Chris Myers: Charles Barkley Interview

Source:The New Democrat

Now we are talking about Charles Barkley the basketball analyst, which I think he does a great job as and even one of the best NBA analysts in the business right now. And we are also seeing Charles Barkley the political and social commentator. We already saw Charles Barkley the great basketball player and again I see him as one of the top 5-10 players of all-time in the history of the NBA. But now at fifty-years old, but he's been what he is now since he's left the NBA as a player. He is now a professional commentator on things more than just basketball and the NBA.

If Charles Barkley doesn't have a column or blog, I wish he would start one. Which is what Kareem Abdul-Jabbar has already one with Time. Because I don't agree with him on everything, but he makes a good intelligent case about everything that he says and believes. Which is all you ask from a commentator in life. You want them to make a good interesting case for why they believe about what they are talking about. You can't expect to agree with everything that they say. Just for them to make a good interesting case for why they believe what they believe about what they are talking about.

NBA-TV: Charles Barkley, Sir Charles at 50

Source:The New Democrat

Charles Barkley can't be completely written about in just a few posts. The man is now fifty-years old and you spend weeks writing articles and spend years writing books and producing films and doing interviews about the man and still not cover everything. And all of this could be said when the man finished his playing career fifteen years ago. There's just so much about him and not just his playing career where he might be one of the top ten players of in NBA history. Certainly one of the top ten forwards and perhaps the greatest player who has ever played power forward in the NBA.

But is doesn't end there with Chuck just as a basketball player. Here's a man who stands 6'4-6'5 who on the street and any other profession would be a very tall man. If he played point guard in basketball he would be a tall basketball player. If he played shooting guard he would've had the right height. Chuck was short for a small forward, let alone power forward and he is the greatest height for height if not the greatest rebounder of all-time. A man who is 6'4 going up against guys who are 6'8-6'10 every night and yet no power forward in the NBA could box the man out. At least not on a regular basis.

And this is just about part of Chuck's career as a basketball player. I think he is the greatest player to ever play power forward. Not the greatest power forward, I would rather take Karl Malone and Tim Duncan over him. But no other full-time power forward has had the skills and great at so many different aspects of basketball than Charles Barkley who has played power forward. And that includes Larry Bird who played perhaps played as much power forward as the small forward position in the NBA.

But this again is just part of one of Charles Barkley's career as a basketball player and an aspect of his life. Other posts should and have been written about different aspects of his career. Like why the Philadelphia 76ers didn't win more with him, when they should've remained an NBA Finals contender for the rest of the 1980s and into the 1990s. But they weren't run very well post Julius Erving and Bill Cunningham and John Nash. And you can go into Chuck as the NBA analyst, the cultural analyst and the comedian. But those are for future posts.

ESPN: SportsCentury-Karl Malone

Source:ESPN.

Source:The New Democrat

I'm stuck between Karl Malone and Tim Duncan as far as who is the best power forward of all-time. I think Duncan is the better all around player than The Mailman, but that is a little different than who is the better power forward. Players are exactly that and positions are that as well and besides Duncan is really a center/power forward or vice-versa, he's played a lot of both positions throughout his career. But The Mailman is certainly the best power forward of the 1990s and perhaps the 1980s as well.

When you think of the prototypical power forward, the classic power forward, the total package as a power forward and then some, Karl Malone is exactly that. When you are talking about a man who was 6'9 255-260 pounds, with the quickness and shooting ability of a power forward and the physical strength of a center. He would've dominated at either position, but not being much of a shot blocker, better suited at playing the big forward, than playing center, at least playing center full-time. He was The Mailman because he delivered basically all of the time for the, I still feel strange saying this, but the Utah Jazz.

Malone put the Jazz on his back and carried that team his entire career. He was the only great and big scorer on his team almost his entire career. The only great rebounder and perhaps even good rebounder on his team throughout his career and the only great big man for the Salt Lake Jazz as I prefer to call them that the Jazz have ever had. And yet they were a title contender throughout the 1990s. And John Stocton was a big part of that as far as quarterbacking the Jazz being the great point guard that he was. But if Karl has a bad night offensively and they are playing a good team, the Jazz probably lose.

To go back to my point about the prototypical power forward, The Mailman was exactly that. He and Elvin Hayes might be the top two pure power forwards of all-time. Charles Barkley was more of a hybrid forward, someone with great skills at both the power forward and small forward. And I believe a better all around player than Karl and perhaps the best height for height rebounder of all-time at around 6'5. But Karl was exactly what you want from your power forward and then some. Tall, big, strong, quick, great inside scorer, great rebounder and an excellent defender and passer in the post.

Karl Malone was called The Mailman, because he was exactly that. He delivered for the Jazz time and time again and took them as far as he could almost by himself in the 1980s and 1990s. And perhaps just a few plays away from winning at least one NBA Finals in the late 1990s against the Chicago Bulls. Had the Jazz had a great swingman, small forward or shooting guard or good if not all-star caliber center to go with Malone and Stocton, maybe they would've won two NBA Finals in the late 1990s, instead of none. But they got very far with The Mailman delivering as much as he could.
Source:ESPN

NFL Network: Missing Rings, The 1990s Buffalo Bills

Source:The Daily Post

When I look at the Buffalo Bills of the late 1980s and early 1990s, I see very good football teams and in the early 90s the best teams in the American Football Conference. But there's an issue right there. From 1984 except for maybe the underachieving Raiders of the mid 80s and the 1987 Browns, 1988 Bengals, 1990 Bills and the two best teams in the NFL were not in the AFC and AFC Champions. But were in the NFC, the top two teams in the NFC the champion and finalist. In 1986 the two best teams in the NFL were the New York Giants and Washington Redskins, but they not only played in same conference, the NFC. 

And by 1992 the two best teams in the NFL were always in the NFC, until 1997 with the Denver Broncos winning the Super Bowl. This was not a good era for the AFC, 1985, 1986, 1987 the Super Bowls were all blowouts, the NFC team beating the AFC team. In 1989 the San Francisco 49ers blew out the Denver Broncos 55-10, 1992 the Dallas Cowboys blew out the Bill 52-17. 1994 the 49ers blew out the San Diego Chargers 49-23. The Bills of the late 80s and early 90s were the best team in the AFC. And won four straight AFC Final's from 1990-93, but in the worst era for the AFC. I'm not taking anything away from the Bills of this era, they had very good teams and would've been very successful in the National Football Conference, but they wouldn't of dominated the NFC like they dominated the AFC.

If you look at those four Super Bowls that the Buffalo Bills lost from 1990-93, they were only favored to win one of them the, 1990 Super Bowl when they played the New York Giants. But the Giants were a very good football team, they still had one of the best defenses in the NFL. Even though they were getting older and they still had their ball control offense, power run, possession passing, shorten the game and limit the Bills chances on offense to have the ball and score. Giants running back OJ Anderson was the SB MVP, quarterback Jeff Hostletter completed passes when he had to. And had TE Marc Bavaro I believe the best all around TE in the NFL at the time and had WRs Chris Calloway, Mark Ingram and Steve Baker.

The Giants could throw when they wanted to and when they needed to and the strength of their offense fit in perfectly with the weakness of the Bills Defense. They had a power offense going up against and somewhat finesse undersized 3-4 Bills defense with a small 270 pound nose tackle in Jeff Wright. And the Bills were able to stay in the game because even though they didn't have the ball much, they moved it almost every time they had it. And when the Giants scored they used a lot of time to score, keeping the Bills in the game. 

1990 was the best chance for the Buffalo Bills to win a Super Bowl and they were favored in that game and they only lost 20-19 and had plenty of chances to win that game. But missed a lot of tackles probably because they were so tired, because their defense couldn't get off the field. But the other three Super Bowls they were a clear underdog playing teams, like the Redskins and Cowboys twice that were much bigger and stronger which is what the NFC was back then over the AFC. Run the ball, stop the run, rush the QB, protect the QB and win the turnover battle. And the Bills happened to be the best of a weak American Football Conference

Cherie Altuaimeh: Steel Curtain Tribute- The Steel Curtain Steeler Dynasty

Source: Cherie Altuaimeh.

Source:The Daily Post

The 1978 Pittsburgh Steelers are what a great team looks like and to me the definition of what a great team looks like so to the point as their cover corner back Mell Blount saying that "the NFL changed its rules in 1978 to slow down the Steelers so they weren't so dominant". That they went from being a power run ball control offense in the mid-1970s to a vertical pass offense with two deep threats in wide receiver in John Stallworth. Who to me is the Michael Irvin of his generation with his size and strength, but with great speed and could get by you just by running by you. Which made QB Terry Bradshaw's job a lot more fun because he had a big strong accurate arm that could go deep.

Bradshaw had the WRs to throw the ball to and the Steelers still had their power running game with tailback Franco Harris and tailback Rocky Blier. And they still had their Steel Curtain Two-Gap defense that could stuff the run and attack the QB just with their front four. With defensive tackle Joe Greene arguably the best defensive lineman of all-time. Defensive end LC Greenwood who should be in the Hall of Fame and DE Dwight White. And with middle linebacker Jack Lambert the best MLB of his era and Jack Ham the best outside linebacker of his era. With the Steelers front seven they could stuff the run, attack the QB and cover the whole field.

With those players and with CB Mell Blount I believe the best CB off all-time, you hated being the top WR on the other team because it meant the QB wasn't going to throw you the ball. And with safeties Donnie Shell and Mike Wagner, you weren't throwing the ball deep against the Steelers. You couldn't really run the ball on the Steelers even though you really only had to block four players. Pass protection was almost impossible with the Steelers front four and even if you had time to throw, who you going to throw the ball to, no one is open.

The 1978 Steelers were so great not so good, but so great that the NFL changed the rules to slow them down. And so they were so dominant, other than the Oakland Raiders, Dallas Cowboys and maybe the Miami Dolphins no one could give the Steelers a hard time before the 1978 rule changes. Which were aimed at the Steelers Steel Curtain defense. The illegal contact rule, meaning you couldn't jam a WR after five yards. The new blocking rules aimed at Joe Greene that outlawed head slapping. But that didn't slow the Steelers because they just adapted to the new rule changes meaning that their defense was probably not going to be as dominant anymore.

But again these are the Pittsburgh Steelers, they have Chuck Knoll as their head coach, Terry Bradshaw as their QB and Franco Harris the at TB, with John Stallworth and Lynn Swann at WR. Which meant they just needed to open up the offense and score more points. Go to the vertical pass offense to complement their power running game. The Steelers didn't change to fit in with rest of the NFL, but they adapted and overcame and made themselves better to utilize the other talent that they had and not rely so much on their defense and power running. That's what the 1978 Steelers were and what a great team looks like. You make a move at them they make another move and get better than they were already are. 

There are a lot of teams to choose from as the best team of all-time and I'm referring to the Super Bowl era including the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins. But I take the 78 Steelers because of their head coach who was also their general manager in Chuck Knoll, who was great at both jobs. And could go to the Hall of Fame in either role, who was a defensive head coach as he built the Steel Curtain defense. But understood offense well enough that he knew what type of offense he wanted the Steelers to have. And then go out and get the players to play in that offense and of course not just the talent but how well they played together and how dominant they were.
Source:Cherie Altuaimeh

Cal Thomas: 'What Works? Common Sense Solutions'

Source:The New Democrat

Right-wing commentator, columnist and author Cal Thomas, who I do like and respect, had a book come out this year called What Works. And in his book he lays out what works in America and what he believes is the best way for Americans to live. Essentially built off the two-parent family with a mother and father. Where romantic couples don't live together until they are married. Obviously no pre-marital sex and basic lets say common values of 1950s and before America pre-cultural revolution of the 1960s. Where Americans in huge numbers felt more individualistic and free to live their own lives.

As I've blogged before, what I call the Traditional Values Coalition that Cal Thomas and of course the Eagle Forum is part of, sees America as going downhill really since the 1960s. Probably starting in 1963 when the civil rights movement gained national strength and put on center stage on the national agenda by the media and others. After President John F. Kennedy comes out in favor of civil rights for African-Americans and gets behind a strong civil rights bill that he finally sent to Congress in the summer of 1963 and then you have the March on Washington with entertainers getting behind that movement in the summer of 1963.

The civil rights movement itself is not the main issues with the Traditional Values Coalition. It more has to do with how the country was changing culturally in the summer of 63 and everything that happened in that decade after 63 with the hippie movement. The TVC calls this the point where America starts going downhill culturally and morally. With the rise of single-parent families, rise in divorces, gays coming out of the closet, women feeling free to enter the workforce after college and financially supporting their kids just like their husbands.

What I don't think the Traditional Values Coalition seems to understand is that America pre-cultural revolution didn't work for all Americans. Sure it was really good for Anglo-Saxon Protestants men especially, because they had most of the power in the country. But that population certainly does not represent America as a whole. And this way of life didn't work for women of all ethnicities and races. Sure it may worked for some, especially Caucasian women who were more culturally conservative. And were perfectly satisfied staying home and raising their husbands kids.

But this traditional Anglo-Saxon way of life simply didn't work for the rest of the country. For millions of African-Americans who wanted the freedom to live their own lives and support themselves and build their communities. And perhaps most importantly be treated equally under law and have their constitutional rights enforced equally. It didn't work for women of all races and ethnicities who wanted to again be treated equally under law and treated equally as men in society. And it didn't work for young Americans again of all races and ethnicities who didn't want to live their grandparents and parents lifestyle. And it didn't work for gays who were trapped in the closet and wanted to come out.

Modern America that we have today that is so culturally, racially and ethnically diverse, vs. traditional America where Americans were expected to act and live in a a certain way. That was common with one specific population in America, but not something that satisfied the country at-large. Which was a big part of the cultural revolution and why it broke out in the 1960s. And what the Traditional Values Coalition people like Cal Thomas, Phyllis Schlafly and others say is that, "America has been going downhill ever since and we need to get back to what works". Their way of life. 

NFL Films: The Immaculate Reception: The Start of the Raiders-Steelers Rivalry

Source:The Daily Post

To me for a rivalry to be great or for it to even be a rivalry, the two teams involved have to at least be good. Not just consistent winners, but consistent playoff teams. Not teams that generally 8-8 or 9-7 or worst and every few years sneak into the playoffs. But teams where just getting to the playoffs is not enough for them to have a successful season. Teams that have it as their goal every year to win their division and win the league championship. 

The New Orleans Saints and Atlanta Falcon Fans and even though both teams are good now and making the playoffs and in the Saints case winning the Super Bowl in 2009, but historically both franchises have either been mediocre or bad. The Falcons didn't make the playoffs until 1978, their twelfth season and are now in their forty-eighth season and they have only made the playoffs in back-to-back seasons once. The Saints didn't even have a winning season until 1987 their 21st season and played and won their first Super Bowl in 2009 their forty-third season. So Falcon-Saint games traditionally haven't meant much.

Unlike Packer-Bear games, Packer-Viking games, Bear-Viking games, Redskins-Cowboys, Redskins- Giants etc. It's when the games are important that they have meaning is when they become rivalry's because that's when both teams prepare real well and tend to play their best and when the games are played real hard and physical and get real tense and you see big hits and borderline cheap shots and everything else. And the fans really get into it and even go to the other teams stadiums to watch their team play that the games become rival games. Which is exactly what you get in the NFC East where everyone is a big rival of the other.

That's exactly what the Steeler-Raider rivalry was in the 1970 and 80s to a certain extent. Because every time they played in this time period, their games were about who would have home field advantage in the AFC Playoffs. And have the better chance of winning the AFC Championship and going to the Super Bowl. And the rivalry that the Pittsburgh Steelers had with the Oakland Raiders in the 1970s, is similar to the rivalry the Steelers have with the New England Patriots today because they are playing for home field advantage in the AFC Playoffs almost every time they play each other.

But with the Steelers-Raiders rivalry of the 70s, you're talking about two of the three best franchises of the 70s that made the AFC Playoffs a total of sixteen times, that won fifteen division championships between the two of them. Won five AFC Championships and won five Super Bowls. They knew to get to where they wanted to go they were going to have to beat the other team. It was really that simple because both teams in this decade both had the same goal every year, win the Super Bowl. And since they were both in the AFC, that meant beating the other team especially in the AFC Playoffs just to get to the Super Bowl and this why this rivalry was so great and intense. 

Rivalry's are between two good teams and franchises, otherwise they don't mean anything. They're just another game, rivalry games are important, even when one team may be having a down year because they can make their season by beating the other team. Which would be like their championship. "We didn't do much this year, but at least we beat that team and made their season a little more difficult. Perhaps cost them a home game in the playoffs". And the team who lost that game remembers losing that game, takes that with them going into the next season and try's to get their revenge, which makes the rivalry that much greater.

NFL Films: John Facenda: Pride and Poise- The Glory Days of the Oakland Raiders

Source:The Daily Post

As John Madden put it when asked about the Raiders not being able to win the "Big Game", the Oakland Raiders won a lot of big games. You have to do that just to have the chance to get to the "Big Game". The teams that play in the "Big Game" aren't selected by a "committee of experts" but they are selected by the two teams from both conferences that won their championships. What the Raiders weren't able to do until 1976, other than 1967 be able to get to the one big game the biggest game in the world. If you think about it as far as the amount of people that watch it.

The Super Bowl of course is the biggest television event in the world, but if you look at the teams that they lost to, there were all great teams as far as who they lost to in those AFC Finals that cost them the AFC Championship and a trip to the Super Bowl. They lost to the Baltimore Colts in 1970 that won that Super Bowl, the Miami Dolphins in 1973 that won that Super Bowl. The Pittsburgh Steelers their arch-rival in the 1970s in both 1974 and 75 that won both of those Super Bowls. So the Raiders problem was that they didn't choke or get it done, they just lost to the best team in football all of those years.

The Raiders had to be the best team in the NFL not just have the best record in the AFC and host the AFC Final at Oakland Coliseum better known as "the Black Hole" as they did in 1974, but they had to have the best team in the AFC both regular and postseason. So when 1976 came around having lost four of the last six AFC Finals, including one at home, the sole-mission of the 1976 Raiders was to go to and win the Super Bowl and meant getting past the Steelers and running through anyone else who got in their way.

The Raiders knew they had the players and they had the talent on both sides of the ball. One of the best offenses in the NFL if not the best, with their vertical spread offense (as I call it)  always looking to throw deep to Cliff Branch from quarterback Ken Stabler. But working the whole field, to tight end Dave Casper and wide receiver Fred Belitninkoff both who are in the Hall of Fame. 

And with their power running game with the best offensive line in the NFL, with Hall of Famers offensive tackle Art Shell and offensive guard Gene Upshaw arguably the best players who ever played their positions. With center Dave Dalby another Pro Bowler and their power running game with their man-on-man blocking where you literally try to destroy the man in front of you.

And with tailback Clarence Davis and fullback Mark Van Egan and their kick ass defense (for lack of a better word) with defensive tackle John Mutuzak and defensive tackle Dave Rowe up front and others. Hall of Famer Ted Hendricks arguably the best outside linebacker of all- time and Pro Bowler Phil Viliapano. With two bump-and-run cover corners in Mike Haynes and Willy Brown. And perhaps the two hardest hitting safety's in football George Atkinson and Jack Tatum.

The Oakland Raiders by the time 1976 came around were already a very good team with a lot of talent. You would have to be to just be in six AFC Finals even though they lost all of them going into 1976. But they weren't a great team yet and being a great team and having great talent are two different things. The trick is to have both of them at the same time which is something the 1976 Raiders were finally able to learn and most of that credit goes to John Madden a Hall of Fame head coach. He figured out how to get all of these great players to play together at the same time.

NFL Network: America's Game- 1983 Los Angeles Raiders

Source:DAZN- the Los Angeles Raiders winning Super Bowl 18 over the Redskins in January, 1984.

Source:The Daily Post

"America's Game 1983 Los Angeles Raiders" 

From Nicole Alejandro 

"1983 Los Angeles Raiders Team Season Highlights "Just Win, Baby" & NFL '83" 

Source:Sports Odyssey- welcome to the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum version of the black hole.

From Sports Odyssey 

The 1983 Los Angeles Raiders represent to me what the Los Angeles Raiders should've always been, which was the best NFL team, period. Not just for the 1983 season, but the rest of the 1980s. As great as the San Francisco 49ers were during the 1980s and they had great teams both on offense and defense, one of the best head coaches and general managers ever in Bill Walsh, great management team, the Los Angeles Raiders were better, at least as far as personal and talent. As great as the 1985 Chicago Bears were, the Los Angeles Raiders were better, at least as far as personal and talent. 

What we got instead in the NFL was a 1983 Los Angeles Raiders that essentially stumbled into greatness and put it together when they needed to. And as good as a 12-4 record is, the 1983 Raiders were a 14-2, 15-1 team when you look at their personal and talent. 

The 83 Raiders defense that was loaded with Pro Bowlers and even Hall of Famers and not just DE Howie Long who I believe is the greatest defensive end, if not defensive lineman of the 1980s, but Ted Hendricks who is one of the best all around linebackers ever, perhaps the two best cornerbacks in the NFL in Lester Hayes and Mike Haynes, LB's Matt Millen and Rod Martin who were both Pro Bowlers, Greg Townsend who was an excellent pass rushing DE. 

The 83 Raiders had Marcus Allen at RB, who I believe was the best all around running back in the NFL in the 1980s and also most underutilized. Jim Plunkett at QB who when he was healthy and playing for a good team, was a Pro Bowl caliber QB. Probably the best offensive line in the NFL at that point. Todd Christianson who lead the NFL in receptions as a tight end, another Pro Bowler. Cliff Branch perhaps the best deep threat as a WR during the 1970s and perhaps early 80s as well. 

But what the NFL and the City of Los Angeles got instead was a Raiders team that stumbled into greatness for that one season in 1983, but were the underachievers of the NFL during the 1980s. They had other good years in Los Angeles and other playoff teams and other AFC West champions, but 1983 is the only year that the Raiders reached greatness in Los Angeles, even though they were always loaded as far as talent both on offense and defense. 

Had Al Davis took a few steps back and let someone else run personal for him and let the head coach do his own job as well and had Mr. David not tried to ruin Marcus Allen's career, I think the Raiders are still in Los Angeles today. 

NFL Films: Full Color Football: The New Frontier: The Story of the American Football League

Source:The Daily Post

By the late 1950s the National Football League had just survived the Korean War as far as losing players to that war, World War II losing players to that war, some not coming back, the Great Depression with all the money that was lost in the country as well as the NFL. And the fact that America went through that for about 15 years. If you don't have enough money to pay your bills and a lot of Americans were in that situation during the Great Depression, you're not going to go to sporting events. So by the late 1950s or even before that, when the NFL was approaching its 40th Season, they had proven they were a survivor. 

The NFL had already proven they were a survivor and with the economic boom of the 1950s and with the NFL growing in popularity with NFL champions like the New York Giants, Chicago Bears, Detroit Lions (yes the Detroit Lions), Baltimore Colts, Los Angeles Rams with Sid Gilman with his spread vertical offense  and of course the Cleveland Browns led by Paul Brown one of the top 3-5 head coaches of all-time, as well as a great general manager, the 1950s was a boom decade for the NFL. There was a lot of great football and great players in that decade, the NFL was finally making money and making very good money and they only had twelve franchises.

And with the NFL's revenue sharing system where each club shares it's broadcast revenue, there was a lot of money to go around. And the less clubs that they had the more money each club can keep for themselves. That was the theory which is why the NFL didn't expand sooner and into places like Boston, Buffalo, Miami, Houston, Dallas, San Diego and others all markets capable of supporting NFL franchises.

What the All American Football Conference proved in the 1940s and 50s, was that 12 pro football franchises wasn't enough that there was more money to be made and a lot more money to be made and there were a lot more players that could play pro football in America that a 12 club league could support. That's where the Baltimore Colts, Cleveland Browns, San Francisco 49ers all came from and when the AAFC folded, those clubs went to the NFL. The Cleveland Browns finished off the AAFC by winning the last championship there. And then went to the NFL in the 1950s and won five NFL Championships in that decade.

This was all setting the stage for the American Football League to come into existence all those markets that the NFL said the hell with, all wanted their own pro football franchise. And all of those players that could play in the NFL, but were overlooked, all found homes in the AFL in cities like Boston, Buffalo, the New York, Kansas City, Houston, Denver, Oakland and San Diego. Just to start off with followed in the late 60s by Cincinnati and Miami. The AFL represented a shot for for football fans who were turn down by the NFL, to have their own franchise and for players to get another shot at pro football career. 

The NFL saw the AFL as a threat right away which is why they rewarded an expansion franchise to Dallas in 1960 and Minneapolis in 1961. Because they knew there were a lot of football fans in those two markets and that the AFL wanted to expand there. Without the AFL, we probably never heard of players like quarterback Len Dawson who's in the Hall of Fame and QB Jack kemp who's famous for several other reasons, most of them positive. 

As well as all the African-American players that were turned away because of their race by the NFL. Like Hall of Famers like Chiefs linebacker Willie Lanier, LB Bobby Bell who's a better version of Lawrence Taylor,  defensive tackle Buck Buchanan, wide receiver Otis Taylor who should be in the Hall of Fame and so many others. The AFL was a second chance society for people who deserved it.

Warner Vod: All the President's Men (1976)

Source:The Daily Post

If you like movies based on true stories, then All The President's Men is a great movie if you like movies with great writing, then All The President's Men is a great movie. If you like movies with great casts, then All The Presidents Men is a great movie. If you like movies with clever quick-witted humor, then All The President's Men is a great movie. If you're interested in current affairs, politics and American history, or you're a junky about those things like myself, then All The Presidents Men is a great movie. There are so many reasons to see this great movie, this movie being the best movie at least as far as I'm concern in Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman's career. And I would add Jason Robards, Jack Warden and Ned Beatty, Jane Alexander to that list all great actors. 


All The President's Men is about the Watergate scandal that happened in 1972 when people working for the Nixon campaign broke into the Watergate building in Washington where just so happens where the Democratic National Committee Headquarters is located. They did that I'm guessing to dig up dirt on Sen. George McGovern President Nixon's opponent in 1972. I doubt they were there to steal wooden pencils or use the bathroom (call it a hunch). And how President Nixon covered up a story that he had no involvement in as far as the operations. But he did cover it up which is an Obstruction of Justice and how two basically no name reporters covered this story for the Washington Post.

Bob Woodward played by Robert Redford and Carl Bernstein played by Dusty Hoffman and If you're a fan of mystery's, then All The President's Men is a great movie. Even though Woodward and Bernstein aren't cops or private detectives, they are newspaper reporters covering a story that fell into their lap basically. The Watergate scandal was probably the dumbest political scandal that ever happened in the Federal Government. And there are plenty to choose from, because first of all it was illegal, it wasn't done by professional criminals. President Nixon got reelected in a landslide winning forty-nine states and around sixty-percent  of the popular vote despite Watergate.

So naturally what does Dick Nixon try to do. Being the great politician and brilliant man that he was, not trying to be funny here, he covers it up, he covers up a scandal that he had nothing to do with and had he just released everything that the White House had and let the FBI do their jobs, Watergate is nothing more than another Washington crime story handled by the Washington Police, President Nixon completes his second term and probably goes down as a great president depending on how he dealt with a weakening economy and the movie All The President's Men is never made. 

I saw All The Presidents Men for the first time when I was in junior high seventh or eighth Grade and didn't have much of an interest in politics at the age of thirteen or fourteen. Which may seem shocking considering how much of a political junky I am now. But I knew I really liked this movie by then and have seen probably twenty times since twenty plus years later because by the time I was eighteen, I was already a political junky keeping up with Congress and the Clinton Administration. I already new I was a Liberal Democrat by then. And this is one of those movies for me, thats worth seeing twenty plus times for the reasons I just laid out.

ESPN: Bill Buckner- Behind The Bag

Source:SB Nation- talking about Red Sox 1B Bill Buckner.

Source:The Daily Post 

“You’re probably familiar with the moment where Mookie Wilson’s grounder goes through Bill Buckner’s legs in the 1986 World Series. But do you know about everything that got us to that moment, including a rogue parachuter, a freak spring training injury that almost blinded Wilson, the heroics of Dave Henderson, a Red Sox-Mets trade, and a whole lot more?

Written, produced, and edited by Ryan Simmons

Shot by Mike Imhoff.” 

From SB Nation 

1986 Red Sox 1B Bill Buckner being interviewed by ESPN's Behind The Bag series about game 6 of the 1986 World Series against the Mets and his role in that game.

Source:ESPN- interviewing Red Sox 1B Bill Buckner.

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. It’s 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 of 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.

The Red Sox 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 of 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 have of been better than the Red Sox on paper without Buckner.

The Angels 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.  

Front Page:David Horowitz: Salon's Infantile Leftism

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's 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. 

Patrick J. Buchanan: Against Barack Obama, But For What?

Source:The New Democrat

Pat Buchanan with I believe the question of the day. Against Obama, but for what? Republicans are obviously against President Barack Obama and fire is hot, in case you need any other obvious facts. But what are they for and what do the actually want to pass into law in the next Congress. Now that they will control both the House and Senate and with a solid if not big majority in the House of Representatives. Senate Democrats will have a significant minority in the next Congress. 45-46 Senators, so Harry Reid or whoever is the next Senate Minority Leader will have real influence over what gets passed out of the Senate.

My question for Congressional Republicans especially their leadership in the House and Senate and Speaker John Boehner and Leader Mitch  McConnell in particular. What do they actually want to pass into law in the next Congress and get signed by President Obama. And what do they want the President to veto or Senate Democrats to try to block. The next Democratic Leader in the Senate who will be the Minority Leader will have a question as well. What does he want to block in the Senate with his members and perhaps some more moderate Republicans who will up for reelection in the next Congress. And what does he want the President to veto if House and Senate Republicans decide to go on their own.

If the Congressional Republican Leadership actually wants to legislate in the House and Senate and pass things into law, they are going to need to work with President Obama. And find issues that they both want to address and can find agreement. The Keystone Pipeline should be one of them that should pass with a solid bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate. Infrastructure investment, energy policy and trade are three other issues where they have common ground that President Obama will want to address in the next Congress as well.

The ball is in the Republican court because they'll run both the House and Senate in the next Congress and as a result will set the agenda for that in Congress both on the floors and in committee. What will get done in the next Congress will be up to them and what they actually want to get passed into law. And if they actually want to legislate, meaning pass things into law that the President signs, they'll need to work with President Obama and Senate Democrats as well most likely if they want to pass things out of Congress that the President will sign. 

The Washington Post: Robert Costa- Presidential Run Not Off the Table For Paul Ryan

Source: The Washington Post- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan R, Wisconsin and Melanie Turner, in North Carolina.

Source: The New Democrat

I wouldn't bet anything that Representative Paul Ryan will run for president in 2016. I actually might be leaning in the other direction, because I don't believe he wants the job at least not now. And besides lets face it, he's never been elected statewide to anything or even run statewide for anything. He isn't even in his party's leadership with real power over what gets done and what is voted on the House floor. Yes he serves in Congress, but in the lower House, the House of Representatives where he serves in a very partisan Republican district.

The reason why the only presidential nominees that have come out of Congress have been Senators at least going back a hundred-sixty years, is because Senators represent the whole state. Senators tend to have at least some executive experience before arriving to the Senate. They also just don't represent their party in the Senate, but represent their state as a whole. And in a lot of cases they have to appeal to Independents and perhaps moderates in the other party to at least avoid a tough reelection. Representatives especially the stars, don't have those issues and just need to avoid primaries.

So Representative Ryan would have a major resume problem as a presidential candidate, even if he were to win the GOP nomination. I think Governor of Wisconsin would be very attractive for him, assuming he doesn't want to be a lifer in the House, as he put it and wants to make a real run for president. Especially if Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin loses tomorrow. And look to run for Governor in 2018 and perhaps the White House in 2020 or 2024, when he would only be in his fifties at that point.

When was the last time and sitting U.S. Representative even made a strong big for their party's presidential nomination, let alone won it? 1988 maybe with Representative Dick Gephardt, but his campaign because he wasn't able to appeal outside of the Midwest was fairly short. The same thing happen to him in 2004 and that is when he had just stepped down as House Minority Leader when Democrats failed to win back the House in 2002. There's a reason why our president's have tended to be executives for the most part with a few Senators as well. Because those people have to be able to appeal outside of their party's base to be successful. 
Source:The Huffington Post

HBO Films: Alec Baldwin: The Lost Ballparks of Major League Baseball

Source:The Daily Post

As someone who loves baseball especially Major League Baseball, I have a collection of books about it's history because it's such a great game that I love. And has such a great history which to me at least is more interesting than the game today. I feel the same way about the National Football League. I'm into MLB history so much that I have at least three books that are about the old ballparks of MLB. 

And in these books you see photos of pass ballparks of MLB. Like the old Yankee Stadium, the old Oakland Coliseum before the Raiders moved back into it. You move the seats forward in the foul territory of the Coliseum and you are talking about a perfect ballpark, as long as you only play baseball in it. It has like a mile of foul territory in it, so dugout seats at the Coliseum or home plate seats actually weren't that great because you were so far back. 

The old Candlestick Park in San Francisco, that didn't have the upper deck in the outfield, that was put in for the 49ers was a beautiful ballpark. Tiger Stadium in Detroit that was great for both pitchers and batters, depending on where the batter hit the ball. Was also a great ballpark. Baltimore Memorial Stadium one of my favorites as an Orioles fan, but also because I love watching games there, another great ballpark, where the fans were on top of the action. High walls in right and left field so fans there were looking down at the action.

What was great about the old ballparks, unlike the 1970s and 80s with the cookie cutter stadiums that were designed for both football and baseball, was that the old parks were built and designed for baseball. So the fans were on top of the action and had a great view of the game. And in a lot of cases there were no upper decks in the outfield. So you could see a lot of the city that the park was located in. Crosley Field in Cincinnati was a perfect example of that. 

So the architecture of these ballparks was a lot better. You just didn't have great seats and that meant in basically every part of the park, but you had a great view of the rest of the park and part of the city the park was located in. Unlike some of the cookie cutters like in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and other places, where the only view of the park you had, except for the game, was the rest of the stadium depending on where you sat. So if you had upper deck home plate seats, what you saw from there was the upper deck in the outfield.

One of the great things about Major League Baseball is that in the last twenty years, the league has moved away from the cookie cutter multipurpose stadiums. And back to having ballparks just for baseball and other entertainment events, but just the baseball team would play there. Instead of sharing a stadium with a football team, where the stadium is too big for baseball and in some cases too small for football.