A Great Sports Anniversary

Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Posted in category Sports

Today is the anniversary (number 26) of one of the great moments in sports history.

Be Sociable, Share!
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to A Great Sports Anniversary

  1. Iluvatar says:

    February 24th, 2011 at 12:37 am

    To Clark & other interested readers: this is from the thread:

    http://karendecoster.com/i-refuse-to-let-go-of-my-retro.html

    I did this b/c NO ONE is going to read this 16 posts back and I wanted to make sure Clark got it – that’s all.

    ——————- AGAIN(!@!@) OFF TOPIC & MY humble apologies —————

    Karen: really sorry for doing this – promise! WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!!!

    But I am going to BLAME THIS ON Clark (big-ass grin!)

    Thanks for this posting to the Anarchy web site. However, while I respectfully appreciated the poster’s views – they did not answer the burning questions in my mind.

    As I posted previously, and let me repeat:

    How do you obtain a “practical” anarchy (i.e., a lack of government when the rest of the world (ROW) is NOT on board?

    Answer: you CAN’T!. Solution: the ROW MUST get w/ the program of shedding their perceived needs for a GOVERNMENT! But that step requires a meeting of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: food, shelter, sex, etc., etc., until they are at a level of Altruism or just below (Maslow was a psychologist in the 1950’s who stipulated our NEEDS structure – they are a working formula even today).

    I maintain that you can not dissolve a Government until you can get to a point wherein you can dissolve ALL governments – PERIOD!

    Please let us take a look at both the Confederacy Papers and the Constitution. One of the key precepts of both of these documents involved SECURITY of the borders.

    Just because you dissolved your Government doesn’t make you secure since other Govs will take you over in a heartbeat. You become unprotected in that scenario and hence, it does not end well. B/c they don’t play the SAME GAME YOU ARE – that’s why.

    OK, so at least we have established that an orderly anarchy has to come from the ground up (sort of like how you build a Cathedral – from the GROUND UP – sorry, HAD to steal that from the recently released movie “Robin Hood” by Ridley Scott (same dude who did “Alien”, but ALSO did “Kingdom of Heaven” – a wonderful DVD!) But it works the same way for a “great society” (Lyndon B Johnson vintage).

    We don’t build a great society via government intervention & planning – WE DO IT FROM THE GROUND UP!

    As an aside – here is a phrase I tell my kids: You want a GREAT SOCIETY? Well, yea man SO DO I! But what made you think that it was the role of the Gov to do that?

    YOU WANT A GREAT SOCIETY? THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GET BUSY! YOU FUCK-SHITS!!!!!

    And that is HOW that business gets done…

    And that is exactly why the socialistic policies of FDR (Roosevelt) were such a deadly onset to OUR population. Those socialistic policies have turned us into utter bovine/ovine idiots – whatever happened to “Trust NOTHING, Question EVERYTHING!”?

    But I diverge. Let me get back on track to anarchy…

    OK. Now let us tackle CORE BELIEFS.

    How would a practical anarchy work if we did not share CORE BELIEFS? Think about it. Members from another “tribe” (=Libya) DO NOT SHARE your views to freedom and a lack of government – Why? Many of them are STARVING! OK, but we fixed this in step #1 above RIGHT? We solidified their Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs correct?

    But they STILL are not on board b/c they have divergent issues of core beliefs and IDENTIFICATION (I am going to get to that real qwik).

    Along w/ ROW countries meeting their basic needs (via Maslow) comes the notion of core beliefs. Now, this is NOT as difficult as it sounds (& in actuality – it may be more difficult in the US than elsewhere).

    Core beliefs must relate to an anarchical style of living – it MUST BE about getting’ along and playing well w/ your friends (sort of how we teach our kids).

    If the ROW doesn’t GET IT, we are TOAST!

    But for a WORLD ANARCHY to exist, core beliefs about maintaining an anarchy MUST BE SHARED – right down to the population members.

    OK – Now is here where things can get really sticky – Freedom of Thought & Expression:

    What if that thought tangent is NOT IN LINE w/ anarchy?

    What if?

    In an ANARCHY you would think that freedom of thought & expression would be, ummm…., KINDA FREE right?

    And methinks it WOULD NOT BE SO!

    You have to come from the CORE BELIEF system o/w you are TOAST! (now that is an ugly outcome, n’est-ce pas?). O/w, you have to have a CORE BELIEF SYSTEM that is flexible and can survive UPDATES.

    (Hey! We are almost there! Now onto IDENTIFICATION)

    One of the key problems that most of us human beings SUFFER from is an IDENTIFICATION issue.

    Let me pose this somewhat differently and I think you all will get it almost immediately.

    The issue is usually posed (in the books that I read) as an issue of understanding the difference between the following 2 concepts:

    - Differentiation
    - Separateness

    As most of the authors expose, and they usually take the standard tree as an example (Buddhists & Vendanta Hinduists)– the branch (of the tree) is DIFFERENT from the TRUNK of the tree; and the TRUNK of the TREE is DIFFERENT from the ROOTS of the Tree (they don’t look the same right!@!@!). So they are ALL different RIGHT?!?!

    But they are all ONE tree! Hence, THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE!!!!

    And so that the “separate” parts of the tree LOOK DIFFERENT – but they are ALL members of the SAME tree!

    (hahahahahahahaha) – this is delightful!

    And so we come to the conclusion, that the branch, the roots, the trunk, and the leaves are ALL different – but YET they are all a PART of the TREE!

    They are DIFFERENT; BUT THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE!!!

    And the same holds true for the species Homo Sapiens on this planet.

    We ARE DIFFERENT BUT WE ARE NOT SEPARATE!

    And that covers EVERYONE WHO LIVES HERE ON EARTH!

    And that takes Identification and REDUCES it into DUST (where it belongs)!

    I don’t give a rat’s ass if you hail from Chi-town! Or Dayton, or Madison.

    You are Homo Sapien and you REALLY belong to THIS WORLD!

    And until this last step is made – a Utopia, an Anarchy CAN NOT WORK!

    We ARE ALL CONNECTED. And that is the truth – we can not deny it.

    Reality will basically FUCK YOU UP in your denial.

    Get with the FUCKING program!@!@!!!

    As to me? I am just a simple man:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMyv5fhLOLg

    And, oh btw – I CAN SING this song (and all the scats) – but I am a Simple Man!

    And oh, PS this was done in MSWord since I HATE my typos!

    But once you get to this point, you find out that you ARE NOT SEPARATE FROM GOD either!

    And that resolves Christianity in one FELL swoop – and resolves it’s deficiencies – since we now all BELONG! (you are now an unconditional member of the REAL club; and your god LOVES you and you are a MEMBER now!)

    Never feel that you are alone – but take gratification that you are TRULY a member of a REAL club and that your soul will pour into the atoms of this earth and you will live foerever.

    God loves you and it would be nice if you loved him back every once in a while…

    (hahahahahahahahahaha) – Man this MSWord stuff is fun!

  2. Jeannie Queenie says:

    February 25th, 2011 at 12:54 am

    @Iluvatar—looks like we are getting a little, dare I say, a lot of anarchy in recent days. Now if we could also get them all to think in terms of freedom, including religions which bear no semblance to a loving, living god, then we would be truly free. I saw this online tonight…canadian paper on Multiculturalism. We are led to believe that multiculturalism is the end all and be all for nirvana. Many in Canada, France, Germany, England, Spain and Australia would beg to differ bigtime. Here’s hoping americans wake up before we find ourselves in the same sorry situation those countries now find themselves. One could only hope and dream that the young-ins can see through the lies that some religions foist on their masses. I feel this article here has a real take on the problem..ck it out…
    http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20869&Itemid=86

    One thing I don’t understand is that otherwise intelligent people will decry government which we know often does far more harm than good, but they never question the extremely evil harm that religions can wreak…and also, they think all religions are equal…don’t buy that crap for a minute, you hear?

  3. clark says:

    February 25th, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    I don’t know why, but I find this kind of funny: “…one of the great moments in sports history… Bobby Knight Throws a Chair.”
    Gasp, So shocking! How unconventional, how dare he? The horror, omg. Everybody Run!

    Iluvatar, Off the cuff without as much thinking about what you wrote as I would’ve liked, no one belongs to this world, it’s all only temporary – Practical anarchy – step by step, “First, how do good People become a People? Second, how does a People provide its consent to a Government?…”

    Re: JQ and European multiculturalism – “…the Governments of today, which are the operating arms of the States of this world, all of whom claim to rule uniquely over a People and a Territory, necessarily are violating the primary rights of all those People who prefer to choose another People and Government for themselves…”

    Quotes from, A Foundation for Panarchy, read the rest:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff210.html

    Consider reading these two also:

    Essentials of Panarchism
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff300.html

    Why I Am a Panarchist
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff260.html

  4. Iluvatar says:

    February 25th, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    @ JQ: Just to tackle your first comment only (I need to digest the rest of your posting), I guess that I am an “anarchist” of sorts.

    I do not feel that a government is necessary if all the conditions that I stated held (i.e., ROW behavior).

    But other than Defense, and from a practical point of view – NO, I really don’t see or want a Gov in my life.

    I just want to be a free man!!!

    I WANT to be left alone, to live my life in a responsible manner (OK – twice a year I get silly and drink beer and light up the ‘Hood w/ loud (but great!) music – but that actually IS adult behavior – ADULTS have access to their SOULS – grown-ups DO NOT!!).

    Adults can PLAY; GROWN-UPS can NOT. Adults have access to intimacy – Grown-ups DO NOT.

    This is a trusim.

    And, if you have kids, your emotional availability is paramount!

    But only ADULTS can do that – GROWN-UPS can not!@

    Very key.

    As to religion, I was schooled 15 years ago by Wittegstein (sp????). RELIGION is ALWAYS personal to the person – there CAN NOT BE 1 RELIGION.

    If people are to be truly FREE then they MUST have religious views that are ALSO PERSONAL!!!

    That is the deal, brothers!

    I have a lot of buy-in to Wittie above- he had a take that came before it’s time!

    Dude kicked some major A in that area.

    Here is how I deal w/ religion – it is real simple (so simple it’s funny):

    Imagine a WHEEL w/ SPOKES on it (an old wagon train wheel or better yet a bicycle wheel). It has a lot of spokes on it – YES?

    Well, so do religions.

    B/c the wheel represents religious maturity (I am starting to giggle here `cause this another delightful “twist” to our own existence (tee-hee)!).

    Now on the RIM of this wheel, are ALL of the possible religions (this is a repeat of an exercise that I do w/ my work colleagues when they “fess up” regarding spiritual issues (which I have been told that I AM NOT ALLOWED TO DISCUSS AT WORK! Fuck you – asshole!)). (Have I screwed up the parentheticals – already?)

    But here’s the deal.

    On the outer rim of the wheel are ALL the POSSIBLE religions of mankind.

    You’ve got your athiests, your agnostics, your Catholics (I am a recovering Catholic!), your Baptists, your Muslims (Islamists), your Hindus, your Buddhists, etc.

    OK?

    Now, consider a movement TOWARDS the HUB of that wheel? What does that involve?

    A religious & spiritual MATURITY!

    Bingo! We’re there and square!

    You see? Religious maturity is about finding and locking in w/ your particular God-concept – that’s it!

    It matters NOT where you come FROM; it ONLY matters where you GO!

    Becoming spiritually MATURE (or religously mature) is nothing other than heading for the HUB of the WHEEL!

    And you know what you find there?

    LOVE!

    A total hubris of love w/ your god concept!

    Dude you FEEL GOOD!

    AND, you feel a part of of all of this!

    I have read the Sufis, the Jewish mystics, as well as Meister Eckhart (sp?) – and their conclusions ARE ALL THE SAME – a union w/ GOD!!

    And omg! was I SO scared when I read their works and THEN UNDERSTOOD what they were saying – goosebumps, man! It is not a pleasant thing to have your whole SHATTERED.

    It hurts – big time.

    Now as a jesus-based pantheist (who just wants to be a simple & free man (I am humbly much less than this))- my god-concept development had major issues w/ a 2,000 year-old view of a god that was operating a kingdom! Dude! If god were all intelligent, would he resort to that idiocy?????

    Methinks not.

    And, for where we are today, in our limited understanding of the true physics that underlies all processes in THIS universe, mebbe a different god-concept is applicable.

    I sure don’t need or want a MONARCH for a god concept – dude! That is 2,000 years old!!?

    How old is the universe? 13.25 BILLION years old!

    God is WAY smarter than that!

    My bet?

    He is in the atoms!

    Peace brother, I hope your man is OK and Love as well.

    Please be well…

    And lastly, let me add again, HE LOVES YOU. Try and love him back every once in a while?

    Bon nuit…

  5. Iluvatar says:

    February 26th, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    Clark:

    I will read the other 2 links tomorrow morning, but I read the first. I have read Rozeff before and I kinda’ like him.

    But with that said, I think the form of peaceful anarchy I am thinking of is a bit different. Let me see if I can set this up by quoting Mike’s piece a bit:

    “Furthermore, there is another very important gap in the theory. As time passes and new persons are born and grow to maturity, how do they exercise their rights to choose a People and a Government? Are they automatically deemed to be part of a People “under” a Government simply by virtue of living in the territory over which that Government claims autonomous rule? That cannot be so, because that assumes they have made choices based on their rights, but such choices are not in evidence. The newcomers do not make the fundamental choices of People and Government. They merely make the choice of who is in Government, and even that is circumscribed. Its form, its many laws, its taxes, its debts, and its powers lie well beyond their choices.

    This leads me to conclude with a strong statement of political theory: If a Government’s justifiable powers or secondary rights stem from the People, then the processes of forming that People under that Government must be consistent with people possessing those primary rights while they form that Government and make themselves a People under that Government. In addition, as time passes, the process of continuous affirmation or non-affirmation of belonging to a People and a Government must also honor the primary rights of newcomers.

    If each person has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if each person is to maintain those absolute and complete rights, they must maintain them in all their choices. This includes the two important choices alluded to: With whom do I as a person choose to be associated so as to form a People? What Government do I as a person choose to be associated with?”

    But why do I have to choose a People and then why do I have to choose a government? Why does that follow?

    I am thinking you skip those steps altogether.

    You see? What bothers me is that the formation of groups, clubs whatever creates a boundary in the sense of Ken Wilbur (http://www.amazon.com/No-Boundary-Eastern-Approaches-Personal/dp/1570627436/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298750614&sr=1-4).

    Boundaries such as these are artificial in that they don’t need to be (they are very real o/w). And boundaries cause a feeling of separateness that I believe hampers freedom & an anarchy (since distrust ensues, etc.).

    Mike does get close at the end of his article though:

    “The Panarchic choices can include choosing no People and Government whatever, or choosing a small group or community, or choosing what others may view as an oppressive Government with many and great powers over its People.”

    The front end of that phrase is what I was thinking, and the ensuing requirements for that to exist were the questions I was asking…

    A quick afterword, Mike then mentions: “…are the means by which persons achieve Welfare, Safety, Security, and Happiness,” and this is somewhat related (the issue of self-reliance posed in the post above).

    This is a delicate issue here for me, b/c when I read that I can take it 2 ways. In the first way, I can interpet that to mean that the gov ASSURES welfare, safety, security, & happiness.

    In the 2nd way, I can take that to mean that the gov ALLOWS the pursuit of welfare, safety, security.

    Notice the difference? In the 1st case, we demand that the gov ASSURE something, in the 2nd, we make sure gov lets US do that.

    I think it is a mistake to think along the lines of the 1st case – for the simple reason that making those types of guarantees is illusory.

    A minor point.

    Oh, and thank-you for those links, too. Later.

  6. Iluvatar says:

    February 26th, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Clark:

    Read the last 2 links as well – I am ahead on my timetable. Actually not, I didn’t caulk the windows downstairs and need to do it tomorrow morning – see? I was lying!

    But I think where Mike is going is not a bad start.

    But where I am uncomfortable, is the formation of groups ==> boundaries. And I think we need to avoid that with maximum force, for a peaceful anarchy to survive.

    Also, wiki has a 2-fold denotation for anarchy, I pick the peaceful one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

    But then I trolled on amazon looking for books on anarch that DID NOT involve punk rock (oh, for pete’s sakes!).

    Found this (I may buy it!):

    http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Public-Thinking-Political-Economy/dp/1845422406/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1298769864&sr=1-6#_

    What stuns me is that this is coming from the field of Economics rather the philosophy??

    But they seem to have property rights and contracts top-dead-center in their sights when the discuss a peaceful anarchy (if you click on the book, you get to look inside. They make a statement about the failure of socialism in the US – really? wtf? looks like it is going strong outside my front door! Which is a major pity).

    Later.

  7. clark says:

    March 1st, 2011 at 1:13 am

    “wiki has a 2-fold denotation for anarchy”

    I’m not certain but (helping to cloud things more) I think there are seven different meanings for the word anarchy.

    I pick the peaceful one too, and Panarchy has a nice ring to it.

Leave a Reply