Washington Times: 'An Addiction Democrats Can’t Kick'

Source:The Washington Times- with an editorial about the Democratic Party and tobacco.

Source:The FreeState 

"The backrooms of American politics are not so smoke-filled now, but hypocrisy hangs as thick as ever over Washington. President Obama, who has been a three-pack-a-day man for most of his life, declares smokers Public Enemy No. 1 in his latest budget. He wants a near-doubling of the federal tax on cigarettes, to $1.95 a pack, all to pay for a universal preschool program for 4-year-olds. It’s the Democratic schizophrenia on tobacco.

If liberals believed their own rhetoric, they would call for an outright ban on tobacco, not a Mike Bloombergian half-measure, such as ordering retailers to keep the packs out of sight. The would-be successor to New York City’s nanny-in-chief, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, called for raising the minimum age for buying tobacco from 18 to 21, as if this would prevent youngsters from lighting up.

In Maryland, a Democratic state senator from Baltimore County unsuccessfully sought earlier this year to fine drivers $50 if caught smoking with a passenger under the age of 8. If someone of tender age shouldn’t be subjected to secondhand smoke, why exclude 10- and 12-year-olds from protection? Indeed, why not ban smoking entirely? 

There’s a simple answer: Liberals and Democrats can’t call for a neo-Prohibition ban on cigarettes because they’re addicted to tobacco revenues. Taxes on tobacco finance too much of their social spending to allow such a drastic move. The precursor to Obamacare, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s State Children’s Health Insurance Program, enacted in 1997, was financed with a tripling of the tax on tobacco. Her opponents pointed out how this wouldn’t work, because the sales of tobacco would fall, and so would the tax revenues that the program was intended to depend on.

Economists know this as the price elasticity of demand, which shows the responsiveness, or “elasticity,” of the quantity of a good or service to a change in its price. It’s simple. As the price of a product goes up, the quantity of it sold goes down. The higher taxes raise the price of tobacco, sales decline, and so do the tax revenues." 

From The Washington Times 

What the Washington Times is arguing here is that on one hand leftist (instead of Liberal) Democrats are arguing that tobacco is so bad for you, that we need to essentially tax the hell out of it, to pay for their social programs. 

So on one hand Democrats are saying that tobacco is bad for you, but if you smoke, we'll take that money to pay for their social programs. And I agree with everything that The Times is saying here. I would just replace liberal with leftist or some other left-wing, because the nanny state and big government in general, is as illiberal (not liberal) a government philosophy, that one could possible dream up.

Tru-TV: Lizard Lick Towing: ‘No One Calls Amy A Bitch’

Source:True-TV- Amy Shirley vs. Bubba & Earl, LOL! 

Source:The Daily Post

“This guy puts his hands on the wrong woman!:Tru-TV." 

From Tru-TV

This might sound as obvious as: “If you don’t play with fire, you won’t get burned” but sometimes when you are either dealing with people who either forgot to get an education, or didn’t bother to get an education, or believe they don’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else, stating the obvious can be necessary. When you pay your bills, your property won’t get repoed.

Source:Tru-TV- Amy Shirley vs. Bubba & Earl, LOL! 

I don’t watch this show from very often. But it is pretty funny and sort of represents every single stereotype that Yankees and people who live in big cities and urban areas in general have of country folk (let’s say) Rednecks, even. 

The people who work at Lizard Lick Towing in North Carolina are fairly intelligent, at least the owners Ron and Amy Shirley. But a lot of the people they deal with who just got their vehicles and other property towed because they didn’t pay their bills on them look like, frankly stereotypical country, bumpkin, dipshit, hicks. Who believe they live under different rules as everyone else and don’t have to do such inconvenient things like paying their bills on their cars and trucks. And that is what you see in this scene.

Jack Hunter: 'Conservatism's Future: Young Americans For Liberty'

Source:The Southern Avenger- Mr. Conservative Barry Goldwater, when he was running President in 1964.

Source:The FreeState 

"An editorial in the August 1960 edition of National Review described the conservative youth activists who agitated to get Barry Goldwater on the ballot with presidential nominee Richard Nixon:

Youth was everywhere at the Republican convention. Youth managed the various candidates’ booths. Youth waved the posters. Youth held the convention parade, and it was youth, primarily, that staged the Presidential demonstration Wednesday night … Lots of the young people had no ideological interest, they had come … well, because their family was Republican … But those who were serious, the ones who will be working hardest to guide the Republican Party in the future, were conservatives: and most of them Goldwater fans. They passed out 15,000 Goldwater buttons, handed out literature, rallied inside and outside the amphitheater. They greeted Richard Nixon at the airport with Goldwater signs, and did the same thing for President Eisenhower the next day. 

The editorial then noted: “They drove one Nixon aide into muttering in exasperation ‘Those damn Goldwater people are everywhere.’”

Youth might not show up in droves at the ballot box, but their activism and enthusiasm has long been a driving force behind the direction of both major parties. This has been particularly true of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.

The youth activists who so passionately championed Goldwater in 1960 and 1964 were at the forefront of a conservative revolution that would eventually take over the GOP and deliver Ronald Reagan the White House. The old Republican guard, which preferred Nelson Rockefeller, would push back in ’60 and ’64, and the establishment fought hard against conservatives again in 1976 when Reagan challenged President Ford. But by 1980, the old Republican guard was simply no match for the long-building Reagan Revolution, something everyone concedes started with Goldwater.

And it all began with youth." 

From The Daily Caller

The Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and even late 1960s launched Ron Reagan into office as President of the United States in 1980. But actually Congressional Republicans didn’t get the majority back in the House, or Senate in the mid and late 1960s, but made them a strong minority in both chambers. As well as Richard Nixon elected and reelected President of the United States in 1968 and 72, placed Ron Reagan in strong place to be the GOP frontrunner for President.

After losing in 1976, Ron Reagan became the Republican frontrunner in 1980. The way Gerry Ford governed as President of the United States in the mid 1970s, fiscally conservative, as well as respecting personal freedom and civil liberties, all of these things started with Barry Goldwater when he ran for President in 1964. And took sixteen years for it all to come together with a Republican president in 1980, a Republican Senate for the first time, since 1952 and a large Republican minority in the House of Representatives in 1980 as well. Where House Republicans led by Minority Leader Bob Michael, could work in coalition with right-wing Southern Democrats in the House, to pass and block legislation.

What happened with the Barry Goldwater conservative movement of the mid 1960s and what it finally led up to and what’s going on with the Ron Paul libertarian movement of today in the Republican Party, both have one thing in common: neither one was big enough to be a governing coalition in the United States, or even a leading coalition in the Republican Party, where they hold a lot of leadership positions. Back in the mid 1960s, America was still in the LBJ Great Society Progressive Era. Where Americans by in large wanted and liked big government taking care of them. And we are obviously pass that now. But Ron Paul’s problem in the Republican Party are the Neoconservatives and Religious-Right are still in charge of the Republican Party. 

But what they also have in common with the Goldwater Conservatives of the 1960s, is the old-guard is dying off and losing influence. While the Goldwater Conservatives were growing back then. And the Libertarian Republicans are growing today, as the Religious-Right and Neoconservatives are dying off and losing influence.

As then U.S. Senator Jim DeMint said back in 2012 before he became President of the right-wing populist Heritage Foundation political action group: “The Republican Party needs to become more Libertarian for them to be successful in the future.” But they do not have to embrace all of their positions, but they have to move in that direction on social issues. And get back to being a real fiscally conservative party. And stop nominating presidential candidates who run as fiscal Conservatives, but have records that suggest otherwise. Who run as Religious-Conservatives, but have records that also suggest otherwise. And get back to being a real Conservative-Libertarian-Federalist party again, that can compete and be successful all over America.

NFL Films: The Steel Curtain Steelers

Source:NFL Films- James Harrison's big hit against Indianapolis Colts QB Peyton Manning.

Source:The Daily Post 

"Pittsburgh Steelers - The Steel Curtain Pittsburgh Steelers Biggest Hits of All-time. Some of the best Chaos and Carnage created by the Steelers Some of the biggest hits in steelers history." 

From Sports Violence Studios

Source:NFL Films- Steelers WR Lynn Swann's, great catch against the Dallas Cowboys, in Super Bowl 10.

What made the Pittsburgh Steelers of the late 1970s even better than the Steelers of the mid 1970s, was the rule changes on offense in the NFL in 1978 that improved the blocking and opened up the running and passing games on offense. And opened up the passing game also with the illegal contact rule that allowed for WR’s to be able to get off of the line of scrimmage and run their patterns. 

Before the rule changes, the Steelers were a power run, ball control offense. That would rely on their Steel Curtain defense to set up great field position for them and get them takeaways. And when defenses tried to take their running game away by stacking the line of scrimmage, the Steelers also had deep threats in the passing game with WR’s John Stallworth and Lynn Swann and QB Terry Bradshaw. 

Bradshaw being one of the best deep passing QB’s of all-time, but with the rule changes on offense the Steelers had to find more ways to score and to be able to score more points. As we saw in Super Bowl 13 against the Dallas Cowboys and Super 14 against the Los Angeles Rams. The 1978 rule changes on offense in the NFL opened up the Steelers offense and made them a vertical passing and power running team, to go with their great defense.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1985-1/13-Cleveland Force @ Pittsburgh Spirit: Highlights

Source:Joey Teefizz- John P. Dellacamera and John Sanders with the call of the game for the Pittsburgh Spirit.

Source:The Daily Post

"Great game in Pittsburgh between Force and Spirit, another tight finish between these two with excellent halftime interviews with Charlie Greene and Bernie James."

From Joey Teefizz

The Force-Spirit rivalry was one of the better rivalries in the MISL. And had the MISL knew anything about marketing then and now, they would’ve done a good job at marketing this rivalry especially in North Ohio and Western Pennsylvania, the areas that the Force and Spirit represented respectfully. 

Indoor soccer is a perfect sport for America and American sports fans, because it is so fast paced and up in down with the rules not really benefiting either the offense or defense. Which is how classic American sports fans like it. 

There is a lot more scoring in arena soccer or futsal than in soccer itself. But that is because the playing fields are smaller and the rules don’t favor either side. Unlike in soccer where the rules are designed to keep scoring down and as a result it is a more defensive game. But for whatever reasons arena soccer has never really caught on in America. Even though it is an American sport designed for American sports fans.

Intelligence Squared Debates: 'The GOP Must Seize the Center or Die'

Source:Intelligence Squared Debates- Republican political strategist Ralph Reed.

"2012 was a disappointing year for Republicans. The failure to win key swing states in the presidential election and surprising losses in the House and Senate have prompted some reflection. Was their embrace of small government, low taxes, and a strong conservative stance on social issues at odds with shifting American demographics? Or did the GOP embrace the right platform, but the wrong candidates?" 

From Intelligence Squared Debates

NFL Films: NFL 1973- Super Bowl 8- Minnesota Vikings vs Miami Dolphins: Highlights

Source:NFL Films- Miami Dolphins FB Larry Czonka taking it in for a TD.

Source:The Daily Post 

"(4K ULTRA HD) - Super Bowl VIII Highlights - RESTORED" 

From Godzilla Rocks 

I think what the Minnesota Vikings experiences in their 4 Super Bowls from 1969-76, is that if you can't run the ball against the other team and can't stop the other team's running game, you are not going to win the Super Bowl. 

You might be able to win the Super Bowl today without a running game, or at least a running game in the Super Bowl, but you couldn't do that in the 1970s, for the simple reason that the rules favored the defenses so much, both the defensive lineman and the defensive backs. 

If you couldn't run the ball in the Super Bowl in the 1970s, even if you had one of the best passing games in the NFL that season, which is what the Vikings had, your QB (in this case Fran Tarkenton) and your receivers, will be sitting ducks. Because your o-line will get run over by the d-line and linebackers, especially since they know you have to throw the ball, just to move the ball.

Like with the Kansas Chiefs in Super Bowl 4, the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl 9, the Oakland Raiders in Super Bowl 11, the Dolphins won Super Bowl 8 at the line of scrimmage with their o-line and d-line. They ran the ball at will against the Vikings smaller front 7 and stuffed the Vikings running game the whole day.

Forbes Magazine: Fred Allen: 'Gun Control: A Congress of Cowards'

Source:Forbes Magazine- U.S. Vice President Jospeh R. Biden (Democrat, Delaware) and President of the U.S. Senate.

"Why was the Senate unable to even hold an up-and-down vote on legislation that 80% to 90% of Americans support?" 

From Forbes Magazine

"The United States Senate displayed a mass failure of leadership yesterday when it killed, without even allowing an up-and-down vote, the measure that would have required background checks for sales of guns at gun shows and on the Internet and in other commercial transactions. The action was not really about differences of philosophy or Second Amendment rights, not when polls show that 80% to 90% of Americans favor expanded background checks. It was mainly about cowardice, in both parties. Democrats feared reelection challenges from the right. Republicans feared both electoral challenges and having to support both gun control legislation and immigration reform, two middle-of-the-road initiatives both backed by President Obama.

Moreover, the Senate defeated the bill in its most cowardly way, with a filibuster defeating the will of the majority of senators. The vote was as much a mark of dysfunction as of cravenness. As Gabrielle Giffords wrote this morning:

I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending.

The filibuster offended Americans across the political spectrum. It even provoked Joe Scarborough, the conservative former Republican Congressman from Florida,  to say this on his show Morning Joe this morning... 

From Forbes Magazine

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CSPAN: Senator Rand Paul at Howard University

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) speaking at Howard University in Washington.

"Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke to students at Howard University about the Republican Party's outreach efforts to young people and minorities." 

From Jay Argonaut

This is actually very smart politics by Senator Paul here and I'll explain why. African-Americans, including by left-wing African-Americans have been stereotyped, at least since the 1990s as a community of leftists that expect the Federal Government to do everything for them and want government to just give them things and take care of them, to make up for everything that the United Kingdom and the United States has done to them, since the 1st African was kidnapped and forced to live in North America as slaves, in the 1600s. 

The truth is, African-Americans voted Republican, perhaps not as a majority, but the Republican Party was very competitive, at least in that community, all the way through Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It's really not until George H.W. Bush's presidential campaign of 1988 and his reelection campaign of 1992, where you started to see the African-American community as a large and reliable voting bloq of the Democratic Party, because of the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right influence in the Republican Party. 

You go back to the 1960s with Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, or go way before that with Frederick Douglas, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell today, there's always been a conservative or classical liberal movement in the African-American community. 

Of course there are Socialists and Black Nationalists in the African-American community. But you can say that about every racial community in America. There's also a Christian-Right in the African-American community, like with European-Americans, especially Anglo-Saxons. 

But there's always been a core faction of African-Americans that believe in limited government, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and property rights (economic and personal) and I believe those are the folks that Senator Paul was trying to reach at Howard University.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Washington Examiner: 'Competitive Federalism Can Restore Government's Credibility'

Source:Washington Examiner- Newspaper.

"Among the most serious threats to the continued health of the American republic is the extraordinarily low esteem in which the public holds the federal government. And who can blame them when Congress and President Obama seem locked in perpetual partisan warfare, even as millions of Americans have given up on finding jobs, the economy bounces along in the weakest recovery since the Great Depression and the national debt soars to previously unimagined heights.

What is to be done? A coalition of state-based conservative think tanks led by the Oklahoma-based Liberty Foundation is advancing an old idea that if implemented could revolutionize American governance. The idea is "competitive federalism," which the coalition defines as "the powerful harnessing of our tri-partite sovereignty system that allows states to compete with each other over a broad range of issues to provide citizens with the best value goods and services at the lowest cost." Think of the difference between having only one place to buy food versus having 50.

To illustrate, imagine two scenarios: In the first, Congress and the president decide that trillions of dollars must be spent on a centralized health care insurance program managed by Washington bureaucrats. In the second, Congress and the president instead decide to return to the states the hundreds of billions of tax dollars previously spent in this arena by Washington, along with encouragement to assume the related responsibilities for insuring care and coverage.

Now, if the first scenario results in a bureaucratic monstrosity in which health insurance costs skyrocket, doctor shortages spread and the quality of care plunges, everybody in the country will suffer. In the second scenario, there can be as many as 50 distinct approaches to health care insurance. In states with failing systems, residents can pressure their officials to adopt reforms along the lines of states with successful approaches.

Under which scenario are the smallest number of people likely to suffer? And which scenario would be the most responsive to demands for reform? Would more people receive quality health care under the first or second scenario? Most Americans would likely choose the second scenario in answer to all three questions. Lest anybody think these considerations are merely theoretical speculation, recall that the founders based the Constitution on the same concept. As Publius observed in the Federalist Papers, ours is "a federal, and not a national constitution." As a result, federal powers are "few and defined," while those of the states are "numerous and indefinite," encompassing "all the objects" that "concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people," Publius wrote.

To put it in the most practical possible terms, if Californians choose a system that provides poor quality, only the taxpayers in the Golden State have to pay for it, while residents of states that choose better systems only have to pay for theirs. When the federal government imposes a uniform solution like Obamacare, all 300 million Americans pay the cost. Expect to hear more competitive federalism thinking as the federal government staggers along on its present disastrous course." 

From the Washington Examiner

The Daily Telegraph: 'Margaret Thatcher: The Woman Who Made Britain Great Again'

Source:The Daily Telegraph- Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, England) Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (1979-90)

"Almost 25 years have passed since Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street, and yet the full scale of her achievement is still surprisingly hard to set out. So completely has her legacy shaped modern Britain, so fully have she and her ideas been woven into its fabric, that it can be hard to appreciate the depth of our debt to this most extraordinary of individuals. For she was not one of those politicians who had the good fortune to go with the grain of her times. She was a leader who wrenched this nation from the path of demoralisation, diminishment and... 

From The Daily Telegraph 

Margaret Thatcher, in some ways was very lucky because she arrived on the seen as first Leader of The Opposition in the United Kingdom in the mid 1970s and then of course Prime Minister in 1979 at the perfect time when Britain was down and when socialism was not working and when the British were looking for a different message. Not so much different from what the United States was going through in the late 1970s. And Ronald Reagan came onto the scene.

Margaret Thatcher, didn’t set out to destroy socialism, but empower Brits to have the freedom to take care of themselves and take on more responsibility in governing their own lives. And handing more power down from the central government in Britain to the British people themselves. 

Maggie Thatcher, coming to power in Britain was truly a Conservative Revolution from when the Socialists in the Labour Party had all the power in Britain, to a time where there was a new message in Britain, that was conservative and getting government out of the business of running people’s lives.

I believe Maggie Thatcher, would be called a Northeastern, or Bob Dole even Conservative Republican in America. Someone who was in favor of having a public safety net. But that it wasn’t the job of government to take care of physically and mentally able people for their entire lives to help people who truly need it, but to help them help themselves. To put physically and mentally able people to work. Help people who are out-of-work get back to work, or go to work for the first time in their lives. As well as move Britain away from Marxist state economics and create a larger private sector in Britain.

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on Blogger. (No pun intended)

You can also see this post at The Daily Post, on WordPress. (No pun intended)

Tania Ayde: 'Bugsy Siegel & The Flamingo Hotel'

Source:Tania Ayde- Jewish mobster and perhaps the creator of Las Vegas, Benjamin Bugsy Siegel.

Source:The Daily Post

"A film by Tania De La Cruz

Directed by Tania De La Cruz & David Villapando

Edited and Written by Tania De La Cruz

Interviews provided by:Biography. " 

From Tania Ayde 

Benjamin Bugsy Siegel was an interesting mobster. Italian, Irish or in Bugsy’s case Jewish, because he could’ve been anything he wanted to be. Because of his intelligence and charm. But because he lacked basic discipline and patience he went very far, but in a short time. But was only around for a short time. Being killed by the mob leadership in his early forties after being killed in his Los Angeles home by perhaps both the Italian and Jewish mafia’s and their leaderships. 

If you’re familiar with the film Bugsy from 1991, where Warren Beatty plays Bugsy Siegel, according to the film Bugsy’s bosses fly him back to Los Angeles from some supposed meeting. But the only meeting that Bugsy went to was his assassination, after the mob leadership decided that Bugsy was no longer worth the investment with all the money Bugsy spent to build the Las Vegas casinos and that even though Bugsy was very effective as a hitman for the Italian and Jewish mafias, as well as an enforcer, he was no longer worth the investment. Because of how bad a businessman he was. And that he needed to be taken out before he cost his bosses more money. 

Bugsy, again, had many good personal qualities about him. (Even for a murderer) But he lacked discipline and realism. He was too idealistic and too much of a dreamer, to survive as a mobster long-term. Whether you like it or not the Jewish and Italian Mafias’s, were business’s and didn’t want to associate with people who lost them money. Which is how they say Busgy in the end.

The mafia were worried that Bugsy would end up in prison or talking to police, or whatever. That he was too big of a gamble (even in Las Vegas) for them and needed to be dealt with. But without Bugsy Benjamin Siegel and Jimmy Hoffa, Las Vegas is not what it is today. A big vibrant city that it is in the Southwest and the entertainment capital of America. That is just a half-hour flight from Los Angeles. Where Americans all over the country go to everyday to have a good time. 

You take the criminal mindset away from Ben Siegel and you also discipline him without losing his imagination and vision, which is what created the Las Vegas that we know today and I think we’re talking about a brilliant businessman. But of course we’ll never know that.

NFL Films: NFL 1980-AFC Divisional-Oakland Raiders @ Cleveland Browns: Last Drive

Source:NFL Films- Raiders DB Mike Davis's famous game-winning INT.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Raiders at Browns 1980 playoffs" 

From John Morgami 

The Cleveland Browns of the late 1970s early 1980s were called the Cardiac Kids for a good reason. They trailed late in games a lot and many times by two scores and would have to either score once very quickly to win, or have to score twice with like five minutes left in the game. 

The Browns defense was not horrible and perhaps not even bad, but certainly not dominant which is what it became under Marty Shottenheimer in the mid and late 1980s. And as a result they would get into shootouts and when they play good teams with good defenses, would fall behind late and have to make great comebacks to win. 

The 1980 Raiders were a very good if not great all around football team. That could score a lot of points and simply shut teams downs. As they did in the AFC Playoffs and in the Super Bowl that season. The Browns were simply beaten by a better all around football team. 

I think Raiders offensive guard Gene Upshaw has the best quote about this game, or certainly about Raiders DB Mike Davis's game-winning INT against the Browns. He said when talking about Mike Davis's bad hands and inability to catch the ball: "Mike Davis, who couldn't catch a cold barefoot in the snow in Alaska, ends up making the game-winning play for us." 

CBS Sports: NBA 1980- NBA Finals-Game 5- Philadelphia 76ers @ Los Angeles Lakers: Julius vs Kareem

Source:CBS Sports- with coverage of the 1980 NBA Finals.

Source:The Daily Post 

“Kareem had 40 pts, 15 rebounds and 4 blocks. This is also the game where Kareem injured his ankle leaving the stage open for Magic in Game 6. The injury occurs at 3:40. Kareem comes back at the start of the fourth period and hits heroic shots to win the game. Magic’s performance might be the most memorable thing to come out of this series but equally, if nor more, impressive was Kareem’s dominance in the first five games. If not for those clutch shots, the Lakers probably wouldn’t have the 3-2 series lead which provided them the opportunity to knockout the Sixers in game 6.

Also included a couple of smooth Dr. J and Dawkins plays here.”

From Fish

I think Rod Hundley has the most interesting comment in this video. When Kareem Abdul-Jabbar goes down with the ankle injury and he says he doesn’t believe that Lakers can beat the 76ers without Kareem. Well, of course that is exactly what the Lakers did in game 6. They beat the 76ers without Kareem who was home with the ankle injury. Now, probably no one would’ve predicted that, but that’s exactly what happened.

6’9 Magic Johnson, whose a point guard normally, filled in for Kareem at center in game 6. And the Lakers win that game to clinch the 1980 NBA Finals. Now no one including Hot Rod knew how great of a player that Magic was at this point. And I’m not sure Magic didn’t either, in defense of Hot Rod.

As far as this game, the 76ers had no one who could defend Kareem. And most of the NBA didn’t either in 1980. And this Lakers team had so much talent around Kareem, including Magic, but Jamal Wilkes, Norm Nixon and others, that if you paid a lot of attention to Kareem, Kareem would set up his other teammates the whole game and the other players would’ve beaten the 76ers. The Lakers didn’t have anyone who could stop Julius Erving, but they had two or three guys who could cover The Doctor in stretches and make him work for his points: Jamal Wilkes, Michael Cooper and Magic, at different points of the game.

This was a great finals for several reasons. The two best players in the game at that time, Kareem and The Doctor. The two best teams in the league, 76ers and Lakers. And they both matched up well with each other. They had to cover each other and could make the other team work on offense and defense. Without any real weakness’s on other team. Other than the 76ers not having true quality starting center who played both ends of the court real well. Caldwell Jones was primarily a shot blocker and rebounder. Darryl Dawkins was primarily a scorer, but who wasn’t very consistent there. And that was the difference with Kareem being able to dominate either of the 76ers centers.