CBS News: 'Tony La Russa Retires as St. Louis Cardinals Manager'

Source:CBS News- Tony La Russa: Manager of the St. Louis Cardinals (1996-2011) announcing his retirement as manager after winning the MLB World Series.

"Tony La Russa announced his retirement as manager of the St. Louis Cardinals three days after winning a seven-game world series against the Texas Rangers." 

From CBS News

The only thing keeping Tony La Russa out of the Hall of Fame as a manager was himself, because he's been managing for 33 years consecutively, his whole career, and I believe he's been the best manager in Major League Baseball that whole period, and that includes people like Tommy Lasorda, Billy Martin, Earl Weaver briefly, Bobby Cox. Joe Torre, Roger Craig, Jim Leyland, and many others.   Some may say Joe Torre because of the championships:  4 World Series Championships, 6 American League Championships, 11 Eastern Division Championships, and 13 playoff appearances.  Only Tony La Russa and Bobby Cox come close to those accomplishments in this time period.

But when Joe Torre was with the New York Yankees from 1996 to 2007, you could make a case that he had the best team in MLB every year he was there, especially from 1998 to 2007, but they came up short several times, as in 2001 losing to the underdog Phoenix Diamondbacks, 2003 losing to the underdog Miami Marlins, both in the World Series, 2002 losing to the underdog Anaheim Angels in the American League Championship, and 2004 blowing a 3-0 Series lead to the Boston Red Sox in the American League Championship, something that will always be hated by Yankee Fans and loved by Red Sox Fans.  I know a few of those fans myself. And of course the Yankees always had the most money in this time period and could always basically put all-star teams together to win the World Series.

Other than the time period during which Tony La Russa was with the Oakland Athletics from 1988 to 1990 or 1991, he was there from 1986 to 1995, but in those 4 years you could make a pretty good case that the Athletics should have won at least three World Series if not four, because from 1988 to 1990 they had the best three teams in baseball.  And they only won one World Series.  Of course, one is better then nothing but in the two World Series that the Athletics lost in 1988 and 1990, they won a total of one game.

They lost 4-1 in the 1988 World Series to, I believe, the worst World Series Champion since 1969, the Los Angeles Dodgers, who only won something like 85 games that season.  And of course you had the famous Kirk Gibson home run in game one to win that game against the best closer in baseball at the time, Dennis Eckersly.  When Tony La Russa was in St. Louis with the Cardinals from 1996 to 2011, he didn't always have the best team and he still won 7-8 Central Division Championships, three National League Championships, and two World Series, and made the playoffs 9-10 times again. When only four teams make the playoffs in each league, they may go up to 5-6 teams in 2012, but we'll see. 

Tony La Russa was the best manager in MLB in his era as well as today because of what he got out of his players for the most part, not including his time in Oakland, but definitely in St. Louis, a midsize market. But with a great fan base, if not the best in MLB, it was just a matter of when Tony La Russa would retire.  That would determine when he was going into the Hall of Fame, because he's a first ballot Hall of Famer in waiting.  

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on WordPress.

VOA News: Jim Bertel- U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy Dead at 77: The Dream Shall Never Die

Source:VOA News- U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) the lion of the Senate.

Source:FRS FreeState

"Senator Edward Kennedy was the last of the Kennedy sons born to Rose and Joseph Kennedy. He followed the trail blazed by his brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General and Senator Robert Kennedy, both assassinated in the 1960s. Ted Kennedy was known as the Lion of the Senate and was respected for his long-term commitment to health care for all Americans.  On Tuesday night, at his home in Massachusetts, he lost his hard fought battle with brain cancer.  VOA's Jim Bertel has more on the career of this Democratic icon."

From VOA News 

When I think of the late Senator Ted Kennedy Edward M. Kennedy, I think of someone who represents the heart of the Democratic Party. Someone who represents the best of the Democratic Party as far as the things that we as Democrats have been fighting for going back at least to the 1930s or longer. Individual liberty, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, equality of opportunity for all, civil rights for all, workers rights, the little people, health care and health insurance for everybody. Retirement security for everybody, a foreign policy that represents the best of America. Basically a quality shot at the American Dream for everyone. Now we as Democrats don't always agree on how to accomplish these things.

Democrats tend to have the same goals, but differ in how to accomplish those goals. Some times we don't agree on any of those things as far how to accomplish them. We've always been a very diverse party. Politically, racially, different ethnicity's and everything else. We are basically a political party of three different parties in one. And thats what happens when you have a two-party System in a country as large and as diverse as we are. But its that progressive agenda of the party that brings us together when we come together. And a lot of that credit goes to Senator Ted Kennedy who's been the heart of the Democratic Party at least since 1980. When he unsuccessfully ran for President in 1980 and sort of took that mantle from Lyndon Johnson. When he left the White House in 1969 and when his brother Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in 1968.

Ted Kennedy didn't represent the Democratic agenda as far as exactly what the policy's would look like. Which is what Ron Reagan did for the Republican Party. he represented their agenda as well as policy's. Even though Senator Kennedy had his own policy's for all the key issues he cared about. The Democratic Leadership or the party as a whole, wasn't always behind the bills that Senator Kennedy wrote. But they shared the same goals on a lot of bills that Senator Kennedy got passed out of Congress. He did that by working with the Democratic Leadership, Senate Republicans like Orrin Hatch, Bob Dole, John Chaffee, Arlen Spector and others. And then working out a compromise with the House whichever party was in charge.

Senator Kennedy, was also good at working out agreements with the White House. This is how legislating works in Washington and Senator Kennedy is about as good or the best legislature we've ever produced. But Ted Kennedy has been a big reason why the Democratic agenda has always been the same for the last 45-50 years. And a big reason why they've been able to pass a lot of that agenda, including health care reform which they passed in 2010. And still serves as the inspiration for the Democratic Party today. If the United States had a system where each party had their own official leader, whether they are the ruling party or not, meaning they run the executive, which is what most democracy's have, then Ted Kennedy would've been that guy for the Progressive Party. Because he was the person that could bring the party together when times were good or bad. And is a big reason why he's the Heart of the Democratic Party. 

John Fitzhamh: 'The Iranian Hostage Crisis'

Source:John Fitzhamh- President James E. Carter (Democrat, California) I believe meeting with his National Security Council in 1979. But I don't know that for sure.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"The Iranian Hostage Crisis" 

From John Fitzhamh

The 1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis was awful for lots of reasons. For one, the hostages who had to go through that ordeal. The hostages friends and families who had to go through that ordeal. The American People who had to go through this ordeal as well with all the news coverage and news specials that was dedicated to covering the hostage crisis. The country had to not only go through this ordeal, but also the embarrassment that came with it with how weak America looked as a result, that a group of students Islamic Terrorists in a third-world country could essentially take a country hostage.As well as take an American presidency hostage. 

President Carter had to go through the Iranian hostage crisis as well (obviously) and probably crushed whatever hope he had left in getting reelected in 1980, especially with Senator Ted Kennedy announcing that he would run for president in the Democratic primaries. 

America in this period was already going through a very rough period especially economically with double figure interest as well as inflation rates, with another recession in 1978 as well as 1980 and was facing several other issues that all commanded the attention of the Carter Administration. 

But when you have American hostages in a foreign country especially in a country thats not friendly with where we had already closed our embassy there, thats job one. And you stay on that job until you (pardon the pun) get the job done. (To paraphrase President Richard M. Nixon) 

The Carter Administration was on top of the hostage crisis and I give them credit for that despite all of the other issues they were dealing with. Like looking weak (to use as an example) with Russia invading Afghanistan a neighbor of Iran in late 1979 to try to install a communist government there. 

There are lots of reasons that led to the Iranian hostage crisis, none of them justified taking innocent people hostage. But most of them America's fault and the Iranians were justified in being angry at America. The main reason I believe being the Shah of Iran who was installed by the United States and United Kingdom. And could be removed and replaced at anytime the U.S. and U.K. wanted to.

The Shah even though he was pretty progressive on economic and foreign policy and was a very bright man, was brutal dictator in how he dealt with political dissent in Iran. And this was a reason why the Islamic Revolution started in 1978 and took over the Iranian Government in early 1979. 

And the Shah fled to Egypt and an Islamic Theocracy was formed in Iran in 1979. And of course the Iranian hostage crisis in November 4, 1979. And even though the United States officially declared War on Terror in late 2001 after 9/11, I believe we were already in this war over twenty years earlier.

I believe the Iranian Hostage Crisis was the start of it in 1979. The U.S. Marine barracks bombing in 1982. Libya's sponsoring of terrorism in the mid and late 1980s in Lockerbie, Scotland and other areas as well. 

And then you go to the 1990s with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. As well as Saudi Arabia in 1996 and the East African Embassy bombings in 1998. America was already in the War on Terror long before 2001, we just hadn't officially declared it yet.

John Kramer: 'SNL Politics Reviewed: Alec Baldwin Gives The GOP Schweddy Balls'

Source:John Kramer- the guy on the right is Alec Baldwin. Not sure about the other guy.

"Welcome to the 37th season of Saturday Night Live, with its opening show hosted by Alec Baldwin.  SNL Politics Yes, it's Saturday Night, Alec Baldwin now holds the record for hosting SNL the most times, and if there's anyone out there who should have Scweddy Balls it's the Republican Party...

Source: John Kramer

I can sum up the Republican presidential debates in several paragraphs or less, so I will. 

Mitt Romney- "Vote for me because I can win." And his other slogan being:"If you're for it so am I." Well, Mitt Romney on truth serum.

Newt Gingrich who I do take seriously as an intellectual until he says something thats provocative. But then realizes its unpopular and tries to get away from it. As long as he doesn't preach about moral values: "Don't do because I've done it and I know from personal experience that some of these activities in life, well, take adultery (to use as an example) are simply personally wrong. It's wrong which is why you shouldn't do it. Even though I had a great time doing like having an affair with one of my staffers as Speaker of the House. When I was preaching about the moral decay of President Clinton". Newt Gingrich won't be up for Sainthood anytime soon, unless he pays to get in. And he is also unqualified to be a Monk, which may be why he's stopped preaching about moral values.

You have a classical Libertarian in Ron Paul, who apparently walked into a Republican Party one day, thinking he was at a Libertarian Convention. And hasn't found his way out of the Republican Party and is probably also unaware that he's at a party thats dominated by the Christian-Right and Neoconservatives. And the Tea Party that at least part of them are in bed with the Religious-Right. And are so warm there, that they can't get out of bed. 

Then there's John Huntsman and Gary Johnson who have no shot at the Republican nomination because they would both make excellent Liberal Democrats and they are both sane and that just ain't going to cut it in today's Republican Party.

I would mention Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann, but like I said I could sum up the Republican presidential debates in a few paragraphs or less. And since I'm not a politician or running for public office, I can stick with positions I've already made. Other to say that they are both American citizens, born in America and 35 or older. (At least as far as I know) And besides I have nothing to say nice about either of them. Other than maybe Senator Santorum who I'll admit he's one of the most honest politicians I know of. And that is a complement in todays politics, its just that he knows so much that isn't true and actually believes in it. Which would make Rick scary as a President. And Michele Bachmann just proves that even mental patients, even escaped mental patients are apparently qualified to run for President of the United States, or at least until they are recaptured. 

Rick Perry, well when he decides what he believes and what his plans are for the country, I'll take a look at his presidential campaign. The man keeps teleprompter's in business by himself. 

And with Herman Cain. Well his presidential campaign got suspended so now I would just be piling on. So what the hell, the man is not even qualified to pass a course on sexual harassment awareness. I'm not sure what the exact name for the course, I've never had to take it myself, let alone be President of the United States.

Thats the Republican presidential field of 2011-12, I know I'm thinking the same thing, "is that it". Where's Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Dick Nixon, Gerry Ford, Ron Reagan, and  Bob Dole? The problem is those people don't exist in the Republican Party anymore and wouldn't get the nomination for President in today's Republican Party because they wouldn't be trusted by the Religious or New-Right, which is the problem for Mitt Romney. Who twenty years ago would've fit in perfectly in the GOP but because of the new Republican Party. he has to say things just to please to them and say different things to different audiences.

C-SPAN: Q&;A With Brian Lamb- Mick Caouette on Hubert Humphrey: The Art of The Possible

Source: C-SPAN- Brian Lamb-

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState

The Art of the Possible, which is the name of a documentary about former Senator and Vice President Hubert Humphrey, I believe is the perfect way to describe Hubert Humphrey. Because that’s how Senator Humphrey saw politics and government. Serving the people and trying to solve problems that they face. He didn’t see government as a debating society, where Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, bashed each over the head. With neither party having enough power to destroy the other party. But he saw government as a way to try to solve problems, analyze the issues, examine what the political situation is between both parties and try to find solutions that can pass through Congress and that the President would sign. And Hubert Humphrey had plenty experience at this. Being in Congress for twenty-five years and being the Assistant Leader of the Senate from 1961-65. Leader Mike Mansfield’s deputy and then Vice President from 1965-69.

Hubert Humphrey was pretty busy in that time period with the civil rights legislation. The civil rights debates actually were going on in the late 1940s. When Hubert Humphrey was elected to the Senate and he made his famous pro-civil rights speech at the 1948 DNC. And the 1964 Civil Rights Act where Humphrey had a big role in getting that bill passed. And ending the Senate filibuster from the Southern right-wing Democrats. And helping to bring aboard some Northern Progressive Republicans. And as Vice President he had a role in getting the 1965 Voting Rights Act passed as well as Medicare health insurance for senior citizens. But I believe Hubert Humphrey’s legacy in Congress was the civil rights legislation. Who without him those bills never get passed.

Hubert Humphrey had the perfect approach to civil rights, because he saw it as about human and constitutional rights. Which trumps states rights, which was of course the argument that the Southern Dixiecrat Democrats were making. That the states had the right to enforce constitutional rights as they see them. Even if it violates constitutional rights of African-Americans and other racial minorities. But the Republican Party of the 1960s even though they were the opposition party from 1961-69 and were a small minority party in both the House and Senate for the whole decade, deserve a lot of credit in Congress for those bills being passed at all.

Congressional Republicans like Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, deserve a lot of credit for getting the civil rights legislation passed as well, because they don’t pass in the Senate. Without Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who without him these bills never get passed in this era. Hubert Humphrey tends to get lost when we are talking about great politicians and public servants for whatever reason. But without him a lot of important legislation never gets passed. And a lot of Americans would’ve been denied their constitutional rights as a result, just because of their race. Which would’ve been a disgrace in a liberal democracy like America.
C-SPAN: Q&A With Brian Lamb- Mick Caouette in Hubert Humphrey

See Black Power: Minister Malcolm X- 'We Didn't Land On Plymouth Rock'

Source:Donnie Mossberg- Minister Malcolm X speaking in 1964.

Source:FRS FreeState 

"MALCOLM X We Didn't Land On Plymouth Rock March 29, 1964"

From Sea Black Power

Malcolm X. was clearly not a Saint, or a perfect person and America is not a country of Saints or perfect people. We have good, bad and in between all over the country. Hopefully more good than anything else.

Malcolm X, started down the road as a lot of people growing up in rough neighborhoods and becoming a criminal. He’s one of the few in this country unfortunately who’s been in jail, that’s actually come out of jail as a better person. He made himself a better man and educated himself. He also went from being a criminal to a racist, or perhaps he was both at the same time. Basically seeing all Caucasians as Devils and perhaps he only knew racist Caucasians and believed because of that, that they were all like that.

But Malcolm X, was someone who learned and taught himself and bettered himself as he got older. Which is one of the reasons his early death was so tragic. Because we’ll never know how great Dr. Martin King and Malcolm X would’ve become as men, because they were both murdered in their late 30s. But Malcolm X was a man who only got better as he got older, which why I believe he had such a strong following in the 1960s and if anything his following has gotten stronger in his death then when he was alive. With a great movie about his life with the great actor Denzel Washington playing Malcolm X in the movie. Well, Malcolm X, easy enough to follow.

Which is again is just another reason why his death was so tragic, because he was so young to die and like Dr King could’ve accomplished so much more. Not just with civil rights, but I believe would’ve gone farther in the areas of poverty and speaking about empowering low-income people to get themselves out of poverty with assistance, but they would do the work to make it happen. As well as rebuilding American cities, so people living in them especially in low-income areas, would have a good shot at a much better life and escaping poverty.

But what I respect most about Malcolm X, was his message of empowerment and freedom over dependence. Whether its dependence on public assistance, or anything else.

Low-income people, don’t have the same freedom to live their lives as middle class people, or wealthy people. They simply have very limited resources and are very limited in what they can do with their own lives, especially compared with the rest of the population. And Malcolm X message was about empowering these people to get the freedom that the rest of the population had to live their own lives. And not be dependent on public assistance, in the 1960s when the Great Society and all of these new government programs has contributed to making low-income people more dependent on public assistance for their survival.

Public housing, is a perfect example of this, where you build a bunch of high-rise housing projects in low-income areas. Where all of these low-income people live in low-income areas. With high crime and their kids are stuck going to bad schools and having the same future as their parents, or worse.

Malcolm X, wanted low-income people especially in the African-American community, to have the freedom to live their own lives and not be dependent on public assistance their whole lives. And I believe education and choice in education would’ve been a big part of his message. A lot of the message around fighting poverty in America in the past and still today unfortunately, has been government centered and giving low-income people Welfare checks. Instead of empowering low-income people to get the skills that they need and giving them their freedom so they can earn good pay checks from a good job.

But that’s changing, it started in the Clinton Administration in the 1990s with Welfare Reform in 1996 with a Republican Congress. Where they worked together to make that happen. But Malcolm X, I believe had a big role in getting this message started in the 1960s and for that a lot is owed to him. His Message of empowerment, is the biggest contribution he made to Africans-Americans and America as a whole. 

CNBC: Michele Bachmann Interview- Economic & Social Policy

Source:CNBC- U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) being interviewed by CNBC. 

Source:FRS FreeState 

Michele Bachmann: “I have talked to business owners all across the nation,” she said. “They’re really paralyzed with fear right now. This won’t help hearing (the unemployment news) because it shows that Washington doesn’t have the solution.”

She spoke as Congress and the White House are locked in debate over whether to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. Bachmann dodged a question over whether the failure to increase the borrowing limit while drastically cutting spending would raise unemployment, but she said more taxes certainly aren’t the answer, either.

“We need to fundamentally restructure how government does spending,” she said. “We’re still operating under the principles of FDR and LBJ. We need to move into the 21st century so we embrace pro-growth policies. Unfortunately they’re tone deaf here in Washington, D.C. They think government is the answer, and the American people know it’s not true.” 

From CNBC

"Michele Bachmann on social issues"   

Source:Think Progress- CNBC interviewing U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann. Representative Bachmann trying not to sound like a mental patient. 

From Think Progress

Representative Michele Bachmann wants to as she says run a presidential campaign that’s a three-legged stool, that represents fiscal Conservatives meaning  business and Center-Right Republicans, national security Conservatives (probably meaning Neoconservatives) and people who are called social Conservatives. (Meaning Christian Conservatives) And in America that would mean the Christian-Right. 

Apparently Representative Bachmann did an interview today and came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and a law banning porn. The constitutional amendment is nothing new, but the anti-porn law is at least new on her part.

With those two positions Representative Bachmann can forget about appealing to Libertarians because she’s come out for at least two big government positions. I would love to hear her speaking out against big government, because then she would be able to run for Hypocrite in Chief instead of Commander-in-Chief. With those two positions she’s just taken, she’ll lose part of her Tea Party base because there are actually real Conservative-Libertarians in the Tea Party who don’t give a damn about social issues, they are only interested in fiscal and foreign policy. But Michele could unite the Christian-Right behind her. 

This three-legged Stool that Representative Bachmann is talking about, that as I see it, she wants to be a three-legged tool for them. This strategy doesn’t work, a Republican or any other presidential candidate can’t win a presidential election with a base that includes Conservative-Libertarians, theocrats and Neoconservatives. And she goes off against big government when she’s in favor of big government. Because her positions contradict each other. Representative Bachman is a Christian-Conservative on social issues and a neo-con on national security and perhaps somewhat fiscally conservative.

A candidate like this can’t appeal to Conservative-Libertarians. Her best bet is to appeal to fiscal and Neoconservatives. Instead of going for everybody on the right-wing, including residents at mental hospitals. Because there are still Conservative-Libertarians out there who don’t care what people do with their own lives. And don’t want government trying to tell people how to live. 

Michelle Bachmann is a Christian-Fundamentalist a fiscal message. She’s not a unifying candidate that can bring the entire Republican Party behind her. And I believe she actually knows this because, I believe she’s politically smart enough to understand this. Which makes her a tool for all the other factions she claims to speak for.