Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: Haiku Deck

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Liberty Pen: Christopher Hitchens- In Defense Of Unpopular Speech

Source: Liberty Pen-
Source: Liberty Pen Christopher Hitchens- In Defense of Unpopular Speech

I don't agree with the late great writer Christopher Hitchens all the time. I'm a Liberal, he's more of a Progressive/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 its popular or not.

That 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 and Christian-Conservatives, 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, but of course Neoconservatives 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 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.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

The Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand Interview From 1979

Source: Phil Donahue Show- Ayn Rand-
Source: The Phil Donahue Show: Ayn Rand 1979 Interview

This is a classic interview, because you had two very intelligent people with lots of followers, who both had a message to deliver. But came from very different sides of the political spectrum. Ayn Rand, being a Libertarian/Objectivist and Phil Donahue being a Progressive/Socialist even. Two people with very different beliefs on what the role of government is. Especially the role of the Federal Government. Ayn, whose see government's role as basically doing nothing more, than to basically protecting our freedom and constitutional rights. And Phil Donahue, believing that government should be doing a lot for its people. That there's only so much we can expect that the private enterprise can do for the people.

The Phil Donahue belief I guess, is when people have a lot of economic freedom, we see too much income inequality, that we should tolerate in a democracy. And that we need a strong Federal Government to provide the human services, that we shouldn't trust private enterprise to do for the people. And if that means having high taxes to pay for these human services, so be it. If that means we get good public services from all of these taxes. So this was a discussion between two people, who have very different views in what the role of government is and what it should be doing for its people. But two people who are very intelligent and can make their case very well in how they look at the world ideologically.

The best thing that I could probably compare this interview with today, it would be like Ralph Nader interviewing Ron Paul, or vice-versa. Two men that are actually pretty similar when it comes to social freedom and civil liberties. But are very different in what they see the role for the Federal Government as it relates to the economy. Ron Paul basically believing that people should be able to keep and spend as much money as they make and be able to spend it as they see it, as long as they aren't spending that money hurting people. Ordering hits and that sort of thing. And Ralph Nader, believing that a country is a community and to be a member of this community, we should all have to pay a price for it. To make this community as strong as it can be. Similar to Rand-Donahue.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

ACC Network: ACC Turning Point: Clemson vs Tallahassee

The turning point in this game, was the defensive adjustments that the Seminoles made at halftime. And them bringing more pressure on Clemson in the 2nd Half, that set up great field position for the Seminoles the rest of the way.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

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

Iron Mike vs Buster Douglas
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.

Beating 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. He's right there with Muhammad Ali and you could argue either way, but 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.

ACC Network: Bowling Green vs Virginia Tech: Bounce Back Victory for VT

Nice bounce back victory for Virginia Tech

ACC Network: Army @ Wake Forrest Highlights

The Army Cadets blew a big opportunity to get their first win of 2012

Pro Football Weekly: PFW's Week 3 Best Bet: Steelers (-4) @ Raiders

I think the Oakland Raiders defense would improve, if their offense could just move the ball and score some points. This would give the Raiders defense a chance to regroup and recover and put less pressure on the defense but I don't see the Raiders offense improving this Sunday against the Pittsburgh Steelers. With the Steelers wining this fairly easily.

Friday, September 21, 2012

SBNation: EPL: Manchester Devils vs Liverpool Reds: Sundays Matchup

The Devils-Reds Rivalry of English Premier Soccer, is sorta like the Yankees-Red Sox Rivalry in Major League Baseball

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Liberty Pen: A Story Of Enterprise (1955)

This is clearly a propaganda film from people who believe in American capitalism and private enterprise. But the message is correct that people themselves are better off working and producing things and seeing what they can do for themselves, based on hard work and production. And not relying on government to do it for them. The more people you have working and paying their own bills, the more tax revenue that you'll have for people who go through rough times and need public assistance that Progressives speak so highly of, to help them out.

But the fewer people you have working, or not making enough money to support themselves, the smaller the economy will be and the less revenue that you'll have for people who aren't physically and mentally able to at least work full-time and able to support themselves. Which is why you need the largest workforce possible with the largest middle class possible. So you have the fewest people possible who are either unemployed, or undereducated and not able to get themselves a good job that will allow for them to be self-sufficient. And then you'll have more money to help people who truly need it.

Private enterprise and capitalism are great things and I'm big fans of them. But they can only be as successful as their workforce will allow for them to be and be as good as their workforce. You need a good infrastructure system, good education, good workers and a good and efficient regulatory state, for your economy to be as strong as possible. To have the largest middle class possible. As many people as possible who are doing very well and even able to put money away and enjoy the luxuries in life. And for the people who fall through the cracks of system, an insurance system to help them out. But have that population be as small as possible.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Liberty Pen: Harry Browne 2002: Maximizing Personal Freedom

II love the message of maximize freedom as a Liberal. Because I believe people have the right to live their own lives. Again their own lives not trying to live other people’s lives for them. But that we should be able to live our own lives as we see fit as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing. It’s the anti-statist, or Progressive, or Neoconservative message, because it says that it’s not government’s job to protect us from ourselves. But to inform the citizenry of what the consequences of our decisions are. And then its up to us as the people to make these decisions for ourselves.

Again as long as we are not hurting anyone else with what we are doing. It doesn’t say that we have the right to hurt people, just the right to make our own decisions and then holds us accountable for our own decisions that we make as a country. Rather than government trying to live our lives for us. It’s the ultimate message of pro-choice, but it just doesn’t relate to abortion, but how we live our own personal lives. What we can do with our own money, rather than government trying to make these decisions for us. The message of personal freedom and responsibility. That the people aren’t prisoners and not the job of government to direct our lives for us.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Reason: Nanny of The Month For August, 2012 Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius: Now The Real Nanny of The Month

Nanny State
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. But all 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. Its 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.

NBC: The Late Show With David Letterman- Joan Jett in 1987

Source: The Late Show With David Letterman- Joan Jett & David Letterman-
Source: NBC: The Late Show With David Letterman- Joan Jett in 1987

Joan Jett to me is the rocker chick of rocker chicks. The Queen of Rock & Roll at least when it comes to rocker chicks. You could argue that other female rockers have better music like Sheryl Crow, Tina Turner certainly and perhaps a few others. But I don't believe anyone represents the hard-core bad ass rocker chick better than Joan Jett. She has the attitude, the style, the music, she always looks great. She's the Jim Morrison of female rockers when it comes to wearing leather everywhere especially with the leather jeans and jackets and not justing wearing those jackets and pants all the time, but like The Lizard Jim Morrison looking great in that outfit all the time. Joan is a pure rocker and Jim Morrison mixed in western wear with his cowboy boots and concho belts with his leather jeans and jackets. But as far as wearing this look no male rocker has ever looked better in a leather suit than Jim Morrison and at least as far as a woman who wears leather all the time both the jeans and jackets, no one carries that look better than Joan Jett. You could argue that Melissa Etheridge, Meredith Brooks and perhaps a few other rocker chicks look better in leather jeans than Joan Jett. But as far as the whole hard-core bad ass rocker chick style no one does it better than Joan Jett. 

Saturday, September 1, 2012

HBO Sports: 1993 World Heavyweight Championship: Evander Holyfield vs Riddick Bowe-The Rematch

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, 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.

But of course with Iron Mike's rape case, that wasn't going to happen. 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.

Murmurings of a Boxing Madman: George Foreman vs Ron Lyle From 1976

Source: Murmurings of a Boxing Madman-
Source: Murmurings of a Boxing Madman: George Foreman vs Ron Lyle- 1976

George Foreman, knocking out one of the strongest fighters whose ever fought in Ron Lyle. What separates Big George and Big Lyle, I think has to do with the professional training that Forman had that he started as an amateur and of course the 1968 Summer Olympics. Ron Lyle, on the other hand learned how to box as a prison inmate in prison and learned how to fight there so he could make a legitimate living once he got out of prison. And my point here is not to put Lyle down who was one of the hardest hitting and best power-punchers in boxing in the 1970s. But to show that Foreman wasn't just a slugger who would win his fights by landing the last big shot. But he was a boxer who knew how to box. How to take a punch and how to avoid punches. And he also had great training from Archie Moore and others. You could probably flip a coin as far as who was the stronger fighter and puncher in this fight. But Foreman was clearly the better boxer. George Forman, two-time World Heavyweight Champion. One of the best heavyweights of all-time. Can't say the same about Ron Lyle.