House Republicans, clearly know what they are against when it comes to healthcare reform. But haven’t figured out what they are for. Which will be a big problem for them as they consider shutting down government over defunding the Affordable Care Act. Or run against it next year when they are questioned about what they would do instead. Where’s the so-called party of ideas when it comes to health care reform? Or maybe they love the old health care system with how expensive it was more than the current system. And are just saying, “ObamaCare is bad and lets just go back to the old system. Where people can lose their health insurance simply because they need it.” But people don’t sign up for health insurance, simply in order to pay insurance companies. That they actually expected to be able to take out what they paid into once they actually needed it. Which is what insurance is about. Putting money down, so you can have it and use it when you actually need it. Regardless for whatever it is that you’re insuring.
It’s good to hear a Republican and a Conservative, who worked for both President Richard Nixon, when the War on Drugs was declared and President Ronald Reagan, when the Drug War was escalated in the 1980s, like George Schultz. Listen to what Secretary Schultz says here. “We have forty years of experience and we know that the War on Drugs doesn’t work. That it’s a failure, that we have more people who use illegal narcotics than other developed countries and have higher rates of illegal drugs use than our competitors.” Now, George Schultz, was Secretary of Treasury for President Nixon and then Secretary of State for President Reagan. And even though he might be the best Secretary of State the United States has ever had, he’s not directly responsible for the War on Drugs.
But Schultz, was a very trusted member of both President Nixon’s and President Reagan’s cabinet and knew about the War on Drugs and saw reports about them. And is someone who is very interested in current affairs, especially as they relate to America. And has thought and researched a lot about issues other than economic and foreign policy. He knows about our high incarceration rate and how many of those people in prison are there for something relating t the War on Drugs. And that a lot of those people are there for simple usage, or possession. He knows what our narcotics issue was pre-War on Drugs and where we are forty years later.
So to hear someone with the depth of knowledge, intelligence and experience as a George Schultz, who was a cabinet officer in both Richard Nixon’s and Ronald Reagan’s administration’s, who also happens to be a Conservative Republican, say the War on Drugs has failed and he was part of two administration’s where the War on Drugs was pushed real hard, is very refreshing. And it is also very refreshing to hear someone of the background of a George Schultz, say we can do better. There are better ways and policies in how we deal with narcotics in America. That we shouldn’t be promoting narcotics usage, but at the same time we shouldn’t be holding people criminally responsible and sending them to prison as convicted felons, simply for using narcotics.
I have no idea what show this is and it does look like a show and not a movie. But base on the accents I have to say this is British TV and perhaps BBC. Which is a shame and not that it is perhaps BBC or perhaps other British TV, but that it is unknown and that the actress, the biker chick on this show and in this video is unknown. Because she plays a great looking biker chick head to toe in biker leathers. The black leather jacket, the black leather jeans all laced up. A very sexy biker chick leathered up in biker leathers with the jacket, jeans and boots. Would’ve been nice to see her on her bike and riding the bike. As well as getting off her bike in her leathers. But still a very sexy leather biker babe. And just one example why I lover biker women, because they wear and love leather jeans and biker women tend to be very healthy and sexy. And look great in leather jeans and boots.
It is true that liberalism is about the general welfare and caring about the welfare of others. And something I believe in as a Liberal. But it doesn’t take a Liberal, or a Saint to care about the welfare of others. Just a human being with a conscience. You shouldn’t have to be a Liberal to believe in those things. Just a good person who can see someone besides them self in the mirror, or in their dreams and lives. But liberalism is also about freedom of choice and economic and personal freedom. Rather than, “choice is dangerous that if you give people choice they tend to make the wrong decisions. So what we need is smart people in government making people’s choices for them.”
When you think of the words liberal and liberalism, think of liberty, liberalization, liberation, these are liberal words. People to the left of Liberals, like words like socialize, socialization, social, socialist, socialism even. These words, are well socialist. That is if you’re familiar with the English language. American, British, Canadian, whatever it might be. The Liberal, doesn’t tend to see people as stupid and big government as the savior. That big government going by the name Uncle Sam, will come and save the day by saving people from themselves. Stop them from not spending their money wisely and snatching it before they become successful and independent from big government. Or close someone’s mouth before they try to drink a soft drink, or eat a bag of potato chips, or say something that someone might see as offensive.
Liberalism, is not statist or anti-state, but pro-choice and not just on abortion, marijuana and homosexuality. But pro-choice generally speaking and about having an educated public with the freedom to make their own decisions. Rather than again having big government in the name of Uncle Sam, serving as the national parent for the country. Babysitter more like it, big enough to make sure people don’t make bad personal and economic mistakes with their own lives.
Liberals, are pro-choice, as it relates to both economic and personal issues. Not big government knowing best and deciding these issues for us based on who elects them. Which is what todays so-called ‘Modern-Liberals’, who are really Statists or Paternalists and not very liberal at all, John Fugelsang, case in point, whether it comes to economic, or personal freedom, do not seem to understand.
The Orioles started the first of three straight losing seasons in 1986. And 5-6 losing seasons from 1986-91, going through a pretty bad stretch of bad baseball as they closed out Baltimore Memorial Stadium in 1991. 1986 dealing with a bunch of injuries that season and key hitters like Eddie Murray and Fred Lynn dealing with injuries. While the Yankees were still contending, but again not making the playoffs in 1986.
With the Orioles, they were dealing with key injuries to their best players and hitters especially in Murray and Lynn. You’re talking about two of the best all around players in the game at this point. And two of the best power hitters in the game as well. And when your team isn’t that deep to begin with, losing a Lynn and Murray at the same time is really difficult. 1986, very similar as 1984, 87 and 88 for the Yankees. A very solid lineup offensively, but not enough starting pitching and enough depth in the bullpen. For the Yankees to win the AL East, which was a great division back then and still is today.
What a difference a year or a season makes for both the Giants and Cardinals. Who were both clearly the two best teams in the National League in 1987 and in the Cardinals case in 1988 were fighting to stay out of last place in the NL East in 1988. A division they played in until MLB realigned in 1994 and went to three divisions in both leagues. And in the Giants case, never making a real run at the NL West title at least by the All Star break and finishing eleven games behind their arch-rival Los Angeles Dodgers out of first place.
When teams when their division in MLB, especially over a 162 game schedule, unless they are very deep in talent with great chemistry and a great manager, they tend to have a lot going for them. And are able to avoid making critical mistakes during the season that costs them big games. And cost them games that might not seem big at the time, but come back to cost them in September when they’re fighting to make the playoffs or win their division. Both the Giants and Cardinals were able to avoid big mistakes and injuries in 1987. But 1988 they got hit by those things over and over and it really cost them.
Nolan Ryan vs. Jim Palmer, I mean you couldn’t ask for anything more. Perhaps the two best pitchers in the American League at this point and in Jim Palmer’s case perhaps the best pitcher in the American League. I have Palmer, Steve Carlton and Tom Seaver as the top three pitchers of this era in Major League Baseball. But Ryan didn’t pitch very well against the Orioles at least at Baltimore Memorial Stadium. He was a much better pitcher at Anaheim Stadium for the Angels than he was on the road. This was an excellent matchup for an ALCS. Both the Angels and Orioles had good pitching, in the Orioles case great pitching. Both teams had very good lineups offensively and played good defense. The Orioles just simply did those things better than the Angels in this series.
Playing pro football in a baseball park which is what Portland Civic Stadium was before they converted it to a soccer stadium. And Portland will need a football stadium if they are going to get another major league pro football franchise. But Memphis and Portland are markets that the USFL should’ve been looking at back then and should be looking at today. If they are serious about coming back. Something they’ve talked about since 2011-12. Because these are markets that are not currently occupied by the NFL. And they wouldn’t have to compete with the NFL for their fans. And Memphis and Portland are major markets that can both support major league football franchises. Which is what the old USFL was and what a new USFL would be. If they get an agreement with the NFL about training their players in the spring.
I wish Karen Black had another ten-years. But when you have cancer, unless it is found quickly and dealt with properly and the patient has the resources to deal with it correctly, it’s almost a death sentence. I wish she had at another ten years, because she was one of the best actress’s of her generation and era. Which was the 1960s and seventies and took big chances and made them payoff big time. Like with Easy Rider, Airport 1975, one of my favorite movies and I believe her best movie and role. And Nashville, which came out a year earlier than Airport 75.
She took risks on movies that not a lot of other actress’s would have when she didn’t have to do it and where the movies could’ve bombed on her and made it difficult for her to get big roles and big movies later on. And she would not only take the big risks, but they would pay off for her big time. And would be movies that would be remembered very well thirty or forty years later. And would do such a great job in these movies. Like in Airport 75, where she plays a head stewardess who has to take control of the plane during a mid-air collision with all three pilots no longer being able to fly the plane. And she ends flying the plane herself with the help of the runway tower and the pilot on the plane still being able to speak.
And Karen Black played these risky roles very well and will be missed. And then throw in how adorable and beautiful she was. And versatile she way with the ability to play tough characters. Like going from prostitutes with drug issues, in both Easy Rider and then later Nashville in the mid 1970s. To going to have to play a head stewardess in Airport 75 that at one point is actually flying the plane. And that is after she has to get ahold of the runway tower to let them know what is going on. Someone whose never flied a plane before and has no experience at all in doing that. Having to fly this plane over in the Mountain West and climbing mountains. And playing the terrified little adorable women who doesn’t know if she’s going to survive this experience. And yet has to pull it all together for the sake of herself and the people on the plane that she’s responsible for. And she did these role beautifully.
The reasons why Ronald Reagan wouldn’t fit into todays Republican Party is because he believed in both economic and personal freedom. Reagan was a real Conservative in the Libertarian sense not religious or neoconservative sense. He didn’t believe government’s job was to tell people how to live their own lives, or was skeptical about personal freedom. Which would’ve been a big problem with him with Neoconservative Republicans.
Ron Reagan wouldn’t fit in with today’s GOP at least the Christian-Right and far-right in general because he believed in Separation of Church and State. He didn’t believe the job of government was to act as the national father and that Uncle Sam and perhaps Father Sam if the Christian-Right were to come to power, was to make sure that all of his children were living a traditional and their American way of life. And not doing anything that the Christian-Right sees as immoral, even if innocent people aren’t being hurt.
And yes President Reagan was tough on national security and foreign policy, but he believed in those things so America wouldn’t have to police the world. Rather than being as strong as we had to be so we could police the world. And Reagan believed in the same thing that Richard Nixon did when it came to foreign policy. Which is peace through strength, which is that you are as strong as you can be so you don’t have to use all of your power that you are so strong that other countries and terrorists would be crazy to want to attack you.
President Reagan didn’t believe in nation building, or have some right-wing utopian fantasy that we could change a part of the world that still lives in the 1500s culturally and still to a certain extent legally and modernize them and force liberal democracy and individual rights on them. Reagan’s national security and foreign policy was about American interests and strengths and protecting our freedom. Not forcing our way of life onto other countries that live light years behind us and still see women as servants to men.
As well as Reagan believing in that you had to work with your allies for the simple reasons that they know important things that you don’t, but also so you don’t have to police the world. A difference between an internationalist, liberal or conservative and a neoconservative, is the internationalist bases their national security and foreign policy based on realism and the facts on the ground. Sees the world for the way it is and does their best with those realities to make it the best that they can.
The neoconservative is the right-wing utopian. If they were left-wing they would be Socialists, but the right-wing utopian sees the world for the way they want it to be. And ignores reality or doesn’t understand it and does everything they can to make sure what they see in their political fantasy comes to real life for the rest of us that are sober and not needing mental therapy because of our sanity. And decides the utopian was right all along and that this is the way it is. Reagan was a realist, not a utopian.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.