Canadian Blaster: NASL 1979-Semifinal- Vancouver Whitecaps @ New York Cosmos: Overtime

Source:Canadian Blaster- the Vancouver Whitecaps and New York Cosmos from 1979.

Source:The New Democrat 

"In what many consider to be the greatest match in the history of the original North American Soccer League, this is ABC's broadcast of the second leg of the 1979 National Soccer Conference final between the Vancouver Whitecaps and the defending NASL champion New York Cosmos.

This match was held at the now-demolished Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Vancouver had taken the first leg of the NSC final in Vancouver by a score of 2-0. For the Cosmos to advance to the Soccer Bowl, they would have to win this leg, then win a 30-minute 'mini-game' after that.

This video shows the conclusion of the match, which included the conclusion of the extra time period and the NASL shootout to decide the winner.

As it turned out, the 30-minute 'mini-game' would indeed be needed, and even that had its own extra time period and subsequent NASL shootout following it.

The announcers calling the match are Jim McKay and Paul Gardner, with Verne Lundquist on the sideline.

This video is intended for entertainment purposes only and no infringement of any kind is intended." 

From Canadian Blaster 

"There seems to be little disagreement (famous last words) among fans of the original NASL that the greatest game in that league’s 17 seasons was the second leg of the 1979 semifinal between the New York Cosmos and the Vancouver Whitecaps.

That this bitter rivalry produced a heated battle was no surprise. There had been bad blood between the Cosmos and the Whitecaps throughout the 1979 season, including a fight that had seen four players sent off, and it continued into the first game of their semifinal series, a 2-0 victory for Vancouver at Empire Stadium in Vancouver.

The spark that set off the trouble in that game was the second Vancouver goal, on a breakaway by Trevor Whymark. The Cosmos felt that the goal should have been disallowed for offside. Carlos Alberto led the Cosmos’ futile protest against the goal, and the atmosphere wasn’t helped any when Andranik Eskandarian was red carded after taking a run at a Vancouver player. Then, in the tunnel leading to the locker rooms after the game, Carlos Alberto got into an altercation with an official that, according to the league reports, included spitting on him." 

Source:US Soccer History- The New York Cosmos and Vancouver Whitecaps from 1979.

From US Soccer History

One of the best played soccer games in both American and Canadian history. I’m not a soccer expert American or otherwise and at best a casual soccer fan. I do have some appreciation for the sport, but do not follow it closely. But I do know this was one of the best games in soccer history between these two countries. Because of the two teams that were involved, how evenly matched they were and the fact that either team could’ve won it. 

American soccer needs more games like this and need more Americanized rules as well to bring more Americans fans in to today’s MLS. Which is something that the NASL understood 30-40 years ago which is why they were able to draw baseball and football size crowds to their games. And not stuck 15-10 thousand attendance and that would be good crowds for todays MLS.

PBS: NewsHour- Judy Woodruff: 'Mark Shields and David Brooks Look At Impact of Senate's Rule Change'

Source:PBS NewsHour- syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and television program distributor.[6] It is a nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational television programming to public television stations in the United States, distributing series such as American Experience, America's Test Kitchen, Antiques Roadshow, Arthur, Barney & Friends, Between the Lions, Cyberchase, Clifford the Big Red Dog, Downton Abbey, Elinor Wonders Why, Finding Your Roots, Frontline, The Magic School Bus, Masterpiece Theater, Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, Nature, Nova, the PBS NewsHour, Reading Rainbow, Sesame Street, Teletubbies, Keeping up Appearances and This Old House." 

From Wikipedia 

"Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss their takes on Senate Democrats' move to invoke the "nuclear option" and how that rule change will affect partisanship. They also look back at how President John F. Kennedy shaped public service in America." 

From the PBS NewsHour

As I said yesterday, Senate Democrats essentially had no choice, but to do this because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules in how the Senate filibuster was used by saying: 

“Even though we are the opposition and minority party in the United States and only have forty-five members of the Senate, we get to decide when the President of the United States that our party has now lost to twice both in Electoral College landslides and lost the Senate elections as well, we’ll get to decide when an if President Obama will get to make appointments to either his administration or the courts, based on whether we believe those offices should exist. And whether or not we believe that office needs to be filled right now."

Senate Republicans were not blocking people based on whether they are qualified or not, which has been the tradition of whether or not presidential appointments should be blocked or not. 

Again Leader Harry Reid was forced to do this, but Senate Democrats will pay a price for this. The next time there is a Republican president and Republican Senate at the same time and with the state of the Republican Party, that could be a while. (But stranger things have happened)

Andrew Kaczynski: 'When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster'

Source:Andrew Kaczynski- U.S. Senate Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Republican, Kentucky) talking about changing the Senate filibuster in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat 

"When Mitch McConnell Supported Changing The Filibuster" 

From Andrew Kaczynski

Newsflash: there’s bipartisan hypocrisy when it comes to the Senate filibuster. And a big example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten percent approval rating (and the ten percent are probably comatose or living oversees right now) because the upper chamber uses and complains about the filibuster to meet its short-term gains. Instead of what is best for the Senate and the country. 

And Senate Democrats were in favor of filibustering presidential nominees before they were against it. And Senate Republicans were against the Senate filibuster before they were in favor of it. 

The Senate filibuster debate is purely about politics and short-term political advantage to gain absolute power to the point that the party in power wouldn’t even have to acknowledge the minority party and even the minority leadership about what bills to proceed to and when to debate them.

C-SPAN: Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid- 'Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada) talking about the Senate filibuster, in 2005.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Harry Reid: Filibuster Part Of Fabric Of Senate, Meant To Be Used For Executive Nominees. Sen. Harry Reid, Floor Remarks, 5/18/05." 

From Filibuster Flashback

Senate Democrats in favor of the filibuster before they were against it as it relates to presidential nominees. Again just goes to the bipartisan hypocrisy and an example of why the U.S. Congress has a ten-percent approval rating and that might be generous. That ten-percent might be members of the Senate or mental patients. 

But whoever is against  the Senate filibuster (when they're in the majority) is about short-term gain. And even though I’m in favor of Leader Reid using the nuclear option as it relates to presidential nominees because of how Senate Republicans have changed the rules as it relates to blocking presidential appointments, the hypocrisy in this debate is as obvious as the Earth is round. 

One thing that is bipartisan in Congress is hypocrisy, as well as long so-called work vacations, getting paid while not working  and perhaps a few other things, but Democrats and Republicans love using tools against the other side. But when those tools are used against them, they call them unfair and that they must be unilaterally changed or outlawed.

CSPAN: Andrew Sullivan vs Dennis Prager- Same-Sex Marriage (1996)

Source:CSPAN- the House Judiciary Committee holding a hearing on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Source:The New Democrat   

"The House Judiciary Subcommittee heard testimony concerning the Defense of Marriage Act from activists, state legislators and others." 

From CSPAN

Source:CSPAN- Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan, arguing against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, at the House Judiciary Committee in 1996.

If you believe in freedom of choice and even individual freedom and liberty, as well as marriage, and that people who are in love with each other should be get married, then you shouldn't have a problem with same-sex-marriage, if you're also a constitutionalist. Because marriage whether it's straight or gay is about uniting a partnership between two people that are in-love with each other. 

If your politics if defined by your religious and cultural views and not by the U.S. Constitution and your religion and politics are fundamentalist, then of course same-sex-marriage is going to be a problem for you. Hell, if you're a religious fundamentalist, you probably don't believe that gays should be allowed to freely walk the streets, let alone be in-love with each other or get married. 

I look at same-sex-marriage and homosexuality the way I look at all freedom of choice issues: does someone's else personal choice affect me in a negative way or not. If the answer is no, then what do I care if gays want to get married or do anything else with each other, just as long as they're not hurting any innocent person with what they're doing. 

The Andrew Sullivan-Dennis Prager debate about same-sex-marriage and perhaps homosexuality in general, is about the Constitution, freedom of choice, and individual liberty, versus religious fundamentalism and perhaps nationalism and the idea that these fundamentalist values are so powerful, that everyone else should be forced to live under them, even if they disagree with them. 

The Dish: Andrew Sullivan- 'Healthcare Socialism 1, Healthcare Capitalism 0'

Source:The Dish- Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan, with a look at American health care.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The Commonwealth Fund quietly eviscerates America’s medical system with some basic facts. Two of the more remarkable ones:

In 2013, more than one-third (37%) of U.S. adults went without recommended care, did not see a doctor when they were sick, or failed to fill prescriptions because of costs, compared with as few as 4 percent to 6 percent in the United Kingdom and Sweden.

Roughly 40 percent of both insured and uninsured U.S. respondents spent $1,000 or more out-of-pocket during the year on medical care, not counting premiums. High deductibles and cost-sharing, along with no limits on out-of-pocket costs, may explain why even insured people in the U.S. struggled to afford needed health care, the researchers said." 

From The Dish

This idea that capitalism is better when it comes to producing things that people want, but socialism is better for things that people need to live well, in other words capitalism is better for producing luxury cars, cell phones, computers (to use as examples) but a state-owned socialist system for producing things that people need to live well, take health care and health insurance (to use as examples) well, you don’t see at least in America a lot of people calling for nationalizing the food industry. 

Agriculture, grocery stores, restaurants, we all need food, right. You don’t see a lot of people in America calling for nationalizing the energy industry, only the Far-Left wants to nationalize energy. And we all need and use energy to get around and keep our homes warm and cool. 

You don’t see a lot of people calling for nationalizing banking in this country, again, only the Far-Left. We all use and need to use banks, because it is still the safest place to keep our money and we’ve all borrowed money before because we needed to that as well.

Where government comes in is to do the things that we need it to do that it is best qualified to do. And in some cases the only ones qualified to do. Like foreign policy, law enforcement, prisons, homeland security, central intelligence, regulating the markets and collecting the taxes to pay for the government that we need. 

Germany the largest country in Europe (unless you include Russia) and the largest economy in Europe and fourth largest economy in the world. This is a perfect example of a country that has shown you don’t need government-run health care and health insurance to have an affordable and quality health care system.

Germany has private health insurance from cradle to grave. Their hospitals and clinics are private as well, but what they do well unlike America at least yet is properly regulate their private health care system. So their people aren’t abused by their health care providers. And every German is required to cover their own health care costs and not able to pass those costs on to others. Things that America has just started doing and their health costs are half that of the United States.

I’m tired of hearing these bogus (Happy Holidays) arguments that the rest of the developed world has government-run health care which is why America should do the same thing. Or government is automatically better at delivering health care and health insurance than the private sector. 

Germany, France and Japan are perfect examples of countries that do not try to do everything for their people through government. Including health care and they all have better health care systems than the United States. At least when it comes to paying for their health care.

CBC Sports: CFL 1976- Grey Cup-Regina Roughriders vs. Ottawa Red Blacks: Highlights

Source:CBC Sports- the Rough Riders and Red Blacks from 1976.

Source:The New Democrat 

"1976 Grey Cup highlights Ottawa Rough Riders vs. Saskatchewan Roughriders" 

From CBC Sports

Battle of the Roughriders! You would have to be familiar with the CFL to get that joke, but one reason why the CFL doesn’t get as much respect in America as perhaps it should it because they did at least at one point have multiple clubs with the same nickname. But this was a very good Grey Cup game, 23-20 the Red Blacks as the Ottawa CFL club is called now beat the Roughriders. Ottawa was able to move the ball well and score points against perhaps the best defense in the CFL in 1976 the Roughriders that only gave up about fifteen points a game. And had the best pass defense in the CFL. They also scored 428 points so they had a very good balanced team. The Red Blacks were able to move the ball with their balanced offense and shut out the Roughriders in the fourth quarter.