I grew up in Southern California during the 1960’s and 1970’s, a time of unbelievable sports team performance in the greater Los Angeles area.
Here was the lineup:
Los Angeles Rams under Coach George Allen and Chuck Knox. The Fearsome Foursome on defense. Dick Enberg was the announcer. They were consistently big regular season winners, winning at least 10 games per year (in a 14 game season) for 9 of the 12 years between 1967-1978 – and then falling apart in the post-season at Green Bay, Minnesota or Dallas.
Los Angeles Lakers with Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, and Gail Goodrich. Chick Hearn was the announcer. They always won big, reaching the NBA Finals 9 times between 1962-1973. Once to the Finals, they lost 6 times to the dreaded Celtics and 2 times to the Knicks. Won the NBA Championship in 1972 in a year when they won a then record 33 games in a row. To be followed a decade later by Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Coach Pat Riley and ShowTime when they played in another 9 Finals between 1980-91, winning NBA championships in 1980, 1982, 1985, 1987, and 1988.
Los Angeles Dodgers under Manager Walt Alston with Sandy Koufax, Maury Wills, Don Drysdale. Small ball offense, tight defense and awesome pitching. Later, in the 1970’s, the infield of Steve Garvey, Davey Lopes, Bill Russell, and Ron Cey. Won the World Series in 1959, 1963, and 1965; played and lost in 1966 and 1974. When they created the National League West, finished 1st or 2nd every year between 1970-74 except for one year. Alston had 19 winning seasons and 7 pennants in his 23 years as manager, winning 2,040 games – the 7th highest of all time. Vin Scully was the announcer.
USC football coached by John McKay with multiple Heisman Trophy winners like Mike Garrett, Charles White, Marcus Allen, and the infamous O. J., winning 4 national championships in 1962, 1967, 1972, and 1974 – with Coach John Robinson winning another one in 1978.
UCLA football coached by Tommy Prothro with Heisman Trophy winner Gary Beban.
Equally successful but less visible programs included USC baseball coached by Rod Dedeaux (11 national championships, including 7 between 1968-1978)and UCLA track coached by Jim Bush (5 national championships, coached 21 Olympians, and had an 88% meet winning percentage).
But, even with all those stars, UCLA basketball under Coach John Wooden stood out. Here are some stats:
UCLA’s basketball program has the international reputation of being No. 1. There is a major reason for that his name is John Robert Wooden, who announced his retirement after the 1974-75 season (his 27th campaign) as the Bruins’ head coach with the winningest record in all of the sport’s history…
Wooden concluded his 40 years as a head coach that season and his 885-203 overall career win-loss record (a percentage of .813) is unequaled. A large part of that success was at UCLA. In 27 years as Bruin coach, his teams registered 620 wins, and only 147 losses while earning far more national honors than any other university.
Under Wooden, UCLA won an unprecedented 10 NCAA championships, including seven consecutive (1966-73). Included in the string is one of the most amazing win streaks in all of sports, 38 straight NCAA tournament victories.
In addition, there is the all-time NCAA consecutive winning-streak record of 88 games over four seasons, which included consecutive 30-0 seasons in 1971-72 and 1972-73. UCLA also won 149 of 151 games in Pauley Pavilion during his Bruin tenure.
John Wooden is the only coach to compile four undefeated seasons of 30-0 and his Bruin teams captured 19 conference championships (the record of which Wooden is most proud).
Coach Wooden is the first person to be inducted into the National Basketball Hall of Fame as both a player and coach…
Born in Martinsville, Indiana on October 14, 1910, Wooden attended high school there and won all-state prep honors in basketball three consecutive years, leading Martinsville High to the Indiana State title in 1927 and runner-up in 1926 and 1928.
At Purdue University, he won letters in basketball and baseball his freshman year and later earned All-American honors as a guard on the basketball team from 1930-32. He captained Purdue’s basketball teams of 1931 and 1932 and led the Boilermakers to two Big Ten titles and the 1932 national championship…
Yet, even with all that success, Wooden was about more than just winning basketball games. It was who he was as a man, too. Small things like his ritualistic affection for his wife at games, e.g., rolling up the program in his hands and then turning to look at her in the stands before every tipoff. Even more importantly, it was the values and life skills he taught his players – and the influence he had on many others who saw him in action from a distance.
Coach is celebrating his 95th birthday today. ESPN had a marvelous story today about John Wooden, the man and the coach. Also check out the Photo Gallery on the site with its 25 pictures and some wonderful comments about Wooden.
They broke the mold after making John Wooden. Coach is one-of-a-kind. God bless you John Wooden. You have truly made a difference in many peoples’ lives and that made you a hero we looked up to. Happy birthday!
Nick Schulz has an article up at TechCentralStation that answers the basic questions about what is required to mount a comprehensive response to an avian flu outbreak. As I suspected, there are several steps that can be taken to increase our ability to rapidly produce vaccines in an emergency.
[Open full post]Peggy Noonan has called for President Bush to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers (or for Ms. Miers to withdraw herself). While she believes such a move doubtful, she does offer a forecast of what would happen next.
The White House, after the Miers withdrawal/removal/disappearance, would be well advised to call in leaders of the fractious base–with heavy initial emphasis on the Washington conservative establishment–and have some long talks about the future. It’s time for the administration to reach out to wise men and women, time for Roosevelt Room gatherings of the conservative clans. Much old affection remains, and respect lingers, but a lot of damage has been done. The president has three years yet to serve. That, I think, is the subtext of recent battles: Conservatives want to modify and, frankly, correct certain administration policies now, while there’s time. The White House can think of this–and should think of it–as an unanticipated gift. A good fight can clear the air; a great battle can result in resolution and recommitment. No one wants George W. Bush turned into Jimmy Carter, or nobody should. The world is a dangerous place, and someone has to lead America.
The fear among conservatives (at least this one) is that in an attempt to avert a partisan political fight over a conservative judge with a paper-trail, he has instead instigated a political fight between he and his base and may have broken the last, crucial bit of the covenant he had with conservatives. Without this political base, how will George Bush accomplish the rest of his agenda for his final term?
[Open full post]My latest column, “Speaking Past an Oppressive Template,” remarks on the difficulty — in motivation and in practice — of being “well informed,” and the accompanying difficulty of communicating.
[Open full post]Rich Lowry nails some of the big issues surrounding the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court.
Lowry begins with these words:
The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is foundering, but President Bush is confident that she will be confirmed. Bush thus displays a touching faith in the power of hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions to see his nominee through. The case for Miers is an unholy mess, an opportunistic collection of whatever rhetorical flotsam happens to be at hand.
I would encourage you to read the whole editorial. Then read how Laura Bush is parroting the same words as her husband.
Second-rate is still second-rate, regardless of gender. No matter how hard the Bush administration tries, Harriet Miers is no Roberts, no Luttig, etc. Simply Bush league on this one. What a disappointment.
In a comment to a previous posting, Will writes:
…what’s important here is the need to address the substance of the problems mentioned herein, and not just attack the messenger. Ignoring problems doesn’t make them go away. All it usually does is lead to greater problems down the road.
That comment directly relates to the points raised in previous postings about a lame, stupid, and condescending ad on behalf of Senator Chafee and some ridiculous comments by Mayor Laffey.
We need to raise the bar and expect more from our political leaders. And that leads to three quotes about political greatness and statesmanship from Steven Hayward’s new book entitled Greatness: Reagan, Churchill, and the Making of Extraordinary Leaders.
Hayward quotes James Bryce from his book entitled The American Commonwealth about why raising the bar is important:
A democracy, not less than any other form of government, needs great men to lead and inspire the people.
A 1897 quote from Winston Churchill speaks to what really matters in a leader:
In politics a man, I take it, gets on not so much by what he does, as by what he is. It is not so much a question of brains as of character and originality.
Finally, Hayward himself makes this point:
What is greatness, especially political greatness? In three thousand years we have not surpassed the understanding of Aristotle, who summed up political greatness as the ability to translate wisdom into action on behalf of the public good. To be able to do this, Aristotle argued, requires a combination of moral virtue, practical wisdom, and public-spiritedness…One must know not only what is good for oneself but also what is good for others. It is not enough merely to be wise or intelligent in the ordinary IQ-score sense; in fact, Aristotle goes to great lengths to show that practical wisdom “is at the opposite pole from intelligence.” One must have moral virtue, judgment, and public spirit in a fine balance, and these traits must be equally matched to the particular circumstances of time and place.
In the upcoming 2006 U.S. Senate race, all of us in Rhode Island should raise the bar and demand more from all candidates.
Let’s demand that they run races focused on debating policy issues and convincing us how their policy preferences benefit the public good.
And then let’s vote for the candidate who best shows signs of political greatness by the strength of their practical wisdom, character and originality.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Here are some further excerpts from Hayward’s book:
Greatness, especially political greatness, carries a whiff of political incorrectness…
In place of greatness, today we have mere celebrity, best exemplified by…People magazine…
Greatness is ultimately a question of character. Good character does not change with the times: it has eternal qualities. Aristotle connects the honor that accrues to the magnanimous person with the virtues of friendship. This suggests that it is always within our grasp to cultivate the virtue of greatness as individuals, even if circumstances – crises – do not call forth the need for political greatness on the highest level…
The tides of history and the scale of modern life have not made obsolete or incommensurate the kind of large-souled greatness we associate with Churchill or Lincoln or George Washington…yet the cases of Churchill and Reagan offer powerful refutation to the historicist premise that humans and human society are mostly corks bobbing on the waves of history…Why were Churchill and Reagan virtually alone among their contemporaries in their particular insights and resolves? The answer must be that they transcended their environments and transformed their circumstances as only great men can do, and thereby bent history to their will..
Can there be another Churchill, or another Reagan? The answer is plainly yes, though we must note that the greatness of statesmen is seldom recognized in their own time. Typically we only recognize greatness in hindsight…
Leo Strauss took the death of Churchill in 1965 as the occasion to remind his students that “we have no higher duty, and no more pressing duty, than to remind ourselves and our students, of political greatness, of human greatness, of the peaks of human excellence. For we are supposed to train ourselves and others in seeing things as they are, and this means above all in seeing their greatness and their misery, their excellence and their vileness, their nobility and their triumphs, and therefore never to mistake mediocrity, however brilliant, for true greatness.”
Contemplating on the example of Churchill and his influence on Reagan gives us confidence that even though the mountaintops may be often shrouded in fog, we can still tell the difference between peaks and valleys.
Comparing these inspiring words about political greatness with either the stupid NRSC ad attacking Laffey or Laffey’s ridiculous comments about the pharmaceutical industry drives home the point that the bar in this U.S. Senate race is far too low.
Shall we “train ourselves and others to see things as they are…” and aspire to greatness?
If so, then we must develop zero tolerance for the mediocrity that currently pervades this Senate race.
I noted earlier that there was some dissension in the RIGOP as two local GOP committees had called for RIGOP leader Patricia Morgan to step down. Well, the comments to the original post have provided further illumination and are worth highlighting.
First to comment was the anonymous “Robert,” who had some unkind things to say about Scott Bill Hirst:
Unfortunately, I happen to know Scott personally. Hirst does nothing to help the party. He is always bringing it down, in any way he can. I find him very destructive to a party that is on the move.
Get over it!!!
When everyone sees the fruits of the 1/2 mill. on Election Night in 2006 maybe he will shut his mouth.
If he put half his energy towards the Democrats in this state, instead of always attacking his own party, we wouldn’t be such a small party.
Will Ricci, Rhode Island editor of GOPUSA responded with:
“Robert,” I also happen to know Scott personally. Although I can attest from firsthand experience that Scott can be a bit quirky at times, his heart is usually in the right place. Scott is currently noncommittal regarding who he supports in the US Senate race. One thing that I think it very important here is that this isn’t just Scott Bill Hirst venting (and I believe he would have every right to do so), as it is a considerable segment of the party at large which is sick of blindly playing “follow the leader” and not seeing any good come about as a result. To be perfectly honest, I don’t care who leads the party, as long as they are providing real leadership and not more excuses for repeated failure.
I think one of the reasons why our party is in the mess that it’s in, and has been in for a very long time, is that the leadership of the party generally doesn’t reflect the views and attitudes of the rank and file members of it. This is not particular to RI, it is quite common nationwide. The RNC itself (this may surprise some libs) is not a conservative organization. Their willingness to sell out principle for political expediency time and time again reflects that. Unfortunately, too many within the RI Republican Party are “sheeple.” People that are all too willing to do what they are told, in order to get some perceived benefit from it, or more often than not, because they fear retribution.
As for the $500,000.00 worth of in kind assistance (it’s not cash!) from the RNC for “party building,” if it actually ends up being used for party building, instead of “Chafee building,” I will be a very happy camper (and I’d guess, the Laffey camp would be, too). Your hope is based on trust; trust needs to be earned. I’m much more concerned about the long-term health of the RIGOP as a viable alternative to the Democrat Party here, than I am about the fortunes of Sen. Chafee. A little over a year from now, the RIGOP will still be around. However, I absolutely believe that there will be a new senator representing us in DC (don’t underestimate Laffey, as it appears the NRSC already has!).
Also joining the fray was “Jim,” who provided further insight into Morgan’s specific charges against Mayor Laffey.
[Open full post]I found this paragraph in the Chariho Times article rather puzzling: “Morgan stated she finds it ironic that when Laffey ran for reelection in Cranston as the mayor, he received the endorsement, and money from the state party that his opponent wasn’t extended. In Morgan’s opinion, it’s only now that the system is working against him that he sees it as corrupt”.
Patricia Morgan seems to continue to have a big problem with the truth. As finance chair for the Laffey mayoral campaigns, I am in a position to know whether money came in from the RIGOP, as Morgan supposedly claims. Also, as a member of the RIGOP executive board, I would have knowledge of any endorsements that took place. Furthermore, these things are easily verified through campaign finance filings and meeting minutes.
Oddly, I have no recollection of either of Morgan’s contentions having happened. In fact, after a quick review, I found no money coming in from the RIGOP to Steve Laffey. But, I did see how Steve Laffey gave the maximum contribution of $1000 to the RIGOP, each year over the last few years.
Does this woman even think before she talks?? Are you beginning to see the pattern here?
This ProJo article and Marc’s and Andrew’s earlier postings (here, here, here) talk about the attack ad on U.S. Senate candidate Steve Laffey by the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Laffey’s response.
Here is an excerpt about the ad from the ProJo article:
Yesterday the exchange escalated with the GOP committee’s broadcast of the 30-second attack on Laffey. As an announcer asks, “Have you seen this guy Steve Laffey?” the ad shows an image from Laffey’s own kickoff ad of last month. The voice says that the “same Steve Laffey” who criticized oil companies once “ran a company selling oil industry stocks on Wall Street. Profiting from offshore oil drilling. The oil companies made a fortune. Steve Laffey made a fortune.”
As the spot returns to the clip of Laffey pledging to “stand up to special interests,” a graphic technique drips “oil” over the screen, including Laffey’s image. The announcer concludes, “Slick. Steve Laffey. Laughing all the way to the bank.”
Well the NRSC must think that we Rhode Islanders are all a bunch of stupid yahoos to run such a lame and condescending ad.
Steve Laffey previously was President of Morgan Keegan. As a securities firm, Morgan Keegan offered investment banking services for many segments of the American economy – including the energy industry. Which is why the following was said:
Laffey’s spokeswoman, Robin Muksian-Schutt, said it’s true that his company worked on stocks from the oil industry — and many other industries as well.
But she said Laffey’s company worked on transactions from many industries — not just oil. “That was his job,” she said.
To drill down on the sheer stupidity of the ad’s argument, consider these questions: Is the NRSC saying it doesn’t accept the important market-making role of investment banking firms in the American economy? Do they want to return us to the days when investment deals had limited distribution and were typically only offered to wealthy people with the right personal connections? Why is the NRSC ridiculing the important role banks play in allocating investment capital that creates jobs in all segments of the American economy and for Americans at all economic levels?
And in response to all this, Senator Chafee said:
Chafee said in an interview yesterday that, although he had nothing to do with it, the ad aired by Dole’s committee is a “legitimate” jab at Laffey’s “hypocrisy.”
So we have a lame, stupid and condescending attack ad that holds no substantive meaning to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the banking industry and/or an appreciation for the role investment banking firms play in allocating capital across a free-enterprise capitalist economy. And we have a Senator who wants to convince us that lame, stupid commentaries should be taken seriously by his constituents. How condescending.
Another example of how Senator Chafee is so impressive.
And we don’t need a bunch of outsiders talking down to the people of Rhode Island.
According to this Chariho Times story, there is some dissension bubbling from below in the RIGOP, and, unsurprisingly, Mayor Laffey is involved.
Members of the South County Republican Coalition and the Hopkinton Republican Town Committee, two local republican organizations voted no confidence in the state party leader Patricia Morgan. Both groups are asking for her resignation.
The votes stem from dissatisfaction with the way a Republican State meeting was conducted on Tuesday September 13. The results of the meeting brought in $500,000 from the National Republican National Committee.
It is the contention of the two groups that Morgan and her fellow speakers used deception to garner a favorable vote. In order for the Republican National Committee to grant monies to state parties, party leaders must sign a letter to approve acceptance of the money. . .
Hopkinton resident Ernie Cormier, who is a member of the Hopkinton Town Committee, affirmed that he voted no confidence in Morgan because he felt she hoodwinked Republicans at the meeting. “The money brought in as a result of that meeting is going to be used to reelect Senator Chafee and that was not represented by Morgan, or the other speakers,” said Cormier. Cormier stated that the issue is not specifically about Laffey, but about the bettering of the Republican Party.
Ken Mott, another member of the Hopkinton Republican Town Committee also stated that he was unhappy with the manner in which the meeting was held, and as a result, submitted a no confidence vote on Morgan.
Robert Manning, a known Laffey supporter and the Rhode Island Representative to the Republican National Convention who was also required to sign off on the measure said that he would if the voters presented him with a mandate. Manning stated that because there was a 4-1 vote in favor of accepting the money, he felt obligated to sign off on the measure. Manning refused to comment on whether or not he believed the meeting was handled in an honest manner. “I’m not going to give you an opinion on that, I’m the Republican Party’s elected representative to the RNC, I’ll let the delegates answer that,” he said.
Morgan said that she doesn’t intend to resign, although she takes the fact that Republicans are unhappy with her seriously. She said that the actual no confidence votes were politically inspired. In Morgan’s opinion, Scott Bill Hirst, who has served as a Republican on Hopkinton’s Town Council, has a personal vendetta against her, and is thereby leading the charge for her to step down.
Hirst is a member of both the Hopkinton Republican Town Committee, and the South County Republican Coalition.
“Scott Bill Hirst is behind this, he is very upset that he wasn’t chosen as a delegate to the national convention two years ago and he’s taken it very personally,” said Morgan.
Morgan gave an assurance that the $500,000 will be used to benefit all “endorsed” candidates, from the senatorial candidate, down to the candidates for local school committees. When asked if the money will be used to benefit Chafee at Laffey’s expense, she stated, “sure it will”.
Morgan stated she finds it ironic that when Laffey ran for reelection in Cranston as the mayor, he received the endorsement, and money from the state party that his opponent wasn’t extended. In Morgan’s opinion, it’s only now that the system is working against him that he sees it as corrupt.
Morgan stressed the fact that the money will be used to strengthen the Rhode Island GOP as a whole. “We’re going to hire a director of voter identification, a communications director and a director of voter registration,” stated Morgan.
Hirst said although he is no fan of Morgan, the situation is not the result of a vendetta, but of irresponsible leadership on her part. “She has a credibility problem, at least in some people’s opinions, especially as far as the delegate issue…I think last Tuesday was particularly stupid in the way that meeting was handled,” said Hirst. “If this was just a personal thing with me, why are all these other people going along with it”.
What a soap opera.
[Open full post]As most know by now, President Bush has nominated now-former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Immediately, two memes have sprung up. One is that the President followed the “Cheney template,” by which it is meant that he ended up nominating the individual he had originally tapped to lead the search committee for that particular position. The second meme, and the one with more partisan legs, is that the President is guilty of “cronyism.” Meanwhile, the debate over Miers rages on in the blogosphere, with many conservatives (here, here, here, here, and here) disappointed. This doesn’t mean that liberals are giving her a pass, however, as there is too much to be gained ($$$) by ginning up opposition to anyone whom the President would have tapped. (Of course, many are particularly gleeful over the GOP infighting).
I don’t know enough about Miers to make a judgement right now, but the criticism seems to hinge on the fact that she’s never been considered a top legal mind (she’s never been a judge, actually) and the the President could have simply done better. In fact, most of the conservative criticism is of the President, not of Miers herself. For instance, Rush Limbaugh stated that this choice seemed to be “made from weakness” and not strength and one conservative blogger says he’s “done with President Bush” over this choice. There are a few (and here) conservatives who find the pick a good one, but, as can be seen, they are distinctly in the minority. Some think that the President is pulling a “rope-a-dope.” If that is the case, then Glenn Reynolds prediction that the nomination is already in trouble is all part of some Roveian master plan.
I think some of conservative disappointment is a result of trying to fit a real person, Miers, into the template many have of what, to them, is the ideal conservative SCOTUS judge (in whatever permutation each individual conservative has constructed said person). Especially as she comes on the heels of the nearly-unanimously welll-regard John Roberts. Simply put, they think that the President could have nominated a better-qualified, more clearly conservative–and just as confirmable–person to the SCOTUS. Perhaps the President’s close, personal relationship with Miers has clouded his judgement of her qualifications. However, as with most things, should Miers indeed be confirmed, it will take a few years to determine whether or not she was appropriate for the position.
And yet, maybe this is really the crux of the matter: no one is comfortable with the proposition of a candidate surrounded by so much uncertainty assuming a lifetime seat on the highest court in the land. For conservatives who voted for George Bush under the premise that he would select both respected and conservative judges to the court, the Miers pick is disappointing and unsettling. Simply put, conservatives feel as if they’ve been let down and, concomitantly, that they may not have cast their presidential vote for the type of candidate, George Bush, whom they thought. Maybe the confirmation hearings will clear things up and Miers will emerge as a solid, intellectual conservative.
I have my own doubts that will happen. These are based on her relatively short resume and by my own first impressions of her that I had while I listened to her accepting the nomination this morning. To me she sounded both nervous and overwhelmed. In short, she was not-ready -for-primetime. I know public speaking ability has little to do with one’s judicial expertise, but her shaky performance and lack of judicial experience give me pause. Now, I know former Chief Justice Rehnquist was never a judge and that Sandra Day O’Connor was really a politician with a limited judicial resume, but I still think there were many qualified judges (and others) to choose from. The president and his people, including VP Cheney, are telling conservatives to “trust us.” I’ll try, so I’ll reserve judgement until the confirmation hearings.
*A cynic might say that by then I will have talked myself into approving of Miers. Perhaps, but hopefully the fact that I’m aware of this very human tendency to seek equilibrium with one’s ideological cohort will mitigate such a thing happening “automatically.” Unless it already has, which is why I’m leaning towards doubt along with most of the rest of the conservative blogosphere.
