Robert Samuelson: 'The Twilight of Entitlement'

Source:The Washington Post- perhaps one of Robert Samuelson's loyal readers.

"We are passing through something more than a period of disappointing economic growth and increasing political polarization. What’s happening is more powerful: the collapse of “entitlement.” By this, I do not mean primarily cuts in specific government benefits, most prominently Social Security, but the demise of a broader mind-set — attitudes and beliefs — that, in one form or another, has gripped Americans since the 1960s. The breakdown of these ideas has rattled us psychologically as well as politically and economically.

In my 1995 book, “The Good Life and Its Discontents,” I defined entitlement as our expectations “about the kind of nation we were creating and what that meant for all of us individually”:

We had a grand vision. We didn’t merely expect things to get better. We expected all social problems to be solved. We expected business cycles, economic insecurity, poverty, and racism to end. We expected almost limitless personal freedom and self-fulfillment. For those who couldn’t live life to its fullest (as a result of old age, disability, or bad luck), we expected a generous social safety net to guarantee decent lives. We blurred the distinction between progress and perfection. 

Bill Clinton has a pithier formulation: “If you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll have the freedom and opportunity to pursue your own dreams.” That’s entitlement. “Responsible” Americans should be able to attain realistic ambitions.

No more. Millions of Americans who have “played by the rules” are in distress or fear that they might be. In a new Allstate-National Journal survey, 65 percent of respondents said today’s middle class has less “job and financial security” than their parents’ generation; 52 percent asserted there is less “opportunity to get ahead.” The middle class is “more anxious than aspirational,” concluded the poll’s sponsors. Similarly, the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that only 51 percent of workers are confident they’ll have enough money to retire comfortably, down from 70 percent in 2007.

Popular national goals remain elusive. Poverty is stubborn. Many schools seem inadequate. The “safety net,” private and public, is besieged. Our expansive notion of entitlement rested on optimistic and, ultimately, unrealistic assumptions: 

First, that economists knew enough to moderate the business cycle, guaranteeing jobs for most people who wanted them. This seemed true for many years; from 1980 to 2007, the economy created 47 million non-farm jobs. The Great Recession revealed the limits of economic management. The faith in a crude stability vanished.

Second, that large corporations (think: General Motors, AT&T) were so dominant that they could provide secure jobs and generous benefits — health insurance, pensions — for much of the labor force. Deregulation, foreign competition and new technologies changed all this. Companies became more cost-conscious, cutting jobs and squeezing fringe benefits. The private “safety net” has shrunk.

Third, that improvements in economic efficiency (a.k.a. “productivity”) would lift living standards and finance bigger government without steeper taxes. Government could pay for new programs by taking a fixed share of rising incomes. In reality, greater income inequality has dampened middle-class living standards, while existing programs — soaring health costs and the effects of an aging population — have claimed an ever-larger share of taxes. 

Fourth, that lifestyle choices — to marry, have children or divorce — would expand individual freedom without inflicting adverse social consequences. Wrong. Family breakdown has deepened poverty and worsened children’s prospects. About 30 percent of children live with either one parent or no parent; on average, their life chances are poorer than those in two-parent households.

Weighed down by these contradictions, entitlement has been slowly crumbling for decades. The Great Recession merely applied the decisive blow. We’re not entitled to many things: not to a dynamic economy; not to secure jobs; not to homeownership; not to ever-more protective government; not to fixed tax burdens; not to a college education. Sooner or later, the programs called “entitlements,” including Social Security, will be trimmed because they’re expensive and some recipients are less deserving than others.

The collision between present realities and past expectations helps explain the public’s extraordinary moodiness. The pandering to the middle class by both parties (and much of the media) represents one crude attempt to muffle the disappointment, a false reassurance that the pleasing past can be reclaimed. It can’t. This does not mean the economy can’t improve. Derek Thompson, writing in the Atlantic, suggests that when “millennials” end their delays in marrying, having children and buying homes, they will administer a welcome stimulus to growth. The trouble is that today’s grievances transcend the economy.

In the post-entitlement era, people’s expectations may be more grounded. But political conflicts — who gets, who gives — and social resentments will be, as they already are, sharper. Entitlement implied an almost-limitless future. Facing limits is a contentious exercise in making choices." 

From The Washington Post 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

Los Angeles Times: Richard Simon: 'California Conservative Defends State's Pot Law in Congress'

Source:Los Angeles Times- U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher (Republican, California)

"WASHINGTON — For more than a decade, conservative Orange County Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has formed an unusual alliance with liberals on an unexpected topic — the defense of marijuana.

Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) and his allies have so far waged a futile effort to pass legislation that would prevent federal authorities from interfering with medical marijuana use in California and other places where pot use is permitted by state law.

But as more states have moved to allow the drug’s use, Rohrabacher believes his Respect State Marijuana Laws Act may be gaining momentum in Congress. 

The recently reintroduced measure would shield from federal prosecution people acting in accordance with their states’ marijuana laws, including new Colorado and Washington laws that allow adult recreational use of the drug.

“The prospects are much better now,” said Rohrabacher, whose co-sponsors include Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), a Bay Area liberal who is usually about as far apart ideologically from Rohrabacher as anybody in Congress.

Still, Rohrabacher has his work cut out for him. The House last year soundly rejected, by a 262-163 vote, an effort he led to block the use of federal funds to prevent states from implementing medical marijuana laws. Only 28 Republicans supported the measure.

Rohrabacher has a libertarian bent but became more interested in the medical benefits of marijuana after having to spoon-feed his dying mother because of her loss of appetite. He has talked about the relief that marijuana might have afforded her.

He has been emboldened by a recent Pew Research Center poll that showed respondents, by nearly 2 to 1, believe the federal government should not enforce federal laws prohibiting the use of marijuana in states where it is legal.

Perhaps as important as the shifting public opinion, he said in an interview, is his colleagues’ eagerness to erase Washington’s red ink. Substantial majorities of Republicans and Democrats in the Pew survey regarded federal enforcement of anti-marijuana laws as not worth the cost.

“If people of the states recognize what a waste of limited resources this is, then the federal government should respect what the people of those states want for their own criminal justice system,” Rohrabacher said.

Since 1996, when California became the first state to legalize the drug’s use for medical treatment, 17 other states and the District of Columbia have approved medical marijuana measures. Last year, Colorado and Washington state voters opted to allow recreational users to possess an ounce of marijuana. A move is underway to put a measure on the Alaska ballot to permit recreational use of the drug.

Efforts are underway in other states, including Idaho, Illinois and New Hampshire, to allow medicinal use of marijuana.

Rohrabacher also is hoping to convince GOP colleagues that his bill fits with the party’s traditional support for states’ rights.

“It is time that we respect states’ rights, get serious about prioritizing our federal government’s activities, and show some common sense and compassion when dealing with the sick among us,” Rohrabacher said last year when he proposed his measure.

However, Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees Justice Department spending, responded at the time: “If a state said sex trafficking is OK, would we honor that?... States, in the past, have done some things that have not been good in this country.”

The president’s drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, recently said at the National Press Club that the Justice Department was responsible for enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, and “that remains unchanged. No state, no executive, can nullify a statute that’s been passed by Congress.”

Kevin Sabet, a former advisor to Kerlikowske, said Rohrabacher’s latest attempt would “likely suffer the same fate as his several previous failed attempts have over the past decade.”

Steve Fox, national political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which promotes legalization, regards the bill as a long shot in this congressional session. But he said the legislation “sends the message that it is simply not a rational use of federal law enforcement resources to prosecute and imprison individuals who are acting in compliance with state marijuana laws.” 

From the Los Angeles Times

Any case anyone whose not a political junky, (and I''m sure life is fabulous for all of you people) hypocrisy is bipartisan in politics and so is support for the so-called War On Drugs, as well as opposition to it. 

But ever once in a sunny day in Seattle, or a cold day in South Florida, there are people in Congress who actually believe what they say, even to the point that they'll offer and vote for legislation that backs up what they say publicly, meaning they'll go on the record. 

U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, (Republican, California) has classical conservative leanings, except for perhaps when it comes to Vladimir Putin's Russia. He's a true federalist (meaning someone who believe in state's rights and local control) when it comes to marijuana and other issues. Which is why he wants the Federal Government off the backs of people who use marijuana in America. At least in states where it's already legal.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CATO Institute: Doug Bandow: 'America On Welfare'

Source:CATO Institute- fellow Doug Bandow.

Source:FreeState Now

"Living the good life on welfare. Even the Europeans recognize that they pay a high price for creating an increasingly dependent society.

Denmark has been transfixed by the revelation of a 36‐​year‐​old single mother who collects more in benefits than many Danes earn at work, and has done so for two decades. Worried Karen Haekkerup, Minister of Social Affairs and Integration, people “think of these benefits as their rights. The rights have just expanded and expanded.”

But it’s really not that much different in the U.S., the nominal home of the free. Nearly two decades ago welfare reform briefly captured political attention and won bipartisan support. The effort was a great success. But most welfare programs remained untouched and the gains have been steadily eroded.

Today nearly 48 million people, almost one out of every six Americans, receive Food Stamps. Outlays on this program alone have quadrupled in just a decade. Indeed, the government actively promotes the program, encouraging people to sign up. Other welfare programs also are growing in reach and cost. The Congressional Budget Office recently pointed to “increases in the number of people participating in those programs and increases in spending per participant.” The U.S. isn’t that far behind Europe.

The Great Society needs to be replaced by the Free Society.

Indeed, America, like Europe, has a veritable welfare industry. A forthcoming report from the Carleson Center for Public Policy, named after Reagan administration welfare chief Robert Carleson, charges that “The federal government has spawned a vast array of redundant, overlapping and poorly targeted assistance programs.” Authors Susan Carleson and John Mashburn count 157 means‐​tested programs intended to alleviate poverty. There were more than two score housing programs, more than a score of nutrition programs, almost as many employment/​training and health programs, and lesser numbers of cash assistance, community development, and disability programs. More expansive definitions count even more programs — 185 total, according to Peter Ferrara.

No surprise, the welfare industry is expensive. Social Security is the single most costly program, but more goes collectively to welfare. Today government at all levels spends around $1 trillion a year on means tested anti‐​poverty programs. And that amount is just going up and up.

Total federal and state welfare spending rose from $431 billion in 2000 to $927 billion in 2011. Both parties are responsible, but President Obama bears particular responsibility. Last year, explained my Cato Institute colleague Michael Tanner: “Welfare spending increased significantly under President George W. Bush and has exploded under President Barack Obama. In fact, since President Obama took office, federal welfare spending has increased by 41 percent, more than $193 billion per year.”

And this is just the start. From 2009 to 2018, figured Heritage Foundation scholars Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley, and Rachel Sheffield, at current rates the federal government will spend $7.5 trillion and states will spend $2.8 trillion on welfare, for a total of $10.3 trillion.

Washington can ill afford such expenditures. Uncle Sam ran more than $5 trillion in deficits over the past four years and is expected to run up a deficit of $845 billion this year. The Congressional Budget Office recently warned that while deficits are expected to decline over the next two years, they then will start rising again to $1 trillion annually. Over the next decade, assuming unrealistically that Congress doesn’t add any new programs or increase outlays for any old ones, the accumulated red ink will be $7.0 trillion.

Alas, this is merely the brief break before the tsunami of entitlement outlays hits. The total unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare exceeds $100 trillion. To that must be added a long list of contingent, likely, and potential liabilities. Even the Post Office is broke and needs a bail‐​out! Economist Laurence Kotlikoff estimated total federal indebtedness at an astonishing $222 trillion.

Despite facing financial doom, government provides welfare to “a growing number of people who increasingly are not ‘needy’ by any rational definition,” write Carleson and Mashburn. Wasteful duplication isn’t limited to welfare, of course. Yet abuse of programs supposedly directed at human needs seems especially odious. There are people in need. In their name government is taxing away people’s earnings and wasting the proceeds.

It’s important not to focus solely on money. If the programs worked the amount being spent might not seem so excessive. However, observed Tanner, last year the nearly $1 trillion spent on welfare amounted “to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.” With that kind of spending, no one should still be poor.

Yet when testifying before Congress in 2011, Patricia Dalton of the General Accountability Office refused to “hazard a guess” as to what percentage of federal welfare programs achieved their objectives. She admitted that it “would be good to have a number of how many programs there are, what exactly are we spending, and what are we getting for that money.” Yes, that would be good.

Unfortunately, over the years it became increasingly evident that welfare did much to discourage marriage and work, and destroy family and community. That is, behavioral poverty accompanied material poverty. The result, complained the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector and Jennifer Marshall, “has been the disintegration of the work ethic, family structure, and social fabric of large segments of the American population, which has in turn created a new dependency class.” This directly threatens the American vision of self‐​government by independent citizens.

Yet the system is tenaciously defended by all of the usual interest groups which benefit from extensive federal wealth transfers. President Reagan argued that “The war on poverty created a great new upper‐​middle class of bureaucrats that found they had a fine career as long as they could keep enough needy people there to justify their existence.” Officials may not exactly scheme to prevent the poor from leaving welfare. But welfare gives many people an interest in preserving existing programs.

One of Reagan’s most notable achievements as two‐​term governor of California was confronting the seemingly unconstrained growth of welfare spending. Aided by Carleson, Gov. Reagan also opposed proposals by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon for a guaranteed national income.

Reagan took center political stage when he was elected president in 1980. He brought Carleson to Washington and chose as his domestic policy adviser Hoover Institution scholar Martin Anderson, another trenchant critic of the Johnson‐​Nixon approach. Reagan made welfare reform one of his priorities, explaining: “States are better equipped than the federal government to administer effective welfare reforms if they are given broad authority to utilize administrative and policy discretion.” However, the House remained in Democratic hands and welfare remained largely unchanged.

Still, the debate gradually shifted. Charles Murray’s Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 crystallized the national realization that welfare wasted lives as well as money. When Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994, welfare reform became a priority.

In 1996 President Bill Clinton signed legislation that turned Aid to Families with Dependent Children into Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Federal matching grants became fixed block grants, with time limits and work requirements. The reform, explain Carleson and Mashburn, “reversed 61 years of U.S. welfare policy by ending a recipient’s automatic entitlement to a cash welfare check. It was a good start, one on which Congress and the state legislatures can build a better future for millions of people still trapped by the incentives for dependency that remain in the remnants of the old welfare system.”

It was a very good start. Millions of people were moved off welfare rolls into the workplace. Even many opponents of the legislation were forced to acknowledge the positive results. The good economy was important. But more important was the fact that recipients could no longer in effect marry welfare. TANF was determined to minimize both behavioral and material poverty.

However, the remnants that Carleson and Mashburn speak of remain a significant problem. As Elliott Gaiser recently observed in calling for further welfare reform, “the ’96 welfare reform really only fixed one” program, AFDC. There are 156 to go! Moreover, the Democratic Congress and President Barack Obama together weakened the 1996 reforms, risking a slide back to a 1960s welfare dependency mentality. For instance, complain Carleson and Mashburn: “the Obama administration’s policies have lured tens of millions of people onto the Food Stamp rolls, while loosening eligibility requirements for welfare programs across the board.”

The way back won’t be easy. America has spent decades creating the dependency‐​inducing welfare industry. The ultimate objective should be to reinforce and rebuild, when necessary the traditional emphasis on personal, family, and community responsibility.

Indeed, this model of outward moving concentric rings of responsibility goes back to the Bible. Individuals were expected to work if possible, and not burden others. The Apostle Paul explained that a Christian who “failed to provide for his relatives, and especially his immediate family” was “worse than an unbeliever” (1Timothy 5:8). The ancient Israelites and New Testament Christians alike created rules and procedures to aid those in need within their communities of faith. Finally, Paul wrote, “as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people” (Gal. 6:10).

Any government role should start only when private provision proves inadequate, and even then begin at the local and state levels. The national government should be the last, not first, resort. Even now we see some government efforts at reform, but primarily outside of Washington. For instance, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker plans to require work or job training to receive Food Stamps (now officially called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Carleson and Mashburn detail a state‐​based strategy in their new study, “Secure the Safety Net: Repeal and Replace the Welfare State.” They look back past the 1996 reforms to Ronald Reagan’s experience in California.

Welfare wasn’t always viewed as Washington’s job. Observe Carleson and Mashburn: “Welfare once was the province of the states, but increasingly has been treated as a federal responsibility. Since the 1960s, when the concept of public welfare radically expanded, federal micromanagement and redistribution of income has grown out of control.” The most important first step that we could take is to push the welfare mass/​mess back to the states.

Carleson and Mashburn propose eliminating 30 programs costing $849 million and consolidating into block grants another 127 programs costing $530 billion. More specifically, they would create seven block grants: community development, absorbing eight programs; cash assistance, replacing 11 programs; disability, transforming Supplemental Security Income for the Disabled; employment and training, consolidating 19 programs; housing, replacing 46 programs; medical assistance, incorporating 18 existing programs; and nutrition, consolidating 24 programs.

Equally important, the grants would be fixed, with a congressional vote required for any funding increase, and largely unrestricted, with federal oversight limited to audits of expenditures. Explain Carleson and Mashburn, transferring funds directly from the U.S. Treasury “would end federal, ‘Washington‐​knows‐​best’ bureaucratic interference and overreach. Governors would be able to design unified welfare systems tailored to best meet the needs of their low‐​income citizens.”

Obviously states are not perfect and their reputation suffered badly during the Civil Rights era. However, today states are by far more responsible, responsive, and innovative than the national government. The Great Society needs to be replaced by the Free Society. Shifting power and responsibility out of Washington would begin what inevitably will be a lengthy and difficult process.

The current welfare system obviously is bad for taxpayers. It also is bad for poor people. Reform is desperately needed. Congress could begin the process tomorrow by turning national programs into state block grants. America can’t afford to wait." 

From the CATO Institute

"Ron Haskins: In 1996, welfare was changed from an entitlement to a program with time limits and work requirements. Has this welfare reform worked?" 

Source:Brookings Institution- fellow Ron Haskins.

From the Brookings Institution

This shouldn't be any surprise with anyone whose familiar with my writing that I'm more likely to agree with Ron Haskins, from, Brookings, then Doug Bandow, from CATO, at least when it comes to Welfare policy in America. But Doug Bandow's piece at CATO is more about the social safety net in America in general, than it's about Welfare policy in this country. 

The Welfare To Work Law of 1996 (also known as Temporary Assistance For Needy Families) that was negotiated by a Republican Congress, (House & Senate) with Congressional Democrats and President Bill Clinton and signed into law by President Clinton, even though he knew he was going to get hit hard by the left-wing (to put it mildly) of the Democratic Party, has been a great success. 

You can't blame the fact that more people are now on public assistance today, because of TANF. You can blame The Great Recession of 2008-09 and the aftermath of that on in the increases in public assistance spending in America. 

The reason why TANF has been a success, because it had 4 major components in it: 

temporary, instead of indefinite financial assistance 

job placement, helping people on Welfare find work instead of letting them stay home, even if they have kids

childcare assistance, so when these single parents (mostly mothers) go to work, they know someone is there to look after their kids

as well as education, so these mothers can do better than a minimum wage job, but actually get themselves a job that gets them off public assistance all together and makes them financially independent

But no policy, especially that comes from government is ever perfect. Anyone whose currently on Welfare, needs to go to work, but they need that income because it will be low-wage, at least while starting out in the workforce, plus their other public assistance benefits, while they're still in poverty. 

We should also have an income supplement program that matches what these new workers are making in their new jobs, while they're still low-income, to encourage them not just to work and get educated, but continue to do those things, while they're working their way to economic independence.

Reason Magazine: 'How Medicaid & Obamacare Hurt The Poor - & How To Fix Them'

Source:Reason Magazine- talking to Dr. Aliete Eck.

"Most physicians can't afford to accept Medicaid" patients, says Dr. Alieta Eck, a primary-care physician based in Piscataway, New Jersey. "If you're getting paid about $17 per visit, it won't be long before you can't pay your staff or pay your rent."

Medicaid is the nation's health care system for the poor. It's funded jointly by the federal government and the states. Medicaid is either the first- or second-largest budget item in all 50 states and the program is slated for a massive expansion under President Obama's health-care reform law. Despite the program's huge and growing overall cost, reimbursements to medical providers are so low that many practices refuse to accept Medicaid patients, causing long waiting periods for treatment.

Eck and her husband, Dr. John Eck, are the founders of Zarephath Health Center, a free health care clinic in Somerset, New Jersey, where they each volunteers six hours per week taking care of poor patients. While the Ecks don't accept Medicaid in their private practice, some of the patients that show up at their free clinic are Medicaid recipients who can't find a regular doctor.

"The hardest thing for a Medicaid patient to do is get a doctor's appointment," says Avik Roy, who writes a health care blog at Forbes.com and is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. One consequence is that Medicaid recipients show up at emergency rooms at nearly double the rate of the privately insured, often with accute problems that could have been addressed earlier in a doctor's office. They're also more likely than both the privately insured and the uninsured to have late-stage cancer at first diagnosis.

After they've been diagnosed, it's also difficult for Medicaid patients to find qualified surgeons who will treat them. A University of Virginia study found that Medicaid patients were about twice as likely as the privately insured to die in the hospital after surgery. Even the uninsured were more likely to make it out of the hospital alive than Medicaid patients.

Despite the program's failings, in 2014 Obamacare will add millions of new patients to the program's rolls. "All too often, people who claim to care for the poor say, 'I'm going to give you a card that says you have health insurance and my work is done,'" says Roy. "But the hard part is making sure that person gets treated."

Obamacare was designed to expand Medicaid by about 17 million enrollees by 2021, but it likely won't meet that goal because the Supreme Court ruled that states don't have to participate in this component of the law in order to keep current levels of funding. So far, the governors of 19 states have come out against expanding Medicaid in their states.

So what's the best way to provide quality health care to the poor without spending more money that we don't have? Roy says the federal government should take the same money it spends on Medicaid and block grant it to the states so they can experiment with health care plans in which the patient is in control.

"Let them spend it on the doctor of their choice," says Roy. "Let people take the money and get the bureaucrats out of the way, and you'll find there's suddenly a lot more efficiency in the way people actually get health care."

Eck believes charity care could be a big part of the solution, if only the government made it easier for doctors to volunteer their time. She has worked with state Sen. Robert Singer (R-N.J.), who has co-sponsored a bill in New Jersey that would allow the state to cover physicians for malpractice in their private practices as a way of compensating them for volunteering. The bill is currently awaiting consideration by the state senate's health care committee.

"Every doctor I talk to says, 'I would do that in a heartbeat,'" says Eck.

In the meantime, when Obamacare takes full effect next year, charitable clinics like Eck's will be more essential than ever to pick up the slack for a social safety net that's already not working.

"I've been doing this for nine years," says Eck, "and I can honestly say that I come away feeling good that I was able to make a difference." 

From Reason Magazine

One of the main reasons why I was in favor of public option in the 2010 Affordable Care Act (known to some as ObamaCare) were for reasons that were laid out in this video in Reason. Medicaid is too big, too expensive, and doesn't cover the health care that it's supposed to under its program. It doesn't pay the hospitals and doctors the money they need to treat these low-income patients. 

But with a public health insurance option, that could be run by the states, you wouldn't need Medicaid at all, because now Medicare could pick up these low-income patients and could be covered with a tax credit for low-income patients, as well as money from their employers, to cover their health insurance. Instead of those tax dollars going to corporate welfare.

Joey Teefizz: MISL 1985-12/01/84-Cleveland Force @ New Jersey Cosmos: Highlights

Source:Joey Teefizz- The Force with the Cosmos, in 1984.

Source:Real Life Journal

“MISL Soccer in the Meadowlands, one missing goal in the third Qtr-12-1-84. A shortened season for the Cosmos, and their only season in the MISL.”

From Joey Teefizz

The New York Cosmos were also a North American Soccer League team that played at Giants Stadium in the 1970s and 80. And I believe the people who owned the Cosmos of the NASL and MISL were the same group. And they moved their NASL franchise indoors to arena soccer and the MISL when the NASL folded in I believe 1984.

The Cleveland Force are one of the standout franchises of American arena soccer. Also known as the Cleveland Crunch of the old NPSL that I believe folded and reemerged as the new MISL in the late 1990s or so.

Cleveland and New York/New Jersey are great soccer markets, including arena soccer. And why the MISL has never been marketed better and perhaps set up a partnership with MLS so they would be much bigger today, I may never know. But it is a great sport and just needs a great league to promote it.

News One: Paul Shepard: 'Focusing On Prevention & Neuroscience, President Ends Ronald Reagan’s War On Drugs

Source:News One- 

"Being a college student at the time, I clearly remember when Nancy Reagan and the conservative wave in national government helped usher in the nation’s War on Drugs in the 1980s.

Television news images of drug busts, large and small, along with the wholesale arrests and stiffer sentencing for anyone even suspected of drug involvement sent a clear message that government intended to empty the streets and fill the prisons until drugs were no more. 

But subversives like me and my Rutgers University cohorts viewed the so-called war as a heavy-handed, law-enforcement driven, prison complex-building effort to harass, arrest, and ultimately mark for life two groups of people: those who did small amounts of recreational drugs and were generally no threat to society and those with serious drug dependencies who needed a good rehab program instead of a jail cell.

It may have taken 30 years to prove, but it seems we were on the right track way back when: on Wednesday, the White House announced a new direction in the War on Drugs, where stopping drug use before it starts and treating drug addiction as a health issue will now be priorities." 

From News One 

Paul Shepard is just dead wrong here about two pretty important facts. And that's as nice as I can be about this. 

President Ronald Reagan, didn't start the War On Drugs, President Richard Nixon did that. And these anti-narcotics policies have continued with every President since. President Jimmy Carter flirted with legalizing marijuana in the 1970s and treating users and addicts like patients and not criminals, But he didn't get very far on it. 

The other thing that Paul Shepard is dead wrong about: just because the President of the United States declares that a war (if you want to call the War On Drugs a war) is over, doesn't mean it goes away. Remember President George W. Bush declaring mission accomplished in Iraq in June, 2003? How did that work out? 

Taking the word of any career politician, anywhere, as gold, is like buying 20 year old used car, from a used car salesman, without even test driving it, (perhaps not even looking at it) paying the original price on the car, plus 20 years worth of inflation. You are screwing yourself blindfolded by doing that. The fact is Americans can still go to prison today for simple possession of illegal narcotics and Barack Obama is still President. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Washington Free Beacon: Andrew Evans: 'Taking on Crime'

Source:Washington Free Beacon- with a look inside a Texas prison.

"Conservatives push for criminal justice system reform, say it saves money while reducing crime

Texas faced a choice in 2007: spend billions on new prisons to house its convicts or find creative ways to deal with criminals in the state.

State leaders chose the second option, and Texas’ reforms, which have been championed by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, have become the model for a conservative movement to reform the criminal justice system.

The Texas foundation started the "Right on Crime" project in 2010; its "statement of principles" has attracted support from conservative public policy heads like Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Grover Norquist.

"It’s one of the more exciting things I’ve worked on," Norquist said.

Right on Crime promotes reforming the criminal justice system by following conservative "first principles" of individual accountability and measured results, said Right on Crime policy analyst Vikrant Reddy.

The group supports transparent and innovative approaches to reforming the system for nonviolent offenders while reducing incarceration, promoting victim restoration, and reintegrating criminals into their communities.

The program’s supporters say Texas is the marquee example of what can happen when states apply the approaches proposed by Right on Crime.

According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, Texas saved almost $2 billion by diverting some of the resources from building prisons to treatment and other programs.

The criminal justice system is the second fastest area of budget growth for states, said Pat Nolan, a senior vice president for Prison Fellowship, which is cooperating with the Texas Public Policy Foundation on the project.

Norquist said conservatives, who oppose waste in many government programs, ignored waste in the defense and police budgets because those are traditional areas of government work.

Prisons especially were "blowing huge holes" in state budgets, Nolan said.

Much of this spending came in response to the crime wave in the 1970s and 1980s. For years, Republicans pursued a "lock them up, throw away the key" approach to criminals, said Right on Crime spokesman Brendan Steinhauser.

But crime has dropped since the 1990s and the federal government and states now need a new set of policies, said Eli Lehrer, president of the think tank R Street and one of the original signers of the Right on Crime statement of principles.

"The right policy for right now is pretty much embodied in the Right on Crime statement of principles," he said.

Many states including Georgia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina have implemented prison reform similar to Right on Crime’s policy proposals.

Fiscal constraints are not the only force pushing states toward Right on Crime’s reforms. Its proponents also point toward the effect the reforms are having on crime rates.

According to Pew, parole failure in Texas has dropped 39 percent and crime is at its lowest level since the 1960s since the reforms were instituted in 2007.

"We can make real progress and effectively reduce crime and recidivism while not spending boatloads of money," Norquist said.

Texas is not alone in its success. Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (or HOPE) is also reducing incarceration while helping drug offenders stay clean. HOPE subjects the criminals to regular drug testing with the threat of immediate, short-term incarceration if they fail.

Nolan heaped praise on the HOPE program and its results: new crimes dropped by half, while both positive drug tests and missed probation appointments dropped by two-thirds when compared to other probationary programs, he said.

Reducing incarceration can also help keep nonviolent offenders from turning violent, Nolan said.

Prison can change prisoners and make them "antisocial" when they have to reintegrate into society, he said.

"There are ways to hold them accountable in the community," he said, but this effort will require a strong network of support in the local communities. Nolan pointed again to Texas as a good example, saying the state has worked to strengthen its community mental health and drug programs.

"If nobody’s there to catch them, they’ll fall through the cracks," Nolan said.

Reintegration into society after their punishments conclude can also pose a problem, said Reddy.

Criminals’ records loom over them and make it much harder to find a job, creating a "situation where society has effectively incentivized incarceration," Reddy said.

"That’s a really sick situation," he said." 

From the Washington Free Beacon

I like the Right on Crime approach as Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist call it. That if you are a Conservative one of the principles of conservatism, is to judge the results of investments that you make in government at tax payers expense and corrections and prisons are a government operation. 

Since corrections fall under a key area of responsibility for government, especially for state government's, then we want to have corrections systems that are the most effective and affordable possible. Instead of judging prisons and law enforcement by how many people we arrest every year and how many people are part of the criminal-justice system. 

We need to judge prisons as taxpayers who are paying for them, by who needs to be there and what prisons are for and how we finance them and what we are getting form the money that we spend. If there's a good thing thats come from the Great Recession and the slow economic and job-growth since, it's that its forced governments to reexamine how they spend tax payer funds and forcing them to look for savings wherever possible. Instead of judging law-enforcement and criminal-justice based on how much we spend on it.

The best way to save money on our criminal-justice system is to look at how we treat nonviolent-offenders who do not represent a major threat to the economy. And how we treat inmates that we need to have in prison, who are violent-offenders and how we treat our mentally-ill inmates and get them in the institutions where they need to be and not in prison.: 

so for example we shouldn't  be sending nonviolent-offenders who do not represent a major threat to the economy to prison in the first place. Especially drug-offenders, users primarily and get these people in private drug-rehab clinics and halfway-houses instead at their expense. 

And our nonviolent-offenders who aren't drug-offenders and again aren't major threats to the economy. Shoplifters to use as an example, have them to their time in county-jail and get them in halfway-houses at their expense. Where they can be covering their living-expenses.

The reason why we have so many people in prison, is because of the War on Drugs and how we treat nonviolent-offenders, who aren't drug-offenders, as well as all of the inmates who end up back in prison after being released. These are the inmates that we should be targeting and make sure they are where they need to be and are prepared for life on the outside before they are released.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Austin Peterson: 'Anarchism, Socialism & Libertarianism Summit'

Source:Austin Peterson- talking to Russia Today, about libertarianism.

"Russia Today hosted libertarian Austin Petersen, anarchist Scott Crow and socialist Eugene Puryear for a discussion featuring alternative viewpoints. Discussed were civil liberties, economics, ideal societies and transition plans to ideal societies, as well as law and police actions in free societies."

From Austin Peterson

I going to focus on libertarianism and socialism in this blog two philosophies that I'm familiar with.

They are both very diverse political philosophies and take libertarianism to use as an example: where the basic idea of libertarianism is that you combine personal with economic freedom as long as individuals aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing. But that government is there to protect us from invaders, terrorists and criminals. Thats the basic idea of libertarianism. But then there's also anarcho-libertarianism, which is borderline anarchism if not anarchism all together. Where Anarcho-Libertarians basically have no role for government in society. And are even interested in privatizing things like prisons, fire departments and law enforcement to use as examples.

Socialism, another diverse political philosophy where you have Socialist-Libertarians like Noam Chomsk and Ralph Nader and people with this philosophy believe in personal freedom like Libertarians, but that government needs to be there to sure that economic wealth is distributed equally in society and where no one is rich, or poor. But then there are Socialists who are statist across the board and not only want to prevent people from becoming what they would call too wealthy and not poor at all, but believe that people need to be protected from themselves and don't like personal freedom ether.

People who I at least call Neo-Communists, believe that government also has a role to protect people from getting hurt and even protecting us from ourselves. And making bad decisions with their own lives. Like prohibition, which is definitely a statist idea. The whole junk food and soft drinks ban, the War on Drugs to use as examples, are all statist ideas. And people like this I would call Neo-Communists. People who are socialist on economic policy, but also Statist on some key personal choice issues.

Neo-Communists, want to use government to control what people can eat, drink and smoke to use as examples. You also have Marxists-Socialists, people who believe in eliminating capitalism and the private sector all together. Where the government would own the economy all around on behalf of the people. And then you have Socialists who believe in both capitalism, but that is highly regulated and taxed to finance a large welfare state. So with Libertarians we would get a lot less government in society. And with Socialists a lot more government especially as it relates to the economy.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Camp Constitution: Dan Smoot Report- The United States Constitution

Source:Camp Constitution- The Dan Smoot Report.

Source:FreeState Now

“Dan Smoot Report. The late Dan Smoot was a pioneer in the Freedom Movement. He was one of the first Constitutionalists to have a Televison Show. He authored “The Invisible Government,” one of the earliesft exposes on The Council on Foreign Relations. This is a series of shows delaing with numerous issues-a timeless classic.” 

From Camp Constitution 

“Thereafter, Smoot published his weekly syndicated The Dan Smoot Report. He also carried his conservative message via weekly reports over radio. The Dan Smoot Report started with 3,000 paid subscribers; at its peak in 1965, it had more than 33,000 subscribers.[3] Each newsletter usually focused on one major story. One issue, for instance, was devoted to the Alaska Mental Health Bill of 1956, which Smoot claimed was a communist conspiracy to establish concentration camps on American soil. Another issue lionized Douglas MacArthur after his death in the spring of 1964.

A subsequent 1964 issue opposed a proposal by U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson to transfer sovereignty of the Panama Canal to the Republic of Panama. Johnson failed in his attempt, but President Jimmy Carter in 1978, with bipartisan U. S. Senate support led by Moderate Republican Howard Baker of Tennessee, prevailed by a one-vote margin to extend control of the Canal Zone to Panama. It was Moderate Republican support for many Democratic proposals that particularly angered Smoot, who gave up on the national Republican Party as a viable alternative to the majority Democrats of his day.

In 1962, Smoot wrote The Invisible Government concerning early members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Other books include The Hope of the World; The Business End of Government; and his autobiography, People Along the Way. Additionally he was associated with Robert W. Welch, Jr.’s John Birch Society and wrote for the society’s American Opinion bi-monthly magazine.[4]

In 2000, Conservative activist Peter Gemma wrote a biographical sketch of Smoot in The New American. Gemma recounts that Smoot, among his other aberrant positions, challenged Barry Goldwater during the 1964 presidential campaign for the nominee’s embrace of NATO, which Smoot called a globalist organization of questionable value.[5]

In 1970, Smoot opposed the selection of a future U.S. President, George Herbert Walker Bush, as the Republican nominee for the United States Senate from Texas. He claimed that Bush’s political philosophy was little different from the Democrats that he sought to oppose. Bush lost the Senate election that year to Lloyd M. Bentsen of Houston and McAllen. Oddly, eighteen years later, Bush would head the Republican presidential ticket, and Bentsen would be the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for vice president.” 

From Wikipedia 

The whole purpose of the United States Constitution, is to layout what are the powers and responsibilities of the Federal Government. As well as how the Federal Government interacts with state and local governments and what are the powers of the people as well. What freedom the people in the country have and what is our relationship with the government and what authority does government have to represent us in a civilize society.

This is how we establish rule of law and what makes us a Constitutional Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. Without a constitution, we wouldn’t have limited government and rule of law. Because government in theory anyway, would have unlimited power to either represent us, or rule over us. Which is why the Constitution is so critical so government knows what powers and responsibilities it has. But also to protect the people from unlimited government and authoritarian rule.

The Dan Smoot Report was done in 1962-63. Some time around then when the Kennedy Administration, had a broad economic agenda built around on building the safety net in America. Which was part of Jack Kennedy’s Great Frontier agenda. And part of that had to do with expanding affordable housing, medical insurance for senior, citizens, as well as the working poor and low-income Americans in general. As well as an across the board tax cut to deal with an economy that was growing slowly. And Federal aid to education.

What Dan Smoot and other Conservatives and people who would be called Conservatives Libertarians today, such as Senator Barry Goldwater, argue is that the U.S. Constitution, did not grant the Federal Government all of this power. They argued that the New Deal in the 1930s, was unconstitutional. The Federal Highway System of the 1950s and every new Federal social insurance program like the Great Society of the 1960s, are all unconstitutional.

The values that Dan Smoot promoted is why I say Dan Smoot, is one of the first Tea Party leaders. But from the 1950s and 1960s, because they make similar arguments.

American Thinker: Daniel Payne: 'Pro-Choice Only Goes So Far'

Source:American Thinker- is a let's say new-right, or populist-right publication.

"The media's relative radio silence concerning Kermit Gosnell's baby butchery is well-documented at this point, so it's hardly worth mentioning that it will likely continue to be underreported and undercared about by most Americans. Yet still, another peek into the world of abortion rights is merited, if only to examine the neurotic philosophy of the "pro-choice" lobby.

In Arkansas, an anti-abortion law has outlawed the procedure after twelve weeks of pregnancy, which has resulted in two doctors bringing a lawsuit against the state. The Arkansas chapter of the ACLU denounced the law and concurrently announced: "We may not all agree about abortion, but we can all agree that this complex and personal decision should be made by a woman, her family and her doctor, not politicians."

Actually, the crux of people not agreeing about abortion rests entirely on whether or not the decision should be left to individuals or to the law, rendering the ACLU's grand declaration somewhat paradoxical. At any rate, when it comes to "complex and personal decisions," the ACLU is, to say the least, conflicted.

"ACLU Welcomes Health Care Decision," read one of the organization's press releases last year. Which health care decision was that? Nothing too big or consequential, just the Supreme Court's upholding of the Affordable Care Act. You know, the law that takes a massive amount of "complex and personal decisions" away from everyone -- women, families, doctors, you name it. Obamacare is one of the most sweeping anti-choice laws of the past fifty years, but the ACLU "welcomed" it. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

It is. President Obama, for one, is also woefully confused when it comes to the definition of choice. He has, of course, been a longtime supporter of abortion rights, affirming his steadfast commitment to a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Concerning abortion, that is. When it comes to drugs, he's remarkably less enthusiastic about rights, or choices, or bodily sovereignty; the grossly expensive, mass-incarcerating War on Drugs has continued apace under his wise leadership. So it's all about choice, until it's a choice concerning something of which the president disapproves, even if it's something he himself did in moments of youthful indulgence." 

From the American Thinker 

I'm not going to get into the abortion debate either. Anyone who reads this blog, knows I'm not just pro-choice on abortion, but pro-choice on a helluva lot issues, just as long as it doesn't involve one person using their freedom to hurt an innocent person. The only other thing I would say about abortion here is that it's generally not about whether someone is pro-choice or anti-choice. It's about whether someone is pro-choice on abortion, or thinks abortion should be illegal in America all together, except perhaps for some rare exceptions. 

I believe what Daniel Payne is arguing in his American Thinker article, is that a lot of supporters of abortion rights in America, like to call themselves pro-choice. But the fact is that they're not very pro-choice at all. Sure, on abortion and perhaps women's health care in general and sexuality for gays. But on a whole issues and he used narcotics as one, so-called pro-choice supporters in America are actually anti-choice and pro-state. 

The anti-choice-left, are not just anti-choice on issues like marijuana, but gambling, school choice, and even pornography, when you look at the militant wing of the feminist-left and if you look at someone of the nanny state debates from last year, soft drinks and junk food. And Mr. Payne used President Obama and his advancement of the so-called War On Drugs, as his case in point. And as someone who voted for Barack Obama twice for President, I completely agree with Mr. Payne on that.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Liberty Pen: Thomas DiLorenzo: 'The FDR Myth'

Source:Liberty Pen- Author Thomas DiLorenzo, talking about President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 2005.

"Economics professor Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo explains the parts played by Hebert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt in the "Great Depression. Liberty Pen."

I was actually talking about this with a very good friend of mine on the phone last week. And I was arguing that President Franklin Roosevelt was overrated as a President and was not the Liberal that he tends to get credit for because on things like civil liberties and civil rights. Things he didn't see to either care about or not willing to do anything about to protect those things for all Americans, period. Including for African-Americans but all Americans in general.

African-Americans were getting lynched by the Ku Klux Klan and perhaps other Anglo racist groups. Even though Liberals in Congress were calling for laws to outlaw lynching, President Roosevelt didn't support that. And then you get to civil liberties and constitutional-rights where German, Italian and Japanese Americans were being locked up during World War II simply because of their ethnicity because the Roosevelt Administration feared that German, Italian and Japanese Americans were sympathetic to the Germany, Italy and Japan during World War II. Clearly Unconstitutional and bigoted but thats what the policy of the Roosevelt Administration was.

Then you get to the economy where pre World War II the American economy was still in very bad shape. Whether it was growing or not with roughly 1-5 Americans still out-of-work. It's really World War II that moved the economy past the Great Depression and back to good economic health. What the New Deal did was prevent the economy from getting worst. It in a lot of ways saved American-capitalism and prevented us from starting to nationalize industries and so-forth.

FDR never wanted to nationalize the American economy, but what he wanted to do was to build a modern infrastructure system for America and to create what is the modern safety net in America which as big as it was at the time and even today is still pretty small compared with Europe. So if you are a big believer in individualism and economic freedom, America is still a great place to be and somewhere where you should want to live.

Most of the credit I give FDR as President has to do with foreign policy by successfully leading us through World War II where we saved all of those European-Jews from an ethnic genocide and to help create what is the National Security State to deal with communism and other authoritarian ideologies and states. And moving the United States from an isolationist country on foreign policy to a liberal-internationalist country. Where we've been for the most part ever since. But other then that, FDR's liberal credentials are pretty weak. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Anthony Gregory: Liberals vs Libertarians

Source:Independent Institute- Anthony Gregory.

"Anthony Gregory, Research Editor at the Independent Institute, speaks to Judge Napolitano about the cost of war spending and how President Obama’s foreign policy is similar and different to former President George W. Bush’s." 

From the Independent Institute 

"Anthony Gregory speaks with Judge Napolitano of Fox Business Networks Freedom Watch about liberals attacking libertarians." 

Source:Independent Institute- Anthony Gregory

From the Independent Institute 

As I've blogged before, for political labels to mean anything, they have to be used correctly. Just because the so-called mainstream media or Hollywood, has definitions of what it means to be a Liberal or Libertarian, or so-called Liberals and Libertarians, call themselves Liberals or Libertarians, doesn't automatically mean that they're Liberals or Libertarians. We have sexual, as well as other cultural closets in America and we have political closets as well. 

When I think of Liberal, I think of someone who believes: 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. However, they generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[11] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history." 

From Wikipedia 

When I think of Libertarian, I think of someone who believes: "Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core value.[1][2][3][4] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, and minimize the state's encroachment on and violations of individual liberties; emphasizing the rule of law, pluralism, cosmopolitanism, cooperation, civil and political rights, bodily autonomy, freedom of association, free trade, freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of movement, individualism, and voluntary association.[3][4][5] Libertarians are often skeptical of or opposed to authority, state power, warfare, militarism and nationalism, but some libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of Libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of Libertarianism.[4][6][7] Scholars distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.[8] Libertarians of various schools were influenced by liberal ideas." 

From Wikipedia

There's nothing liberal about: 

the so-called War On Drugs 

indefinite detention 

debt and deficits 

being anti-corporate 

anti-private business 

anti-wealth, anti-for profit 

anti-liberal democracy 

anti-straight, anti-man 

anti-Caucasian 

anti-Christian, 

anti anything else that so-called Libertarians like the Andrew Napolitano's of the world like to throw at Liberals and say this is what Liberals believe. Those are all far-left values, that if anything are illiberal values, not liberal values.

Reason Magazine: '5 Facts About Govt Spending: Nick Gillespie at Reason Weekend 2012'

Source:Reason Magazine- editor Nick Gillespie at Reason Weekend, in 2012.

"Politicians are like criminals in Batman comics. They're a superstitious, cowardly lot. And the minute that they know they're going to lose elections because they're spending too much money, they will find their inner cheapskate and start [spending less]," said Reason's Nick Gillespie during his speech at the Reason Weekend event in Las Vegas.

In "5 Unacknowledged, Unexpected, and Unavoidable Facts about Government Spending and the Economy," Gillespie says politicians such as President Obama and John Boehner are in denial. Influential economists like Paul Krugman and Lawrence Summers correctly diagnose debt as a problem even as they prescribe more debt as the cure." 

From Reason Magazine 

To paraphrase the great Classical Liberal economics Professor Milton Friedman, when he was talking about other people's money: people are always better at spending their own money, then spending other people's money. Professor Friedman was talking about government spending and taxation. 

When you don't have to deal with the consequences of your own spending and don't have to ever pay the bills back and you believe you have unlimited income as a government because you can just tax your people more or borrow money from other countries and argue that our interest rates are so low (thanks to the Federal Reserve and no one or anything else) so deficit spending adding to the national debt won't hurt you because of the interest rates, you're more likely to spend more and waste money, simply because no one is there to hold you accountable and take your hand out of the piggy bank and from borrowing the money from real banks. 

The reason why we have a huge national debt and budget deficit, is because the two major political parties both believe that deficits don't matter (regardless of what the Tea Party says) and we have voters who don't care about deficits and debt, just as long as it doesn't hurt them financially. 

If we ever real interest rates in America, voters will start caring about deficits and debt, because they'll feel the pain from them in high interest rates and inflation and then probably demand that their politicians deal with the debt and deficit, even if that means cutting their favorite programs. 

ABC Sports: USFL 1983- Week 1- New Jersey Generals @ Los Angeles Express: Full Game

Source:USFL Forever- the Los Angeles Express & New Jersey Generals, kicking off (pun intended) the USFL, in 1983.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“The high-priced running back who left the University of Georgia a year early for a $5 million, three-year contract, did score the game’s first touchdown. But he gained only 65 yards on 16 carries and by the second quarter, was largely forgotten by the crowd of 34,002 in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

Instead, all eyes were on Tom Ramsey and Tony Boddie as the Los Angeles Express beat the Generals 20-15 in a season-opening United States Football League game, one of five played that Sunday.

Ramsey, who played his college ball in the same stadium last year when he was the nation’s college passing percentage leader, turned things around when he replaced former National Football player Mike Rae with the Express trailing 9-6.

Boddie, a 12th-round draft choice out of Montana State, rushed for 77 yards on 13 carries and caught five passes for 49 yards.

Meanwhile, Walker was generally ineffective. Usually a prime pass receiver as well as a runner, the Heisman Trophy winner caught only one pass for three yards.” 

From USFL Forever

I can see why ABC Sports and the USFL would want New Jersey and Los Angeles for their week 1 matchup on ABC. The biggest markets in America in Los Angeles and New York/North Jersey. And try to get a big week one TV rating from this game. And maybe they did, but the New Jersey Generals were 6-12 in 83 and were much better in 84 and 85, but they were a bad team in 83, at least as far as what they showed. And the Los Angeles Express were 8-10 a mediocre team that again were better in 84 and 85.

I think what is rememberable about this game is that it was Generals running back Herschel Walker’s first professional football game. No question the best college running back in 1982 and instead of playing in the NFL, he ends up in the USFL because he lost his college eligibility for speaking to pro agents too soon. Either a bad rule or big mistake on Herschel’s part. Because had Herschel played his whole career in the NFL, we are talking about a guaranteed first ballot hall of famer. But that is how good the USFL was as far as the talent that they had and the players they brought in.

Raymond Fisher: ‘Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Debate

Source:Raymond Fisher- Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X in 1963.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Debate” 

From Raymond Fisher

The Ali-Frazier of the American civil rights movement and what made this debate inside the African-American civil rights movement so interesting was how different the personalities of Martin King and Malcolm X were. And their different strategies and tactics in accomplishing what they wanted which was freedom, civil rights the constitutional rights to be enforced equally under law for African-Americans.

Martin King played the numbers game (so to speak) knowing that African-Americans only represented around ten percent of the population at this point. Knew that he would need the support of others in the country to accomplish his goals. Including like-minded Caucasian-Americans, as well as Jewish-Americans and Latino-Americans, in order to build the movement to pass the laws he was in favor of. 

Malcolm X took a more unrealistic approach which was that: “We are here and want what is already entitled to us. Which is our freedom and since the Caucasians are in charge, they should simply just give our freedom to us.”

Dr. King had the approach that brought about the civil rights laws of the 1960s and all of those victories. But Malcolm X had a better post-civil rights movement approach for how to fix the African-American community going forward, which was about individual freedom based through education, economic expansion, for the African-Americans to have the resources to build their communities and run their own business’s.

Whereas Dr. King had more of a government centric, pubic assistance approach. That government should just give poor people money and take care of them.