic Caucus. Leader Reid is up for reelection just as Senator in 2016. He is not popular in his own state, running for reelection in a swing state like Nevada. Even though it will be a presidential election with a lot more Democrats voting in 2016 than in 2014, he would be better off concentrating in his own reelection as a seventy-six year old in 2016. And lining up as much resources for himself. Instead of trying both to win reelection as a U.S. Senator and electing as many Democrats as possible in 2016 to win back the majority.

Senate Democrats would be much better off in the next Congress with a new leader who won’t be up for a tough reelection or reelection at all. That will give Senate Democrats a fresh face as they try to take on Senate Republicans and whatever partisan agenda they may try to pass in the Senate. As well as work with Leader Mitch McConnell and President Obama where they can and must in order to keep the government running smoothly. And to do things for the economy like infrastructure, energy, immigration and tax reform.

I give you Dick Durbin the current Assistant Majority Leader and Chuck Schumer the Chief Political Strategist for the Senate Democrats as great alternatives. They both know how to legislate, things they prefer to do than obstruct even if that means working with Republicans. And they both know how to debate and use the media and the Senate rules very well to kill bad legislation when a bipartisan compromise can’t be reached. They were both great at these things during the Bush Administration when Congressional Republicans and President Bush tried to pass bad legislation. And would be very effective as the top two Democratic leaders in the next Congress.
.

Posted in Congress, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The National Memo: Froma Harrop: Progressives Don’t Need Washington All That Much

Posted on November 6, 2014 by Derik Schneider

The New Democrat

The National Memo: Opinion: Froma Harrop: Progressives Don’t Need Washington All That Much

There’s a tiny little state in New England right next door of New Hampshire which is happens to be the Libertarian Republic of New Hampshire and just south of Maine called Vermont. Or as I and a lot of others like to call the Socialist Republic of Vermont. Of course if you are an American you already know that unless you live somewhere thousands of miles from Vermont with no access to any media. But I say this because Vermonters do what so-called Progressives in Washington especially in Congress and so-called progressive activists say they want to do, but never actually get done, but do it differently.

What I’m getting to is that Vermont is nicknamed the Socialist Republic of Vermont because they have the highest percentage of Socialists or socialist supporters in America at least outside of the San Francisco area. And they have been able to establish the polices and programs in their tiny little state of seven-hundred-thousand people or so, that today’s so-called Progressives inside of Washington and their supporters have been talking about doing for decades. But haven’t had any real success at it at least since the Great Society in the 1960s.

Vermont has single payer health insurance and affordable health care for everyone. They have a pension system that is for everyone. And they have a boatload of other taxpayer-funded state-run social services for their residents for everyone. And haven’t asked Congress or the Administration for the funding for them or permission to run federal services in their state. Because they already have them at home. Vermont is the perfect example of why Progressives and Social Democrats should embrace federalism. Because they’ve shown they can enact progressive policies in their state without Washington.

Now today’s so-called Progressives who in many cases are really Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists, would be the last people you would expect to be Federalists. If there’s anyone who believes in big centralized government, it would Progressives and Social Democrats. The inventors of the New Deal and Great Society. But people with the same ideological perspectives as they relate to both economic and social policy in Vermont has shown how federalism can be used in a progressive way and make it work for everyone in their state.

The lesson for today’s Progressives and Social Democrats when it comes to the 2014 midterm elections, is that they don’t need Washington to enact their progressive and socialist policies. Minimum wage increases and marijuana reform happened at the state level on Tuesday. Not at the federal level and states like Vermont, Massachusetts and California have proven that Progressives know how to govern in their states and give people the public services that they want. And that they know how to pay for them and run them.
.

Posted in Progressive, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviews Arvin Vohra: Are Libertarians Spoiling the Midterm Elections?:

Posted on November 6, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

At some point Libertarians if they want to be a real political movement in America that can compete and win elections and come to power, get elected to state legislatures and governorships and win a big number of seats in Congress both in the House and Senate, they need to figure out what they are and what that want to be. And what is the best avenue to accomplish their policy goals. The Paul’s Ron and is son Rand have already figured out and have decided the Republican Party is their best course to accomplish what they want to do.

The libertarian movement needs to figure out are they anti-big government, but pro-small government, meaning we would have a government, but that it is much smaller than it is today? Or are they anti-government period to the point they sound like Anarchists or are even Anarchists who don’t want any government at all? If the first one is true, than I think they have a great future in American politics, especially after they decide what is the best political party to voice those policies. If they are Anarchists, they really don’t need to run for office at all. Because they don’t believe in government at all.

The future for both the Republican Party and the libertarian movement are Libertarian Republicans inside of the Republican Party. Conservative Libertarians inside of the Republican Party who’ll just say no to big government. As it relates to a big government welfare state and a big government nanny state as it relates to social issues. Who would be Federalists inside of the GOP as it relates to both economic and social policy.

Scrap the Libertarian Party and move all of those resources inside of the GOP with their two-million or so members and create the Libertarian Wing of the Republican Party. Republicans who believe in good responsible decentralized small government. With that power from Washington going to the states and localities and more importantly the people to manage their own economic and personal affairs. And you would see members of Congress like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake and Ron Johnson from the Senate and Justin Amash, Walter Jones and others from the House join this caucus inside of the GOP.

The Republican Party is simply goes to have to be able to compete with young American minority voters especially Latinos to win and be competitive in the future. Despite the results of the 2014 election cycle that was older and more majority in race than it was just two-years ago. Conservative libertarianism is how they do that and that is how they counter liberalism on the Left with these voters. And tell them “we don’t want to run your lives or tell you what to do and we are not anti-government. We just want big government out of people’s lives.
.

Posted in Reason, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Front Page: David Horowitz: Salon’s Infantile Leftism

Posted on November 6, 2014 by Rik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

To just to speak to David Horwitz’s critique of Salon and Joan Walsh. He did what he accuses them of doing, which I’ll get into later. Using hyperbolic rhetoric to critique President Obama and Democrats. Saying they are destroying the economy, anti-military and you can go down the line and read his article yourself. Which is how he counters Joan Walsh who said that Republicans are destroying America and the middle class and only appeal to the rich and Caucasian men and so-forth. And you wonder why Americans hate politics with hyper partisans on both sides using hyperbolic rhetoric against each other.

But here’s where I think I agree with David Horowitz and Dennis Prager of all people. They have used the terms leftists and leftism to talk about people on the Left they either don’t like or disagree with. And replaced the terms liberal and liberalism. They’ve both argued that liberal and liberalism are beautiful words, but the problem with the Left are the people who are illiberal and are much further Left than Liberals. And believe in an ideology much further left than liberalism. They use the word leftism to describe this philosophy and leftists are people they say follow that philosophy.

I use the term social democrat to describe someone who is to the Left of lets say a real FDR/LBJ Progressive. Lyndon Johnson was to the Left of Jack Kennedy of all people, especially on economic policy and to the left of Franklin Roosevelt on social issues. FBR/LBJ New Deal/Great Society Democrats are the real Progressives in America, classical Progressives if you are more comfortable with that. People who believe in activist government yes, but that government shouldn’t be so big that it discourages people from working and being independent. FDR and LBJ were big believers in private enterprise and economic independence.

Now the Joan Walsh’s Salon’s Occupy Wall Street’s of the world, much further left of LBJ Progressives. They essentially believe that government needs to big enough to see that no one is left behind and that everyone is taken care of in society. Even if that means less freedom for the individual as long as the individual’s economic and social needs are met. They believe in this social democratic form of government that is fairly common in Europe. That when government is big enough to meet the needs of the people, fewer people will be left behind, because fewer people will have the freedom to make mistakes with their own money.

You know I hate the words liberal and liberalism to describe people who this far to the Left that they make Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson look like moderates. But I’m not happy with using the word progressive to describe people who are as far left as Salon and others either. Because real Progressives understand the need for limited government and fiscal accountability as well. Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson both ran surplus’ as President and they were both Progressive Democrats. Which is why I call people who let’s face in are far-left in America, Social Democrats. While Dennis Prager, David Horowitz and other smart people on the Right calls them leftists.
.

Posted in New Right, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Republic: Noam Scheiber: ‘What My Book Got Wrong About Obama, Summers, Geithner, Recovery’

Posted on November 6, 2014 by Erik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

It is rare at least in the last four years or so that I agree with Noam Scheiber on anything. And four years is most of the time that I’ve been blogging. You see more bipartisan cooperation and bills passed in Congress than you see agree with Noam on anything. He is more of a “government can solve every problem on their own, or at least solve every problem, if the people just get out of the way and give government the money to solve their problems for them” Social Democrat. And I’m a New Democrat and believe in limited government and that there’s a limit to what government can do especially by itself.

But Noam is right on when he says that the 2009 stimulus or Economic Recovery and Investment Act was too small. It should’ve been around two-trillion dollars and not paid for. Treated as seriously as the Great Depression and invested all of that money in ending the recession by encouraging people to spend money with individual and business and tax relief. Job creating with a lot of infrastructure and fighting off further unemployment in the public sector with aid to state and local government’s so they wouldn’t have to lay off so many employees.

The ERIA or stimulus had some of that, but not nearly enough because it was about eighty-percent short of what it should’ve been. We were dropping seven-hundred thousand jobs of month in late 2008 and into 2009 when Barack Obama became President. And the economy was dropping seven-percent as well, so what they needed to address that immediately with a huge economic package even through borrowing to put the money back in the economy so the Great Recession wasn’t as bad and as long as it was. As far as how long it would take the country to get through it.

I agree with Noam to a certain extent about the Obama Administration pivoting too fast to debt and deficit reduction. But that is because the stimulus was too small and that since it wasn’t big enough, they should’ve at least attempted and put stimulus two on the table in early 2011. Telling the new Republican House “that I know you don’t think we should do this again with the debt and deficit being where it is, but this is what we need to do because of where the economy is overall. And as President I’m going to do the best that I can to see that it happens and see what we can do in the Democratic Senate”.

I disagree with Noam on the healthcare law. If it wasn’t passed when it was in early 2010, we are still doing with the problems of not passing that law today. People losing their health insurance because they need it, or have a pre-existing condition, or reached some lifetime cap. A lot more low-income workers without any health insurance because the Medicaid expansion is not there. And millions of Americans who simply can’t afford health insurance because their employer doesn’t provide it, or it is too expensive and they aren’t poor enough for Medicaid. With no health care plan on the table and ready to pass it to deal with these issues.

To somewhat defend President Obama here. A brand new fairly inexperienced President who has never run an administration before, whose whole career up to that point was in the private sector and as a legislature in Illinois and not quite four years as a U.S. Senator, coming into power with a boatload of issues he has to deal with immediately, that is the situation that he came into with his background. I could see why he felt the need to do something fast and make it clear to the country that he is on the job. But someone with more experience and perhaps a better team around him would’ve said. “You know what, let’s do this right before we do it fast”. And would’ve gone bigger early on to address the economy even it took Congress longer to pass a recovery bill.
.

Posted in The New Democrat, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

FOX News: President Barack Obama’s Post Mid-Terms Press Conference

Posted on November 5, 2014 by kireschneider

Source:The New Democrat 

I believe President Obama did what he needed to do in this conference. Which was to graduate incoming Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans for winning back the Senate for the first time since 2004. And House Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans for adding to their majority. As well to layout where he will be willing and believes he can work with Congressional Republicans in the next Congress that will have a Republican House and a Republican Senate.

I’m not one of these doom and gloom utopian the perfect and compromise is the enemy of the good Democrats. I live in the real world and know that President will have to work with Congressional Republicans as well as Congressional Democrats especially in the Senate if he wants to get anything that is substantial done in the next Congress. So I’m not expecting the President to cave on any of his or the Democratic Party’s key agenda items in the next Congress. He said he won’t do anything that weakens the Affordable Care Act and I believe him.

But here’s where I believe they can work together. The Keystone Pipeline will be one of the first big items that House Republicans will pass in the next Congress. Perhaps within the first month and that will pass with a bipartisan majority. And will be sent to the Republican Senate where it will have bipartisan support and I don’t expect Senate Democrats doing much to try to block the bill. As long as they are involved in it and are allowed votes on their amendments.

As far as infrastructure and other energy policies and issues like immigration and tax reform. If anything is done on those issues, it will have to come from Congress first and probably starting in the Senate. Where traditionally it is much easier to get bipartisan bills passed over there than the House. Trade agreements I believe will be big in the next Congress and where President Obama will have bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.

Whatever happens in the next Congress will probably happen in the first seven months or so because the August recess. As far as major legislation and after that Congress will be back in town, except presidential candidates in Congress. And then Washington politics will switch to presidential politics and the major presidential candidates will drive what happens or doesn’t happen in Washington. So how productive the next Congress will be will depend on House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and what they want to get passed out of Congress and signed by President Obama.

Posted in Barack Obama Presidency, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In These Times: Noam Chomsky: The Long, Shameful History of American Terrorism

Posted on November 5, 2014 by Derik Schneider

The New Democrat

In These Times: Opinion: Noam Chomsky: The Long Shameful History of American Terrorism

I beg to differ with Noam Chomsky that America is the world leader in American terrorism. I would first look at Iran and perhaps even Russia now with Vladimir Putin. America has made some serious mistakes in who we’ve decided to back and that goes back at least as far as the Vietnam War. My main problem with American intervention in third world authoritarian states are the government’s and regimes that we’ve backed. Especially dictators like Saddam Hussein in Iraq in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, The Shah of Iran from the 1940s until he was ousted from power in 1979.

The theory behind the backing of authoritarian regimes at least going back to the Eisenhower Administration in the 1950s has been that if we don’t back these government’s, they’ll be replaced by people who are worst. That will be worst for the people there and our interests in those countries. The crater size hole in that argument is that the people on the ground tend to hate their government’s. Because of how authoritarian that they are and the lack of rights that they have. And they see what America is doing by backing the regime there and take that out on the government and America.

I don’t have a problem with backing developing countries and the people there. The questions are who do you back, to what point do you back them and what is the money being used for. Are you backing freedom fighters, or people who would replace the regime in power with another authoritarian state. Are you backing freedom fighters and people would serve their people and govern responsibility? Or are you backing terrorists that may be even worst for the country than the current regime.

America unfortunately has a history of backing the wrong people as I’ve already pointed out. And we’ve paid a heavy price for that going back to at least 1978-79 when the Shah of Iran was kicked out of power and replaced by a far-right theocratic Islamic regime that has sponsored terrorism against the United States for the last thirty-five years. Again it is not whether you should back developing countries and people looking to overthrow dictators. But who you back and how you back them that America needs to better at. That I’ll explain in more detail in a future blog.
.

Posted in New Left, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

TruthOut: Victoria Law: Public Prisons, Private Profits

Posted on November 5, 2014 by Ederik Schneider

Source:The New Democrat 

If there is just one thing that shouldn’t be under for-profit companies, it would be prisons and other corrections facilities like jails. Let me amend that, the military, law enforcement and corrections. The idea that people can make money off of someone’s incarceration, is disgusting to me. I don’t think I would want to be eating and thinking about that at the same time. I don’t care how efficient private prisons are. We are still talking about human lives here in inmates who deserve to be treated as such while they are doing their time.

Private prisons are very profitable business’s that make billions off of the backs of taxpayers and a lot of struggling taxpayers like in Arizona. And one way they do that is by putting their inmates to work and paying them practically nothing. As public prisons are fighting state legislatures for money they need in order to just stay afloat and have the resources that they need to run their overcrowded facilities. They put these inmates to work and barely pay them. Instead of hiring outside work to do the work that is necessary to smoothly operate the prisons. And collect the profits as a result.

Prisons are overcrowded and obviously expensive especially when economic times are tough and budgets are tight. Bt whatever money that might be saved in the short-term from private prisons, comes off the back of inmates in those facilities that do the work to keep those prisons in business. Which is exactly what they are and come off of the bad backs of struggling taxpayers who struggle just to pay their bill everyday. And into the wallets of these corporations.
.

Posted in Crime & Punishment, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment