Kay Jay: Washington Senators 1957 & 1959- A Little History of The Washington Nationals

Source:Chris Creamer's Sports Logos- Washington's original MLB franchise. 

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Opening Days in 1957 & 1959 at Griffith Stadium.  Washington Senators vs. Baltimore Orioles"  

Source:Kay Jay- looks like Vice President Richard M. Nixon (Republican, California) at a Senators game in Washington.

From Kay Jay

I'm not sure that a lot of let's say younger Washington Nationals fans are aware of this, but there's actually history of Major League Baseball in Washington with the Washington Senators. That goes back to the early 1900s, or even further back then that that lasted up until the original Senators left for Minneapolis in the early 1960s. To when Washington was rewarded another MLB franchise in the early 1960s. 

Let's call the new Senators, Senators Two, that were basically counted on to finish last every year until they left for Dallas after the 1971 season. So before the Montreal Expose relocated to Washington after the 2004 season, MLB already had a long history in Washington and the Senators even won a World Series in 1924 and at least one other American League championship as well.

The Senators did play in the American League as well in the same league as the Orioles. Where the Washington-Baltimore regional rivalry could've started in the 1950s or 1960s. Instead just in the last few years as both franchises have struggled to become contenders and finally reached that status in 2012. With the state of both the Nationals and Orioles franchises and the fact they play in separate leagues. But play each in two series a year every year and into the indefinite future. With both clubs young and very talented and poised to be contenders for a very long time. 

The Orioles-Nationals, rivalry is not only going to be real, but a rivalry between two very good teams. Making baseball in the Washington-Baltimore region very good for a long time. And something fans of both franchises will look forward to every year.

The Senators, were like the Pittsburgh Steelers before the early 1970s when the Steelers finally became really good under Chuck Noll. The Senators, even though they actually had plenty of very good and great players, similar to the Steelers in the 1950s and 60s, were expected to and generally obliged to finish in last place in the American League. 

And again similar to the Steelers, the Senators from time to time would come up with a good team and have a winning season and perhaps even contend in the American League. But the Senators were always underfunded, because their ownership under Calvin Griffith and Later Bob Short, were always very cheap and had a hard time drawing fans to their games. But Washington, like most other big sports markets, tend to need good teams to watch in order to turn out for their teams.

The Senators, weren't losers because Washington was bad baseball city and market. They were losers, because they put a lot of bad teams on the field on an annual basis. Or wouldn't have the right manager, or coaching staff, or a combination of all of those factors. 

The Senators, wouldn't have left Washington either in 1960, or in 1971, had they simply been managed well and gave their fans reasons for coming to their games. 

Washington, was not the same city and market in 1971 that it is today. It's much larger today, but as the Redskins have shown when their teams commit to winning, their fans commit to them and turn out for the games. 

The Nationals of today, have a great ballpark and very good team, because their management is committed to winning and their fans are committed to them. The Senators, could have had that as well and still be here today.

Liberty Pen: 'PC Is Never Having To Say You're Sorry'

Source:Liberty Pen- welcome to America.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Americans do not have a right to not be offended. They do have a right to free speech. Jackie Mason. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen 

"Love Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry"

Source:Real Life Journal- I believe that's Ali MacGraw from Love Story.

From Paper Rosesx

Political correctness, at its best (not exactly a high point) is a feeling in the country that bigotry should be wrong and looked down upon. Not outlawed, but considered unacceptable to the majority of the country. That I and I believe a consensus of Americans believe in. 

Political correctness, at its worse, (which is as high as Mount Everest) is this feeling that we should not only say things that may offend people that so-called Progressives (Communists, really) support, but that we shouldn't be allowed to say that and there should be legal or civil sanctions that should come down upon people who offend people that so-called Progressives support.

So-called PC Warriors also believe that if you say offensive things about people that so-called Progressives oppose (like right-wingers) well, thats just free speech. And what's the problem, because all they are saying is the truth. So it's not just political correctness that can be a problem, but a double standard that can come with political correctness that can also be a problem as well.

To put it bluntly: freedom of speech protects the assholes as much as the enlightened. Especially when the enlightened says things about people that so-called Progressives (and I'm being nice with the word Progressives) believe deserve special protection and are part of some vulnerable class of people that government should give special treatment to. There's nothing bigoted about the truth and I would argue nothing offensive either.

The Christian-Right and Muslim-Right have one big nasty thing in common: they tend to see women and homosexuals as second-class citizens. In the women's case, people who are only on Earth to serve their men and raise their kids. In the homosexual case, people who should be in mental institutions, if not jails and in the Islamist case, people who don't even deserve to live. You can still be put to death in some parts of the Middle East simply for being gay.

So when a Liberal or Conservative or Libertarian, says that the Christian-Right and Islamists view women and gays as second-class citizens, who are they offending and where is the bigotry? If you just say that about Christian-Conservatives, you'll be viewed as a hero with the New-Left in America. And as someone with the guts to speak the truth. But if you say the same thing about Islamists, even though all you're doing is speaking the truth, you'll be viewed as a bigot, by the New-Left in America.

The politically correct thing should always be the truth. And if someone is wrong, or ignorant, or even hateful, they'll be held accountable by everyone else. They won't be forced to shut up and government wont' take their platform away from them. But public opinion will sanction them and the asshole will loose supporters and perhaps their job. But they won't be thrown in jail simply for speaking their mind. That is not how a liberal free society works.

Sky News: Cesar Millan- 'Dog Whisperer, Rejects Cruelty Claims'

Source:Sky News- Dog Whisperer Cesar Millan.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Dog whisperer Cesar Millan has defended himself against claims that he is cruel to animals.

The allegations were made recently in a TV interview with presenter Alan Titchmarsh after tweeting animal-lover critics said the Mexican-born trainer used violence and even electric shocks to train the dogs.

But, Millan told Sky News, he made physical contact with the dog to distract the dog from the action it was about to take - for instance, stop the dog from going into fighting mode." 

From Sky News

Dogs, are similar to humans in this sense, that they have to get to know you and trust that you aren't there to hurt them, before they will open up to you and trust you. And once you accomplish that and you know how to approach them, they'll love you. 

I have a hard time buying (and not because money is tight) that Cesar Milan abuses dogs or any other pets. Of course he could be an Oscar caliber actor on his show and that his show is nothing but an act. And that while he pretends to be this great animal psychologist on TV, in his free time he beats dogs and cats with a whip for the hell of it, or to take out on his anger at whatever is pissing off at the time. I just don't see that.

He reminds me of the great adolescent phycologist who works with lets say troubled urban high school students who grow up in rough neighborhoods. Where their father is not around and if their mother works at all, she works two low-income jobs just to support her kids and doesn't have the time to look after them during the day. But this great teacher or psychologist who is probably a former Marine, or something comes in and teaches these kids how to behave and get with the program. And how important school is to their future and all of that. 

It's hard to imagine someone like Cesar Millan as a bullshit artist, who talks a great game in public, but in private is just as bad as the assholes that he has turned around made productive people out of.

Cesar Milan, at least to me, seems like that guy you want to have around when your dog doesn't know how to behave, or has no interest in behaving and you've tried everything else that you can think of. And you're just desperate, so you go on national TV and bring your home problems to the public. (Talk about desperation) So you bring in the Dog Whisperer to teach your dog how to behave and become a responsible member of the family. How to respond to their parents and other family members. Respond to commands, how to behave on walks, even how to go to the bathroom and anything else. 

I have a hard time believing that someone like Cesar Millan, who clearly loves dogs and has such great skill at training them, would in private be abusive to them and perhaps even criminal.

VH1: Cher- If I Could Turn Back Time: Live at VH1 Divas (1999)

Source:VH1- Cher, performing at VH1 Divas in 1999.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Cher - If I Could Turn Back Time 1999 Live Video | Cher video... Originally from VH1, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

The only Cher song that I like and perhaps because of the candor in it. A song about regret and I think it was about her relationship with Sunny Bono, a great classic rock song. 

This performance was part of VH1's Divas series that they did annually in the late 1990s and early 2000s. No idea if they still do that, but Cher whatever you think of her certainly qualifies as a diva. Great voice, great personality, great body, certainly very entertaining. And she's lived a hell of a life and with comes with that comes a lot of regret. 

Things you wish you shouldn't have said and done and perhaps got caught up in the moment and took out your anger on someone. "If I Could Turn Back Time", again great song, but it is sort of like saying: "If only I owned a helicopter, I would be able to avoid rush hour traffic everyday." People aren't tested by what they would have changed if they could go back. You learn from mistakes and then move on. 

We are all tested by how we react and carry ourselves in the moment. The better we do in real-time, the fewer mistakes that we'll make as we move on.

Reason Magazine: Lisa Kennedy- 'The Cast of Atlas Shrugged Part II Talks Film's Impact'

Source:Reason Magazine- talking about Atlas Shrugged the movie.

Source:Real Life Journal

"The book was incredibly informative for me," says actress Samantha Mathis who plays Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged Part II, "in terms of figuring out [Dagny's] backstory and where she came from, and why she believed what she believed, and what her relationships were."

ReasonTV correspondent Kennedy spoke with Mathis and other cast members at the film's Hollywood Premiere on Oct. 5 to find out how they connected with their characters and the themes portrayed in the movie.

Atlas Shrugged Part II, the second of three films based on Ayn Rand's controversial 1957 novel, hits theaters nationwide on Friday, October 12, 2012. (For more information on the film, go to:Atlas Shrugged Movie." 

From Reason Magazine

Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand) reminds me of someone who I guess knows the world is about to explode and they're going to die anyway and basically says: "What the hell, I have nothing to lose at this point. I can do whatever I want, because I'm going to die anyway. So thats exactly what I'm going to do." The world is literally on fire and I'm writer and I can write anything I want. Because no one is going to read it anyway. And even if someone does read it, no one is going to remember it, because everyone is going to be dead." 

Atlas Shrugged, is a complete and total fantasy with really no base in reality in it. And looks like something that was written by someone who perhaps had months to live, who was a writer and decides to write whatever they want at this point. With no editor to answer to, because no one is going to read it anyway.

Atlas Shrugged, is essentially a fantasy about what can happen when the private sector and a capitalist economy is regulated. It's not about what can happen when a developed, or highly developing country with a strongly growing an educated middle class, where poverty is shrinking, is taken over by Marxist revolutionaries, that decides to outlaw political parties, private property, starts detaining people who oppose them and nationalizes industries. We already know that story because we've seen it before. Lebanon comes to mind and perhaps you could make a case for Cuba as well. That would be a good book and movie and it would sell well if was done right. 

Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand in 1957) there hasn't been an example of a regulated private enterprise economy that has collapsed just because it is regulated, since that book was written.

Atlas Shrugged, which I'm sure is very clever and well-done and written by Ayn Rand, that shouldn't be a surprise. But as a movie it sounds like bad sci-fi movie from the Sci-Fi Channel. Every developed country in the world operates under some form of rule of law. That government is not there to tell people who to live their own lives and control our movement's, or anything like that. 

There isn't a single developed country in the world that is a Marxist state, or some type of authoritarian state from the Far-Right. But all developed countries do regulate how people interact with each other and regulate the economy. Not to run business's, but to protect customer's and workers. 

Economies can be over regulated and when that happens they struggle. But they all have some type of regulatory state that is there to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Ayn Rand lived in a great developed country like that for a very long time, that being America.

Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens- 'In Defense Of Unpopular Speech'

Source:Liberty Pen- British Socialist columnist Christopher Hitchens, actually making a great case for free speech. Not your typical Socialist. (To put it mildly)

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Popular speech does not need Constitutional protection. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Democratic Socialist, a bit left to me on economic policy (to put it mildly) but we do tend to agree on some of these key social issues, like civil liberties, War on Drugs, and yes, free speech. 

But Freedom of Speech is exactly that: the freedom to speak, to go along with our property rights, are the most important freedoms and constitutional rights that we have in America. The freedom to speak is exactly that: the right to speak whether it's popular or not.

Since we are a liberal democracy, we've decided long ago, that we are good enough and intelligent enough as a nation, that we can have good intelligent tolerant thinkers. But that we can also have haters and ignorant people as well, because we are a good and intelligent enough as a people to figure out what's hate and what's not and what should be taken seriously and what shouldn't be. That we don't need big government to make these decisions for us. What we should and be able to listen to and what we shouldn't listen to. 

This is something that Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians figured out a long time ago, but that today's so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) so-called and Christian-Conservatives (but what are they conserving and they Bible are they reading) have never grasped, who believe government needs to be strong enough to be able to protect its people, even at times from themselves.

The Islamic film, that was perceived very negatively a few weeks ago by Muslims and so-called Progressives (Socialists, in actuality) but of course Christian-Nationalists view the film as free speech, because they like and agree with the film (but thats a different story) is a perfect example of what free speech is designed to protect: the right for people to be able to speak their mind, even as small as their minds and intelligence level may be. As long as they are not labeling people, threatening people, or inciting violence. 

What this anti-Muslim movie essentially does, is layout what the creators of this movie feel: "Islam is bad and so-forth, that Muhammad was a bad person and so-forth." But it wasn't calling for Muslims to be killed and beat up and so-forth. It was a negative if not bigoted view of Islam, but not calling for violence on Muslims. And thats the difference between free speech and threatening speech. Something we don't put up with as a nation.

ESPN: Behind The Fights Documentary- Buster Douglas vs Mike Tyson: February, 1990

Source:ESPN- Mike Tyson-Buster Douglas documentary.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"The Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame... is a series that examines the athletes, coaches, front office personnel and even fans who over the years have been blamed for either a team's failure, their individual failure, a bad trade, a bad draft pick, or the demise of a franchise. The shows begin by explaining why that individual or team has been blamed over the years and then it peels away the layers between fact and fiction and count down the Top 5 Reasons You Can't Blame them. This fast-paced series is a mix of documentary storytelling and the entertaining elements that make countdown shows fun to watch... 

From Silver Samurai

I saw the James Douglas-Mike Tyson World Heavyweight Championship fight as a fourteen year old in junior high on HBO in February, 1990. Actually I saw the replay of it, after I heard the shocking news that James Buster Douglas defeated Iron Mike Tyson for the World Heavyweight Championship. It was shocking, because Mike Tyson look unbeatable for about five years from 1985 until 1990, holding the WHC for about four years. He just didn't look unbeatable, but he was destroying his opponents.

Iron Mike beat former world champions, but not just beating them, but destroying them. Like Frank Bruno, Mike Spinks, Larry Holmes, Tony Tucker, James Smith, and others. All guys who were world champions before and in Larry Holmes case one of the top 2-3 heavyweights and world champions of all- time. 

With Buster Douglas, you had a very talented fighter: tall, big, strong, accurate, with excellent boxing skills, but wasn't very disciplined. He was the perfect fighter to beat someone like Mike Tyson, because of his awesome size. And the ability to use it, he was able to keep Tyson off of him, by hitting him hard enough to keep him off and go to work on him.

Going into this fight, of course James Douglas beating Mike Tyson is not only one of the biggest upsets of the 1990s, but of all-time. But looking back at it now, James Douglas was simply good enough to beat Tyson. He had the skills and size to do it, as well as the training. 

Most of Iron Mike's opponents went at Tyson by trying to tie him up, to prevent Mike from throwing Mike's bombs at you. But what Buster did was a different strategy. He figured out the best way to keep Iron Mike off of you was by hitting him hard with a big jab, going on offense forcing Mike to take punishment as well, which set up Buster's other punches.

Reason Magazine: 'Nanny of the Month (August 2012): Stimulus Money Used to Support Soda Taxes'

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Our nation's nannies have turned up the heat this summer.

August's slate of control freaks includes the silver state statists who might fine you 2,000 bucks for the crime of teaching someone how to apply makeup, and the Phoenix code enforcer who busted a woman for handing out free water in 112-degree heat (!) because she didn't have a license. 

Yet neither could managed to muster the the meddling of this month's top pick. Using federal taxpayers' dough (we're talking stimulus and Obamacare cash) to implement local-level soda taxes and other nanny state laws certainly violates good taste, but the Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General thinks it might also violate federal anti-lobbying provisions.  

Presenting Reason TV's Nanny of the Month for August 2012: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius!

About 75 seconds."  

From Reason Magazine

Source:Real Life Journal- a Big Government Nanny?

Actually, I don't agree with this Nanny of The Month show from Reason. I did agree with the Nanny of The Month's for June and July. Mayor Mike Bloomberg essentially trying to outlaw soft drinks in New York and the people in Massachusetts trying to outlaw cursing in public. Thats exactly what political nannies are, people who try to protect others from themselves. 

What Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius was trying to do with her wellness campaign is preventive health care. Something we have to do as a country in order to bring down our health care costs.

What they are doing here is passing out funds from the Federal Government to encourage wellness campaigns. Not outlawing junk food, or junk drinks, but encouraging healthy dieting and exercise. Which is in our national interest, because it would bring down the health care costs for the country. 

This is not saying: "You have to eat and drink healthy and you have to exercise and if you don't, we'll lock you up in jail." Where you'll get less exercise and eat worse food, which is what we do in the War on Drugs, the definition of making problems worse by finding a problem, not only not fixing it, but making it worse.

The lady who got fined for handing out free water during one of the hottest summers we've ever had, which we are still having in most of the country, is a much better example of a nanny than the preventive health care campaign. And I would bet the fine that lady is going to have to pay is as much as we would be paying in sales taxes had she bought that water in a store and thats what this fine is about. This big government here thinking they were cheated in losing sales tax revenue. Because the people who got the bottle water got it for free and didn't pay sales taxes on it.

HBO Sports: Evander Holyfield vs Riddick Bowe- World Heavyweight Championship (1993)

Source:HBO Sports- for the World Heavyweight Championship.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Riddick Bowe defends the heavyweight title against Evander Holyfield - the rematch of their bout one year prior. Hosted by Jim Lampley, George Foreman, and Larry Merchant. Recorded on VHS November 1993." 

From Sterling Wainscott

I remember the Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy of the early and mid 1990s very well, because I got to see all three fights. I was a junior in high school during the first fight in 1992, saw it on pay per view after I begged my dad to order the fight and we ended up watching at least part of it together. 

I've always had a lot of respect for Evander Holyfield, because he's the ultimate of professionalism when it comes to not only pro boxing but pro sports as well. No other boxer has ever worked harder or had more dedication to his craft which generally speaking helped him a lot but it also hurt him.

Evander, ended up fighting too long and losing to guys and getting beat up by guys, that 5-10 years earlier he would've beaten fairly easily. And hopefully he hasn't paid a long-term price for that when it comes to his health, we'll see later. But one problem I had with Evander, is that he seemed to have it a little too easy, he hadn't gotten much of a big challenge in the heavyweight division to this point. George Foreman gave him a pretty good fight in 1991, but Evander won most of those rounds and I wanted to see someone who not only gave Evander a big test but could actually beat him and thats where Riddick Bowe came in.

Evander Holyfield wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1990 by beating an overweight and overconfident James Douglas. Who probably thought way too much of himself after whipping and knocking out Mike Tyson for the Heavyweight Championship in January, 1990 in Japan. And before Evander fought Riddick Bowe, he defended his title successfully twice against two boxers who were once. Great but at this point of their careers were in the early forties, in George Forman and Larry Holmes. The super fight in the Heavyweight Division of the 1990s, was suppose to be Evander vs Mike Tyson.

With Iron Mike's rape case, Holyfield-Tyson, wasn't going to happen in the early 90s. Again this is where Riddick Bowe comes in: after coming off the 1988 Olympics where he didn't do as well as perhaps he should've, he was looking for a big challenge. And a chance to prove himself and why not fight for the World Heavyweight Championship and win it to accomplish it. 

The Bowe-Holyfield Trilogy was great because you have two great heavyweights at the prime of their careers. Probably the best two heavyweights of the 1990s, who both had a lot of respect for each other, who both knew that they had to be their best to beat the best, who was their opponent. Thats how they both saw these fights and why these fights worked out the way they did, two great fighters both bringing their a games to these fights.

Alan Meires: Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, On British TV (1989)

Source:Alan Meires- George Forman, Joe Frazier, and Muhammad Ali. Three real World Heavyweight Champions, from the 1970s.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Frazier, Ali and Foreman On British TV Show Very Funny. I found this buy luck the British BBC  was broadcasting this as a tribute to the late Great Jo Fraziers Death. 18 October 1989" 

From Alan Meires

Three giants in the ring and two of the funniest people who've ever lived in Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. Without Parkinson's, imagine Big George and Muhammad, doing a two-man comedy routine and show together. Muhammad, going off on all his opponents that he beat and George telling people how fat people can succeed in America. Or at least people with big mouths and appetites. 

Joe Frazier, not exactly known for humor, but I don't know of a better heavyweight champion who was under 6'0 at least since the 1960s who was better. He's definitely one of the best 5-10 heavyweight champions of all-time. Even though his time as a world champion or even world championship contender was over by his early thirties.

Unless you want to put Larry Holmes in this group who didn't become the World Heavyweight Champion until 1978, I believe we're talking about the three best heavyweight boxers of the 1970s. Muhammad, won the World Heavyweight Championship twice and was 3-1 against these other two great boxers. 

Joe Frazier, was World Heavyweight Champion for what, five years. And it took someone as big and strong as a George Foreman to beat him. 

George beat Smokin Joe twice and George also beat Kenny Norton and some other great boxers. And you could even argue that George underachieved in the 1970s and perhaps should have accomplished more. So this is a great group that was on TV together.

HBO Sports: George Foreman vs Michael Moorer- World Heavyweight Championship (1994)

Source:HBO Sports- for the World Heavyweight Championship.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Michael Moorer defends the heavyweight title against George Foreman. Entire HBO program from beginning to end. Hosted by Jim Lampley, Gil Clancy, and Larry Merchant. Recorded on VHS November 1994."  

From Sterling Wainscott

This a fight that Mike Moorer would like to have back. This fight reminds me a little of George Foreman vs Muhammad Ali, for the World Heavyweight Championship in 1974 where Muhammad, waited for Big George, to punch himself out while landing enough punches in the fight to stay ahead. But essentially let Foreman land his punches thinking he wasn't built to last and would punch himself out. And that is when Ali went to work on him and knocked him down for the ten count. 

This was a little different where Big George, lost almost all the rounds if not all of them and did enough to buy himself time to capitalize on a mistake from Moorer, which is where he hit him with a 1-2 and knocked him out.

Big George, is 45 at this point and in his eighth year of his famous comeback looking to win back the world championship. Weighing in at 255-260 pounds and slow, but still having devastating power and the ability to take great punches. 

Mike Mooere, 26 at this point and should have been in this prime and was prepared at least physically to hold on the title for a long time. He beat Evander Holyfield for the championship in 1993. He was 6'2, 215-220 pounds, real quick and real powerful. But perhaps a bit overconfident lacking the work-ethic needed to stay as a world champion. Not that different from Riddick Bowe, or Buster Douglas.

So going into this fight this almost looked like a mismatch. People thinking that Moorer, would pound Foreman the whole fight and be able to avoid Foreman's big jab and win most if not all the rounds. Either wear Foreman out, or win with a landslide decision. 

The cliche always has a punchers chance, was never more correct than in this fight. George Foreman, in every fight he ever fought was always 1-2 punches away from winning. Because he could knock anyone out in 1-2 punches. Or nail you so hard with one punch and then pound you with several big blows after that would take you out. 

Big George, caught Moorer with one of his huge jabs and then decked him with a punch that Moorer didn't see. And that is how he won the World Heavyweight Championship. Where he trailed the whole fight.

HBO Sports: Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes- World Heavyweight Championship (1982)

Source:HBO Sports- Cooney vs Holmes, for the WHC, in 1982.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Larry Holmes vs Gerry Cooney (High Quality) 11th of June, 1982...............Caesars Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada WBC Heavyweight World Championship" 

From Katis

Gerry Cooney vs Larry Holmes, was the classic matchup of the power-fighter vs the power-boxer. Gerry Cooney, is one of the strongest and hardest punching heavyweights of all-time. Who was good enough to fight for the World Heavyweight Championship. But was not a fighter who was built for the distance. 

Cooney didn't move very well standing 6'7 and weighing 230-240 pounds depending on who he fought. He reminds me a little to George Wepner and if he could get to you early and pound you, he could take you out, because he was so strong and so powerful even for a heavyweight. But the problem he had is he fought a lot of strong heavyweights who could move and take punishment. Larry Holmes, perfect example of that.

Larry Holmes, wasn't a one or two-punch knockout artist, but he was a strong powerful heavyweight who moved very well, who had great boxing skills and simply punished his opponents. Reminds me and a lot of others of the great Muhammad Ali. 

This was a fight about who would get to the other first. Could Cooney, take the momentum first, or would Holmes stick and move as he's delivering great punishment to Cooney. That is how Holmes won this fight by attacking Cooney and as a result was able to keep Cooney off him and avoid those huge powerful punches from Cooney. 

Holmes, didn't take out Cooney in a few punches, but instead pounded Cooney over several rounds and eventually wore Cooney out.

Reason: Javier Sicilia- 'The Caravan For Peace Calls For an End to The Drug War'

Source:Reason Magazine- covering The Caravan of Peace.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"On August 12, where the wall between Mexico and the U.S. meets the Pacific Ocean, acclaimed Mexican poet Javier Sicilia and busloads of people who are fed up with the drug war launched the Caravan for Peace. Over the next several weeks, the Caravan will travel to 25 different U.S. cities with the goal of starting a serious national dialogue about the failure of drug prohibition.

Javier Sicilia, whose son was murdered by drug traffickers in 2011, described the drug war this way:

"This war's failure is devastating: the 23 million American drug consumers are far from diminishing but increasing instead; in the past 5 years, Mexico has accumulated almost 70 thousand dead, more than 20 thousand missing people, more than 250 thousand have been displaced, along with hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and these figures keep rising. The American gun manufacturers arm the organized crime through illegal trade, while the Mérida Initiative legally arms the Mexican army, fostering war. The American jails imprison millions of human beings because of drug consumption. The immigrants are criminalized on this side of the border and extorted or made to disappear on the other side; the temptation to militarize using the police regime emerges on both sides, while setting a deep crisis for democracy and undermining the greatness of open societies."  

From Reason Magazine

Imagine if we had a war on junk food, junk drink, coffee, swimming, go carting, sky diving, alcohol and tobacco, steroids, sex, athletics, gambling, all things that can bring people pleasure, but come with certain risk factors. First, we would have a lot less insomniacs in America, because we would be such a dull country. But we would be country of prison inmates, because Americans do these activities everyday. And thats just for the people who would be arrested for having a good time. 

We simply don't have enough law enforcement officers to arrest everyone else. We would be arresting people for having a good time and how they live their own lives, not what they do to other people.

Think about it, what are laws for? To protect innocent people from criminals, not to protect people from themselves. Well, the War on Drugs is the opposite of that, because it arrests people for what they do to themselves, not what they do to innocent people. And people who support the War on Drugs, people who I call Drug Warriors, will say we have drunk driving laws. Well, thats obviously true and I support that, but we haven't labeled alcohol a drug thats really a narcotic considering how dangerous it is and the damage that can come from it, if it's abused, illegal at least since not prohibition.

If you don't like marijuana, you don't like the smell of it or whatever, I have some advice for you: don't use it, don't take it, don't use it at all, don't hangout with people who at least do it around you. Congratulations, because you've just made the decision not to use marijuana. And if you have kids, you should keep it away from them as well. 

But don't try to force other people not to be able to use marijuana legally. Because for one, just a practical reason, you won't be able to stop them. I mean talk about wasting time, you would be better off trying to pick up a beach ball with a baseball glove. But the other reason being its really none of your business unless they are friends, or relatives and they are abusing it. What you should do instead is mind your own damn business.

Worry about what happens in your own life and what you have control over, rather than what happens in other people's lives. The War on Drugs is about control, overprotection, trying to save people from themselves. Like the overprotected father who tries to lock his daughter in her bedroom until she's 21. For fear she might meet a dangerous guy. 

And most of the victims of this War, are the people who Drug Warriors claim they are trying to save people who have experimented with illegal narcotics and end up in the criminal justice system as a result. For what they've done to themselves, rather than what they've done to others.

Reason: Lucy Steigerwald- 'What We Saw at The Solidarity Concert for Pussy Riot'

Source:Reason Magazine- Lucy Steigerwald interviewing a Pussy,  LOL!

Source:Real Life Journal

"Amnesty International called Russian punk feminist collective Pussy Riot "prisoners of conscience," after a February 21 anti-Putin protest landed three members of the band on trial for "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred." The plight of Pussy Riot has provoked international attention — and pressure for lenience — as the women face three to seven years in prison. On August 10, Reason TV headed down to the Solidarity Concert for Pussy Riot, right across from the Russian embassy." 

From Reason Magazine

Wow! I thought Christian-Nationalism was a problem in America, especially when it’s involved in politics. But didn’t realize how big of an issue it is Russia as well. That their Federal Government is trying to clamp down on pornography and perhaps other forms of adult entertainment. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that I don’t live in Russia, or aren’t of Russian ethnicity. You hear stories about Russia as it relates to the Putin Administration clamping down on speech as it relates to the press.

Because Russia does technically have free press over there, with private media and so-forth and the Federal Government gets involved when one of their news networks, or publications report a story that’s critical of the Putin Administration. Which is bad enough, but to take it to the next level and it interfere with how people live their own lives and what they do in their own homes, is beyond extreme. Its big government gone wild and is something that the Christian-Right would love to see in America.

I can see one of these groups holding rallies with some of their famous religious leaders in defense of President Vladimir Putin and what he’s doing to crack down on immoral behavior as they see it.

I can see it now, Christian-Conservatives holding rallies in favor or what the Putin Administration in Russia is doing as far as it regulates its own people. They would call it something like: “Defending God in the name of morality and decency by trying to eliminate pornography in the Russian Federation.” They would be defending a country that just twenty years ago was a communist republic, a country they use to protest against, especially as it relates to religious freedom.

But now the Christian-Right would be coming out in a favor of a country that still cracks down on freedom, but in a different way: people’s ability to express themselves and be able to live their own lives and control their own bodies. And perhaps see Christian-Conservatives holding rallies against people speaking out in favor of free expression.

Which is how pornography has been ruled constitutionally protected under the First Amendment in the United States. I could see rallies organized by Christian-Conservatives that would one defend the what President Putin is doing in Russia as it relates to pornography and rallies speaking out against people who are speaking out in favor of people’s ability to express themselves sexually. And calling these people immoral and people who should be in prison for what they do in private and what they are speaking out in favor of. Which is a big part of what Christian-Nationalism is in America: restricting freedom to protect what they see as national security and morality.

Reason: 'Bikini Banners and Freakin Cops Cracking Down on Curse Words! The Nanny of The Month For June 2012'

Source:Reason Magazine- nanny of the month for June, 2012.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"June's busybodies want to shield your eyes from bikinis and remind you that they're not above ripping your garden out (even if you are complying with city codes).

But top dishonors go to the police chief who admitted on camera that his officers had "more important things to do," but still championed a measure that fines folks for swearing in public.

Presenting Reason.tv's Nanny of the Month for June 2012: Middleborough, Massachusetts Police Chief Bruce Gates!"

From Reason Magazine

Here’s more evidence that we overpay our politicians and don’t give them enough work to do. That they would actually take time, taxpayers time that is to look for new ways to restrict how the people who pay their salaries in how they live their own lives. That they would look for new ways to protect people from themselves. That individual freedom is too risky and some people might not know what to do with it and since they can’t take all of our freedom way from us and turn America into an authoritarian state, they look for new ways.

Nanny statists have to be clever and look for new ways to do this, without officially at least taking all of our freedom from us. Even risk violating the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution to do so. Which is what they are doing in Massachusetts by putting new limits on what people can say in public, the target of course of this being curse words. 

New Jersey trying to install crackdowns on what women can wear in public, meaning certain bikinis at their beaches. All they are doing there is just giving more men reason not to vacation in New Jersey. But they would be welcomed along with their women to come down to nearby Delaware and Maryland, where they wouldn’t have those restrictions.

These are just examples of what a nanny state looks like where the state takes it upon themselves to protect people from themselves. It ranges from speech, to what people can wear and say in public, to what they can eat, drink and smoke, to what they watch on TV, or listen to on the radio. All in an effort of course to protect people from themselves and to prevent us the people from doing things that they either don’t like, like cursing and certain forms of entertainment, which of course so-called Christian-Conservatives of course hate and see these things as a threat to our national morality and even national security.

When I hear those arguments, I think they must be high on something they believe should be illegal for everyone else. Or hate speech that today’s so-called Progressives (Neo-Communists, in actuality) hate, because they are worried that it may offend people they care about who are too sensitive to deal with it by themselves in an adult way and need the State to protect them. 

But my Nanny of the Month for June, 2012 is New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is now the Mayor of the Nanny City thanks to his efforts to protect New Yorker’s from themselves, as it relates to junk food, soft drinks, marijuana, and even pornography. And represents why the term nanny is even involved in American politics and why we have the term nanny state. Government’s that want to protect their people from themselves.

ESPN: 'The Fallen Champ- The Untold Story of Mike Tyson'

Source:ESPN- ESPN Classic Showing The Fallen Champ documentary.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"The Untold Story of Mike Tyson: "The Fallen Champ"......Great Documentary. Mike Tyson The Fallen Champ the untold story documentary, boxing fight knockout documentary compilation highlight. Fedor David Haye, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, James Toney, Roy Jones, Bernard Hopkins, Juan Manuel Marquez, HBO 24 episode, Vladimir Klitschko Klitchko, Vitali Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Lennox Lewis, Amir Khan, Carl Froch. Video tribute Joe Louis Frazier, Julio Cesar Chavez, Gene Tunney, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes, Jack Dempsey, Johnson." 

From Ibhof  

"When FALLEN CHAMP first appeared in 1993, director Barbara Kopple won both the Emmy and DGA award, but the film has rarely been screened since then. Now with the upcoming release of James Toback’s film TYSON, the time is right to look back on Kopple’s achievement at covering the subject from multiple perspectives.

Here’s what Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly had to say about the film at the time of its release... 

Source:Stranger Than Fiction- Former World Heavyweight Boxing Champion Mike Tyson.

From Stranger Than Fiction

When I think of sports tragedies, I think of baseball players like Darryl Strawberry, Jose Cansesco, Pete Rose, Dwight Gooden, Denny McClain, etc. And In Strawberry and Cansesco's case, both five-tool players who had all the ability to be First Ballot Hall of Famers, but who weren't very disciplined off the field. And both had drug problems as well as injury problems, which had something to do with their lack of discipline as men. In Pete Rose's case, had an incredible great career, because of what he accomplished on the field by that alone, is a First Ballot Hall of Famer.

In Denny McClain's case, the former Detroit Tigers pitcher, who is a former Cy Young Award Winner, in 1968 who won thirty games in a season, who was on course to being a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again had drug and gambling issues and his career was cut short. Because of trouble he got into outside of baseball. 

Dwight Gooden's case, probably the best National League pitcher of the 1980s. A former Cy Young Award winner as well. Again on course to becoming a First Ballot Hall of Famer, but again addicted to cocaine that kept him out of baseball for a period.

When I think of boxers who had tragic endings to their careers, who never lived up to their potential, I think of one boxer: Iron Mike Tyson, who dominated the heavyweight division in the late 1980s and that says a lot there. 

Iron Mike wins the World Heavyweight Championship in 1986 and was dominant that year, as well as 87, 88 and 89, but loses his World Championship by 1990, to a journeyman, but talented boxer in James Buster Douglas, but never showed the discipline to be a great boxer. Who wins the World Championship by beating Mike Tyson in February, 1990, but loses his championship by November, 1990 to Evander Holyfield. And his career was basically over by then. Mike Tyson, by far the most dominant heavyweight of this 3-4 year period, but loses his championship to an unknown undisciplined boxer in 1990. Who loses the championship just nine months later.

And of course Mike Tyson makes an attempt at a comeback in 1991, with a couple of solid fights against Razor Rudduck. Wins both of them, setting up a potential fight with Evander Holyfield, by 1992. But was no longer the dominant boxer that he was a couple years ago, even though he's only in his mid 20s at this point. But of course that fight never happens because of Iron Mike's rape case in 1992. Where at the very least, Mike is guilty of poor judgement and shouldn't of put himself in that position to begin with. Which makes Mike Tyson's career, what could've been, which is how he'll go down, instead of what a great career he had.