ESPN: An Audience With Muhammad Ali- From 1974

The Greatest Performer of All-Time?

Source: ESPN: An Audience With Muhammad Ali- From 1974

Muhammad Ali, perhaps at his most popular and highest peak professionally in 1974. Now seemed more as a mainstream figure and perhaps less as a rebel, or some Black Power figure or something. He’s not the most recognizable and most popular athlete in the world forty-years ago and today just because African-Americans, Native-Africans and Muslims regardless of race, or ethnicity love him. He became more of a mainstream figure in the mid 1970s as more Americans especially got to know him, but he moderated as well and said less derogatory things about Caucasians and the establishment. And more people got to see how intelligent and the great comedic wit and acting ability that he had as well.

Muhammad, was certainly a member of the TV Generation and was perfect for it and came up during the perfect time for him. That is why he’s so famous, because he came up when network TV was so crucial and dominant and had the perfect personality for it. Someone who was very bright and knew exactly what he was talking about, but also someone who was very funny and entertaining and people simply loved him and still do for it. This is in late 1974 and he Muhammad fought Joe Frazier for the third and final time about a year later. And you hear Ali talking about Frazier, because that is the fight people wanted to see again. And Smokin Joe wanted another shot at Ali and regain the World Heavyweight Championship. And Ali probably wanted to beat Joe Frazier again.

Muhammad Ali as a politician? I hate to do this as a great of an athlete and in many ways as a man he was, I could see him as the Donald Trump of the 1970s or 80s had he not come down from Parkinson’s. As he said himself as a non-politician he was free to say whatever he feels and believes and even the truth. You can’t do that as a politician and expect to be reelected. You have to be more careful and target what you say and how you say it. One of the reasons why Donald Trump has never been elected to anything is because he’s unelectable. He’s done the best Mitt Romney impersonation you’ll ever see by being multiple choice on so many key issues. Muhammad was always better off being free and out of elected office and being exactly who he was. Not feeling the need to have to please people.

Read Full Post »

Talking Pictures TV: The Man Inside 1958- Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance

Source:The Daily Review– Swedish Goddess Anita Ekberg, starring in The Man Inside, from 1958.

Source:The Daily Review

“The Man Inside (1958) Premieres Thur-19-July. Showing on Talking Pictures TV.”

From Talking Pictures TV

Source:Talking Pictures TV– British actor Sam Carter, playing Patrick in The Man Inside.

Patrick (No Last Name) played by Sam Carter is a jewel thief who pulls off a big heist in (somewhere in Europe) Europe. Milo March (played by Jack Palance) is a private detective hired to track down Patrick and the jewels that he stole. Trudi Hall (Swedish Goddess Anita Ekberg Miss Sweden) is also after the jewels that Patrick stole. Milo and Trudi run into each other and find out they are both after the same score, but have different motivations and reasons for tracking it down. They also discover that people are after them, because they’re after that jewelry score and decide to work together on this case.

This is a fairly simple and I believe not a very well executed movie. But with a good plot and writing and besides it has Anita Ekberg and Jack Palance in it.

I saw a couple of Anita Ekberg movies this weekend. The Man Inside and 4 Four Texas that also had Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin in it. I know that a lot of people will probably disagree with me on this. But Anita is not the Swedish Marilyn Monroe and Diana Dors is not the English Marilyn Monroe. They were both better than Marilyn. Anita and Diana both grew up while remaining their hot baby-faced goddess features with their great voices throughout their lives.

Unlike like Marilyn who had a childish, or at least adolescent personality and maturity level to go with her baby-face up until the day she died in 1962 only at the age of 36. Anita, same generation as Marilyn lived to 83 and only died last year and look incredible her whole life and had a great career as an entertainer.

Read Full Post »

The Film Archives: Kevin Phillips: The Triumph of Anglo-America: Religion, Politics & Civil Warfare

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

From this topic, I’m more interested in the founding of the American Federal Republic and American Liberal Democracy. Thanks to the American Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals and the liberal democracy that they built-in America. After they won the American Revolutionary War against the United Kingdom and the British Monarchy.

The Founding Fathers, wanted to break away from the British Monarchy, the British King and build a free society in America. The U.K., obviously had a problem with that, since the American Colonies were still part of Britain. The Founding Fathers, wanted their own free society and no longer live under dictatorial authoritarian rule under the United Kingdom. Where there was a state religion from the U.K. Where they were taxed heavily for services that they didn’t receive. And build their own country and created a Federal Republic that was going to be a free society.

The Founding Fathers, our Founding Liberals, were very brilliant. Yes, they didn’t want this liberal democracy, liberal free society to be for everyone. At the time, just Anglo-American men who owned property. And they owned African slaves and treated the American-Indians like second-class citizens. But what they put on paper applies to everyone as far as our constitutional individual rights. And not just Anglos and Caucasians in general. And not just for men and men who are property owners. But the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, applies to all Americans. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or property status. And they created a brilliant form of government and free society, that is our Federal Republic and Liberal Democracy.

The Film Archives: Kevin Phillips- The Triumph of Anglo-America

Read Full Post »

Lib Dem Voice: Opinion- Barry Holliday- Electoral Reform, How To: How to Reform the U.K. Parliament

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Things are already changing very fast in the United Kingdom. Thanks to the Scottish independence referendum in September, devolution and federalism is coming to Britain perhaps as early as next year. At least an agreement on what a federalist United Kingdom would look like. With the unitarian socialist state in Britain collapsing, with more power headed to the states as Americans would call it and the people of Britain over their own domestic affairs.

But devolution and federalism I believe will only work as an American outsider looking in on Britain, if they reform their Parliament as well. Because at the end of the day, for England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland to be able to function properly in the United Kingdom, they will need to be well represented in Parliament in London with a functioning bicameral Parliament so not all over the power and resources are not so centralized in London with the national or federal government and in England.

For a bicameral Parliament to work in Britain the House of Lords or whatever they may call it in the future, perhaps the U.K. Council or Lordship, perhaps even Senate, needs to function like the upper chamber of Parliament that it is supposed to be. Where they actually have a say in what laws are passed in Parliament and not just be a rubber stamp for the House of Commons. Where they can conduct real oversight of the U.K. Government and have at least the same power and authority as the House of Commons. And where members of this body can be part of Prime Ministers Questions.

The way I would reform the U.K. Parliament is similar to how the U.S. Congress looks. The lower chamber the House of Representatives where Representatives represent districts inside of states. And where the upper chamber the Senators represent the whole state in America. But since Britain is a lot smaller physically and in population to America, where they would represent districts as well inside of a state. But with each state lets say in the U.K. Senate getting an equal amount of Senators. But in the House the Commons would be proportioned based on population.

England would still have more Commons than anyone else because they are by far the biggest state in the United Kingdom. But this would be a real bicameral parliament and the Lordship or Council or even Senate, each state would be represented equally. So England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland would all have the representation in parliament needed to bring back the resources that their districts and states need from London to be able to function properly.
UK Parliament: Open Lecture- Reform in The House of Lords

Read Full Post »

The Dish: Andrew Sullivan- ‘Where’s The Liberal Tea Party?’

Source:The Dish– with blogger Andrew Sullivan.

“Many Tea Partiers are people who hadn’t run for office before 2010, or maybe had served briefly in a state legislature where they were bomb-throwers, not legislators. They won their primaries by promising to be the most conservative, Obama-hating member of Congress the folks of their district had ever seen. In contrast, almost none of the safe Democratic members got elected just by saying that they were the most liberal candidate in their race. Most of them worked their way up through the lower political ranks, getting used to cutting deals, making compromises, and solving problems for constituents. They may be very liberal ideologically, but they’re also old-school pols in many ways.

That gives them a practicality that their conservative counterparts don’t have.

Scott Galupo wants the Republicans to purge itself of the Tea Party:

The very nature of Tea Party opposition, whether it issues from the likes of Bazooka Ted and His Gang in the Senate or the unappeasable Jacobins in the House, is to throw weight without consequence. They evince no interest in actually wielding power from the inside, which would require restraint, conciliation, and moderation. They are hysterics on the brink of utter demoralization. The danger they pose to democratic norms, institutional comity, and political functionality is precisely why they can’t be bargained with; they must be marginalized.”

From The Dish

“Cornel West gives his commanding proposition to the motion of “This House would Occupy Wall Street”

Source:Oxford Union– Professor Cornel West speaking to the Oxford Union.

From the Oxford Union

At risk of sounding wishy-washy (like a typical politician) it depends on what you mean by Liberal. If your definition of Liberal is someone who is an antiestablishment, cultural warrior, revolutionary, who believes that wealthy, straight, Anglo-Saxon men, are dominating not just America, but the world in general and it’s time to take down the man (meaning the white man) and put an end to the racist, bigoted in general, materialistic, regime, and replace it with some type of socialist state, (perhaps not even democratic) if your definition of Liberal is someone who doesn’t shave and rarely gets a haircut and looks like he just put his head through the dryer and ran in circles for an hour straight (not to pick on Professor Cornel West too much) then I think the answer is pretty simple to why there isn’t a so-called Liberal Tea Party.

To put it simply and hopefully this sounds like English as well: the Far-Left in America, the people who really are talking about, not Liberal Democrats who are actually way too the right of the Occupy Wall Street crowd in America, to the point that they actually look pretty conservative, at least in comparison, but American leftists (democratic and otherwise) don’t like in and don’t believe in money, at least publicly.

Successful leftists in America live like democratic, liberal capitalists, who talk like leftists but who live like democratic, liberal, capitalists, the Martha Vineyard’s, Manhattan, Hollywood, wing of the Democratic Party that in many cases have more money then they’ll ever be able to spend in their lives. But privately they talk and act like they work for some left-wing rag, based in Haight Asbury, San Francisco or Greenwich, Manhattan, New York, who are still working and organizing to eventually take down the man and the American establishment.

The people at the grassroots of the American Far-Left, what I would call the modern Socialist movement in America, tend to be very honest and consistent and live up to the values that they preach. So they live very simply and don’t like money and aren’t going to raise money from wealthy people, even people who publicly say they’re down with the cause (so to speak) just to build their political movement in America. I know this is a long answer to Andrew Sullivan’s question, but all of this is true and worth saying.

Read Full Post »

BBC News: HardTalk- Abdul Mawgoud Dardery: Freedom and Justice Party

Source:BBC News– Abdul Mawgoud Dardery from Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

“What now for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its political wing the Freedom and Justice Party? Rarely has the fall from power of a party been so quick, dramatic and violent. Since President Morsi’s removal by the army, thousands of the Brotherhood’s members and supporters have been arrested, including most of its senior leaders. Hardtalk speaks to Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, a member of the now suspended parliament. What is the Brotherhood’s next move?”

From BBC News

There doesn’t seem to be a big or strong enough liberal or even conservative democratic movement in Egypt that is big enough to take on the Islamic-Theocrats and the military authoritarians in Egypt. Leaving Egypt stuck between two forms of authoritarianism:

People in favor of the current police state and never moving away from that. And people who want to impose an Islamic-Theocracy on Egypt.

What Egypt needs for democracy to have any shot at becoming real in a big Arab country with no history of democracy, is for Center-Right democrats (liberal or conservative) and a Center-Left to emerge in Egypt, so Egyptians who want it, can not only push and vote for democracy, but have choices in what type of democracy that they want in Egypt.

Read Full Post »

CBS News: 60 Minutes- Frost/Nixon

Source:CBS News– British broadcast journalist David Frost, talking to CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace, in 1977.

“In the weeks before David Frost’s interview with President Nixon in 1977, he spoke with Mike Wallace about what viewers could expect from the interview, and what the former president hoped to gain.”

From CBS News

These interviews or even debates that happened between David Frost and Richard Nixon in 1977, are some of the best interviews and debates that I’ve ever seen. Because we got to see an insiders look into Richard Nixon as a man and a president. And I believe David Frost did an excellent job of getting a man who doesn’t like talking about himself and who is very private personally, to talk about himself and his presidency.

Read Full Post »

Mark T. Mitchell: ‘The Limits of Liberalism’

Source:Notre Dame Press– author Mark T. Mitchell’s book about liberalism.

“In The Limits of Liberalism, Mark T. Mitchell argues that a rejection of tradition is both philosophically incoherent and politically harmful. This false conception of tradition helps to facilitate both liberal cosmopolitanism and identity politics. The incoherencies are revealed through an investigation of the works of Michael Oakeshott, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Michael Polanyi.

Mitchell demonstrates that the rejection of tradition as an epistemic necessity has produced a false conception of the human person—the liberal self—which in turn has produced a false conception of freedom. This book identifies why most modern thinkers have denied the essential role of tradition and explains how tradition can be restored to its proper place.

Oakeshott, MacIntyre, and Polanyi all, in various ways, emphasize the necessity of tradition, and although these thinkers approach tradition in different ways, Mitchell finds useful elements within each to build an argument for a reconstructed view of tradition and, as a result, a reconstructed view of freedom. Mitchell argues that only by finding an alternative to the liberal self can we escape the incoherencies and pathologies inherent therein.

This book will appeal to undergraduates, graduate students, professional scholars, and educated laypersons in the history of ideas and late modern culture.”

From Notre Dame Press

“Terry Eagleton, John Edward Taylor Professor of English Literature at the University of Manchester, delivers the second lecture in a series of lectures entitled “Faith and Fundamentalism: Is Belief in Richard Dawkins Necessary for Salvation?” In this lecture, Professor Eagleton explores the limits of liberalism.”

Source:Yale University– University of Manchester Professor Terry Eagleton talking about liberalism in 2008, at Yale University, in New Haven, Connecticut.

From Yale University 

To respond to Mark T. Mitchell’s argument: yes, Liberals don’t believe in tradition, necessarily, unless you are talking about freedom and equal rights, things we’ve always believed in and always will. Liberals tend to be modernists and believers in progress. And sometimes that goes against tradition, especially if you are someone who believes in always conserving the status quo.

What Professor Terry Eagleton seems to be saying and I’m not that fluent in Yale speak but what I get from my decoding of this lecture is that liberalism is counter to Christianity and religion in general. In other words: if you are a Liberal, you worship the state rather than some God.

I’ve heard these stereotypes before and I’m sure there are some Atheist Liberals just like there are Atheist Conservatives and Libertarians and of course Socialists or Communists probably have the largest percentage of people who are Atheists.

But if you are a Liberal, you do not worship the state and you do not worship anything, necessarily. Because Liberals base their beliefs on the best available evidence at the time. And base their ideology on freedom so we do not worship the state because we are not Communists or Socialists. Liberals are supposed to question authority and the establishment. Well government tends to be the largest establishment and authority in any developed society.

If you look at liberalism (at least in the classical sense and I at least would argue the real sense) you are talking about a philosophy about liberty, which is where the word liberal comes from and is based on. So if you are talking about a society where there is no rules not even to protect the innocent from predators, then you are talking about anarchism, which is actually the extreme form of liberalism. You could literally argue that so-called Libertarians today are the extreme Liberals, but not the Socialists and Communists.

Read Full Post »

The Fiscal Times: Liz Peak: ‘Margaret Thatcher Was Right: A Dependent Society Will Fail’

Source:The Fiscal Times– Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Conservative, United Kingdom) and President Ronald W. Reagan (Republican, United States) and that’s all I know about this photo.

“The Bitch is Dead,” read the banner paraded through the streets of London yesterday – proof that hatred of Margaret Thatcher lives on, even in death. Of all the extraordinary accomplishments of Britain’s only female prime minister, surely her outsized and continuing impact on the nation’s psyche is one of the most remarkable. Hardly a contemporary British story is written or West End play produced – witness Billy Elliott or even the comic One Man, Two Guvnors – that doesn’t slam the former leader. “Thatcherism” in some quarters is as loathed as “McCarthyism” in the U.S. ”

Source:The Fiscal Times 

The biggest thing that Margaret Thatcher did to the United Kingdom and her biggest legacy in a positive sense, is that she moved a socialist state both politically and economically and from a country where the government was expected to take care of everyone and meet its basic needs and even run a lot of its companies and industries for them, to a country where people were expected to take care of themselves.

Call it Welfare Reform of the 1980s (UK style) where people who are physically and mentally able, but were collecting public assistance (as Americans call it) to financially support themselves and weren’t working at all, now were expected and required to work. And at least working for welfare benefits that they were receiving.

Britain became a country where people learned how to take care of themselves and how to meet their basic needs. Where everyone had access to a quality education so they would have the skills that they would need so they could take care of themselves. And not have to need public assistance just in order to survive and pay their bills.

Prime Minister Thatcher transformed a dependent society (in Britain) with a welfare state that’s there to take care of everyone, to a British Opportunity Society and Free Society (in their terms) where Brits were expected to finish school and get a good job. So they could support themselves and their families. And not just live off of the welfare state simply, because they lost their job, or lacked the skills to get themselves a good job.

Margaret Thatcher wanted to create a freer society where the people would have the freedom to take care of themselves, because they would have the opportunity to get themselves the skills in order to do so. And have a good job that allows for them to be able to pay their own bills and not be so dependent on government to take care of them.

British Socialists who were in power before in Britain under the Socialist State of the Labour Party, people weren’t expected to work and too many cases even run businesses and create business’s. Because the national government ran so much of the British economy. And people who were unemployed, or perhaps didn’t have any real work experience weren’t expected to do much if anything for themselves. Because the welfare state would take care of them. That’s the difference between Thatcher Conservatives and Socialists.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

Read Full Post »