To be blunt about this, it is about damn time that former Redskins offensive tackle Joe Jacoby went into the Hall of Fame. He should’ve went in with former Redskins offensive guard Russ Grimm together back in 2010. But both of them should’ve been in the Hall of Fame ten-years ago if not sooner. Joe Jacoby was one of the top three offensive tackles of the 1980s and his era. And Bengals offensive tackle Tony Munoz and Vikings/Broncos OT Gary Zimmerman are both already in the Hall of Fame.
And Big Jac as he was called is right there with them as the top OT’s of this era. Jacoby was both a dominant run blocker and pass blocker and a Pro Bowler who was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and four NFC Conference champions. Who without he and Russ Grimm and I would add OT Jim Lachey to this, the Redskins offense wouldn’t of been as dominant as it was. Being able to control the ball on the ground and giving three Super Bowl champion quarterbacks the time They needed to throw the ball down the field to those great Redskins receivers.
Source: Roger Sharp Archive– ABC News anchor Roger Sharp, anchoring part of ABC News’s coverage of the JFK Assassination in 1963.
“Following the deaths of President John F. Kennedy and his assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, ABC Correspondent Roger Sharp anchors from the WFAA-TV Dallas studios as correspondent Bill Lord interviews lawyers representing Jack Ruby, Oswald’s killer. Excerpts are also shown of a press conference by Nellie Connally, the wife of Texas Governor John Connally, himself injured in the attack on the president. (November 24, 1963)”
The Jack Ruby case had to been fascinating and one of those cases that I bet just about any hard-working good defense lawyer would want to take. Because it was not clear if Ruby was guilty of actual murder, at least not first degree murder and for at least a couple of reasons.
One, Ruby didn’t kill and innocent person, he killed Lee Harvey Oswald, but he killed the man who assassinated President John F. Kennedy.
It is clear now and perhaps even when Ruby Killed Oswald, that Oswald at the very least had something to do with the JFK assassination. Not saying Ruby is innocent here, just saying it is not first degree murder. And I believe you could’ve easily of gotten it down to second degree murder, twenty-five to life. Or first degree manslaughter is twenty-years, twenty to life. And you could’ve made a pretty good case for temporary insanity on Jack Ruby’s part.
There were columns and blog posts written about a month ago talking about why there hasn’t been a liberal version of the Tea Party movement. Which is something I believe Liberal Democrats need if we ever want to move the country in a strong liberal democratic direction with the people behind us. So we have not only the troops behind us to get our agenda passed, but also the political support to stay in power once we get our agenda passed. And in 2009-10 we came pretty close when it came to the economy.
Health care reform obviously and financial reform, but didn’t have the political support to stay in power after we got these policies passed through Congress and signed by a Democratic President into law. Because the Tea Party in the Republican Party came to power and cost House Democrats not only their majority, but sixty-two seats and turned a large majority in the Senate, 59-41 to a tight majority of 53-47 going into the next Congress. So Democrats have come close and in recent years to moving the country in a clear liberal democratic direction, but came up short thanks to the 2010 Congressional midterms.
The future of the Democratic Party looks good if the aftermath of the Healthcare.Gov start up doesn’t ruin it of moving the country in that liberal democratic direction where personal and economic freedom will be available to everyone, where everyone in the country will have the ability to reach their full-potential in life. And not be judged by their race, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexuality and not be denied the ability to succeed in life because they come from low-income families.
Where everyone will have the ability to get the skills that they need to live do well in life and where even low-skilled adults will have those opportunities as well. And I say this because the country is moving in a liberal as well as libertarian direction. More liberal than libertarian, but these are probably the two fastest growing political factions in the country. This doesn’t mean we are moving to an era where big government will become popular and where Americans will want an even bigger government, which is different.
Americans and the younger generations are part of this and aren’t interested in big government. Or small government, or looking for a bigger government or a smaller government. But a government that is a good government that is efficient and spends the tax dollars that it needs and spend those dollars wisely. Which is a good opportunity for Liberal Democrats to say, “we aren’t tax and spenders either. And we aren’t looking to gut the programs that people need as well.”
Liberals should say they want to create a society where everyone is treated fairly and where everyone can live their own lives and not be denied things simply because people do not like people like them, because of who they are and are bigots. And a country where everyone can succeed economically as well and these are the voters that Democrats should be speaking to. Because they can say, “we aren’t looking for the Federal Government to takeover everything, but instead empower people who need it to be able to takeover their own lives instead.”
The money is in the Democratic Party and on the liberal Left to build this movement. Barack Obama proved this in 2008 and someone like Hillary Clinton who’ll be looking to take the safest positions possible she can when she starts running for president in 2015 and go straight for Independents, is probably not the right person to build this movement. But someone with serious liberal credentials who’ll have the message that, “we don’t want government to try to do everything, but see to it that everyone can succeed on their own instead.” And that Democrat hasn’t emerged yet for president.
If you believe in freedom of choice and even individual freedom and liberty, as well as marriage, and that people who are in love with each other should be get married, then you shouldn’t have a problem with same-sex-marriage, if you’re also a constitutionalist. Because marriage whether it’s straight or gay is about uniting a partnership between two people that are in-love with each other.
If your politics if defined by your religious and cultural views and not by the U.S. Constitution and your religion and politics are fundamentalist, then of course same-sex-marriage is going to be a problem for you. Hell, if you’re a religious fundamentalist, you probably don’t believe that gays should be allowed to freely walk the streets, let alone be in-love with each other or get married.
I look at same-sex-marriage and homosexuality the way I look at all freedom of choice issues: does someone’s else personal choice affect me in a negative way or not. If the answer is no, then what do I care if gays want to get married or do anything else with each other, just as long as they’re not hurting any innocent person with what they’re doing.
The Andrew Sullivan-Dennis Prager debate about same-sex-marriage and perhaps homosexuality in general, is about the Constitution, freedom of choice, and individual liberty, versus religious fundamentalism and perhaps nationalism and the idea that these fundamentalist values are so powerful, that everyone else should be forced to live under them, even if they disagree with them.
Again it depends on what you mean as a Liberal and I’m getting tired of writing that, just as I hope you are tired of reading that. But it is important because if your idea of liberalism is so-called free stuff from government, that isn’t my brand of Liberalism and isn’t liberalism. Or government’s main role is to take care of people, is your idea of liberalism, than again you aren’t a Liberal. But my brand of liberalism and this blog’s brand of liberalism the real brand of liberalism.
Liberalism is about empowering people who need it to live in freedom, while at the same time defending freedom for everyone else. This would be the score that I would use to judge President Barack Obama in how he stacks up when it comes to Liberalism. And I have a mixed bag for him even though he still has another three years to go in his presidency. Where I give President Obama high marks when it comes to liberalism is his overall grade on what he believes government can do to help people in need and defend freedom for everyone else.
And President Obama’s overall vision for government especially as it relates to the economy and despite how he’s been inaccurately stereotyped as some big government Socialist that has a new program, or new tax hike to solve all of our nation’s problem, he’s simply not that and his record is pretty clear. No new programs to expand the safety net in America, the New Deal or Great Society. As much as partisan right-wingers do not understand this or refuse to acknowledge it, the Affordable Care Act is not a government takeover of health care in America.
The ACA is simply regulating the private health insurance industry and subsidizing people who can’t afford health insurance on their own. And if you still do not believe that Barack Obama is not a big government Socialist, why don’t you ask Socialists or Social Democrats or today’s so-called Progressives about how they feel about President Obama. Where President Obama scores badly with me as a Liberal when it comes to liberalism, has to do with national security and civil liberties and things like privacy, the Patriot Act.
President Obama has given a Christmas sized gift to Neoconservatives as far as the Patriot Act and the weakening of privacy in America. And of course the failed War on Drugs that has been expanded in this country under him. The Healthcare.Gov roll out has been a failure, but that doesn’t have much to do with liberalism as it has to do with bad governing. Not doing their homework and being prepared for all the people who would be interested in going to the site to get health insurance.
I’ve blogged this before, but Barack Obama is not a hard-core Liberal and hasn’t been one at least since he left the U.S. Senate to become President of the United States. His record in Congress shows a fairly liberal record, but as President he’s moderated more to meet the challenges that his administration has faced and still faces. And at best he’s a Moderate Liberal and not that Liberal Democrat that I believe a lot of Democrats were hoping for to move this country back to liberalism. And the next phase of American liberalism following Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Poverty in America is the thing that we should be talking about right now for a couple reasons. One and the most important one I believe, 1/5 Americans live in poverty. We have the highest poverty rate in the developed world which is twice that of the poverty average. In the developed world and the fiftieth anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s so-called War on Poverty. Speech from his 1964 State of The Union Address is coming up in I believe January, January or February. So now is a very good time to see how we are doing well in this so-called War on Poverty.
A term I hate by the way but perhaps that should be a subject of another blog. Like terms not to be used in describing things or false terms. Simply because similar to the so-called War on Drugs, these aren’t real wars. Wars are combat involving generally militaries or private militia’s and involved weapons and people getting. Physically hurt and killed and in many cases innocent people being injured and killed.
What the Federal Government has in actuality is a campaign against poverty. Using federal resources and programs to help people in poverty, which is obviously different from a war. And now is the perfect time to see how this campaign has gone. Fifty years ago we had 1/5 to 1/4 Americans living in poverty. Today we have about that same number of Americans despite all the economic growth we’ve had in. This time and the obvious answer would be that this campaign was a failure, a complete failure.
I agree that a lot of it has failed simply because of how these programs were designed for the most part. Giving people in poverty money to help them pay their bills and so much public assistance. Like Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing to use as examples along with cash assistance which is. Welfare that these people do not technically qualify as living in poverty because of all the financial. Assistance they get even though it is not technically cash assistance.
The problem with the argument that if government or any other institution or even people. Are giving you money so you don’t have to live in poverty. Even though you might be able to make a technical argument that, that person does not live in poverty. Because they have what they need to survive and even live well, the fact that they are not independent. And rely on others to either pay their bills or help them pay their bills, because they aren’t able to do that. For themselves, they are still poor because they are not economically independent.
And if that assistance. For them were to be cutoff, they would be without the means in order to survive. So if you are going to have a War on Poverty or I prefer a campaign to eliminate or cut down poverty. Your programs have to be designed to actually move people out of poverty so they can take care of themselves. Which is the main lesson from the so-called War on Poverty and why it has had mixed results at best.
Either late next month or early next year this blog will have section full of posts about the War on Poverty. And how to have a real campaign and to fight and defeat poverty in America. That will be about yes temporary financial for people and families in need but going forward. It will mostly about education and job training to actually move people out of poverty because they’ll. Have the skills that they need to get a good job and actually pay their own bills.
The only thing that American troops in conjunction with NATO should be doing right now is helping to train and develop the Afghan military so Afghanistan can defend itself from domestic and foreign invaders including the Taliban and other terrorists groups. We’ve been there twelve years and have our own problems back at home economically and financially. That these wars being put on the national credit card have played a big role in. As well as security interests in other places that we need to address. And we can’t afford to occupy other countries indefinitely. So we should be and are working to develop the Afghan military and central government so they can govern themselves. As far as American troops accused of criminal acts, they should be tried in America, just as long as they are held accountable. And not given the message that they aren’t accountable under law.
This idea that what America needs to do is just tax the hell out of millionaires and billionaires and use that money to spend more on War on Poverty programs to help the poor, as if fifty-years later that has worked very well, because the ultra-right as Bill Humphrey likes to say, has so much money that they don’t know what to do with that money, but government can come in and spend that money better than the people, and if we just do that we can solve our economic problems, forgetting about the seventeen-trillion dollar national debt and six-hundred billion dollar budget deficit, simply doesn’t work.
But of course if you are a so-called Progressive of today, debt and deficits do not matter. But if that is the case, than why do we need to have such huge tax hikes to fix our economy. Why not just continue to borrow and spend to address our economic problems. I’ve already answered my own question, because debt and deficits do matter. Otherwise this proposal to raise taxes to pay for new government spending, because our beloved U.S. Government knows how to spend this money better than the people, I mean come on who are you trying to fool. Unless the real reason for this huge tax hike is because you just want government to have a lot more money to spend on behalf of the people.
I agree that if you include all the tax breaks, the wealthy in America are under taxed, especially compared with the middle class. But if that is the concern and not just raise new money for the government, you would be interested in tax reform that eliminates most of the tax breaks for the wealthy. And go to a Progressive Consumption Tax system or PCT Progressive Consumption Tax to replace the income tax. And everyone would be able to keep all the money they make except the money that they spend.
A PCT would benefit everyone including low-income people, because you could still keep the Earned Income Tax Credit and this system would be progressive. Lower taxes on basic necessities needed in life. Like food, health care, housing to use as examples. but higher taxes on luxury items. Luxury and sports cars, second homes, yachts, vacations to use as examples. We would tax people based on what they takeout of society including the wealthy. Instead of taxing people based on what they produce for society.
If the idea is to have a country with as many successful people as possible and with as few lets say low-income people as possible, knowing we’ll never have a country that is completely free of poverty, which is just an annoying fact, than you don’t tax people so high that is discourages them to be successful. And instead tax everyone based on what they take out of society. Especially the wealthy who spend a lot of money on things they do not need. And instead of just spending more money on social programs, design those programs so they empower people to be independent and live in freedom. So they do not need public assistance at all to pay their bills.
This idea that capitalism is better when it comes to producing things that people want, but socialism is better for things that people need to live well, in other words capitalism is better for producing luxury cars, cell phones, computers to use as examples, but a state-owned socialist system for producing things that people need to live well, take health care and health insurance to use as examples. Well you don’t see at least in America a lot of people calling for nationalizing the food industry.
Agriculture, grocery stores, restaurants, we all need food right. You don’t see a lot of people in America calling for nationalizing the energy industry, only the Far-Left wants to nationalize energy. And we all need and use energy to get around and keep our homes warm and cool. You don’t see a lot of people calling for nationalizing banking in this country, again only the Far-Left. We all use and need to use banks, because it is still the safest place to keep our money and we’ve all borrowed money before because we needed to that as well.
Where government comes in is to do the things that we need it to do that it is best qualified to do. And in some cases the only ones qualified to do. Like foreign policy, law enforcement, prisons, homeland security, central intelligence, regulating the markets and collecting the taxes to pay for the government that we need. Germany the largest country in Europe and the largest economy in Europe and fourth largest economy in the world is a perfect example of a country that has shown you don’t need government-run health care and health insurance to have an affordable and quality health care system.
Germany has private health insurance from cradle to grave. Their hospitals and clinics are private as well, but what they do well unlike America at least yet is properly regulate their private health care system. So their people aren’t abused by their health care providers. And every German is required to cover their own health care costs and not able to pass those costs on to others. Things that America has just started doing and their health costs are half that of the United States.
I’m tired of hearing these bogus arguments that the rest of the developed world has government-run health care which is why America should do the same thing. Or government is automatically better at delivering health care and health insurance than the private sector. Germany, France and Japan are perfect examples of countries that do not try to do everything for their people through government. Including health care and they all have better health care systems than the United States. At least when it comes to paying for their health care.
I guess when you are talking about big government, it depends on what type of big government you’re talking about. Because both sides of the ideological isles let’s say have different versions of what actually is big government. And in some cases both wings have different versions of what big government is among themselves. The Religious-Right and Libertarian Right on the right-wing, perfect example of that and of course the. Socialist Left and Liberal Left on the left-wing, but since this article is how government relates to the economy, I’ll start with that and then go from there.
If big government is so bad for the economy, first of all anyone who believes that should first give their own definition of big government. Because compared with the rest of the developed world the U.S. Government is pretty small. Perhaps only Switzerland and Canada have smaller federal governments than we do. But even if you go by American historical standards, the United States has had a safety net for now eighty years. Which is one-third of our history as a country, but if you compare where we were as an economy pre-1933 lets say, we are much better off now than we were eighty-years ago.
And that includes things like the income tax, the Federal Reserve and the payroll tax. Plus the business regulations of the Progressive Era, we are now the economic power of the world with the largest economy in the world. As well as the military power of the world and thanks to the Federal Highway System we now have one of the best infrastructure systems in the world as well that we didn’t have eighty years ago. And the Federal Government has played a big role in this economic development.
Do we really want to go back to a time when seniors had to live off their kids who had their own bills to pay because so many seniors in this country didn’t have a pension or a pension big enough to pay their bills? Or back to a time with slave-wages and unsafe working conditions, because this part of the small government legacy of America that a majority of Americans do not want to see again. Plus America is not some socialist state or republic and we do not expect government to do everything for us anyway as a country.
And again our Federal Government is roughly half that of the European Union and United Kingdom or Scandinavia. And we won’t become a country at least in the near-future that has some type of welfare state that tries to make most of the economic and personal decisions of the entire country. Which is what you see in Europe at least in some cases. Again as I stated before it depends on the meaning of big government. I’m not in favor of big government or small government, but a good government that is limited and does the things that we need done as a country that government happens to be most qualified to do whatever the level of government is.
And big government at least to me and a lot of other Americans is government trying to do too much with the people’s money that people can do for themselves. And are better off doing for themselves and in some cases our government is too big. And one of reasons for the waste and lack of accountability in it. But you are going to have a hard time finding a large percentage of Americans who want to go back to 1930, or bring the European Socialist welfare state to this country.
Football Stadium Digest covers major stories and events in the planning, construction and operations of NCAA and professional NFL football stadiums across the United States and Canada.
Source:
Derik Schneider
Ederik Schneider
Erik Schneider
FredSchneiderUS
kireschneider
The Daily Review
Rik Schneider
TheActionBlogUSA
The New Democrat
The New Democrat 
You must be logged in to post a comment.