One of the most overlooked things about Muhammad Ali (other than his racist quotes that get ignored a lot) was that his greatness and success as a boxer came from three sources.

The first of course being his skill, both mechanical and tactical. His style resembled the great Jack Johnson with perhaps a better KO punch.

The 2nd being his master of the psychology of the game. Often times he had his foe psyched out before or during a fight and that can make the difference in a sport where one must be disciplined. It’s worth noting that the reason why he won his final fight against Frazier is that Frazier quit first, if Frazier had decided to answer that final bell there was every possibility that Ali would not have been able to physically do so.

The 3rd was his promotional ability, both for himself and for individual fights. Both as Cassius Clay and Muhammad Ali he was the master of generating gate, and much of his brash talk was toward that end. While one can make the argument that culturally that had a bad long term impact on sportsmanship there is no doubt that it was effective and given the nature of the sport where one has a finite opportunity to make a big payday completely understandable.

In terms of how he changed the game, promoted the game and dominated the sport of Boxing I think a comparison to Babe Ruth is valid. The only difference being that Ruth is unquestionably the greatest baseball player of all time because he was a Hall of Fame Quality Pitcher as well as one of the most feared hitters in History. With Ali you can make the case for Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Larry Holmes or Mike Tyson as his equal or better in his division, (and if you consider all divisions the discussion expands) but frankly the difference would be so small as to be meaningless.

No matter what your opinion of Ali the Man, Ali the Boxer was extraordinary athlete who came at exactly the right time (The beginning of the Television Age) where all of his skills were able to shine.

That’s Babe Ruth all over

By:  Pat Austin

SHREVEPORT – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

That is the portion of the Declaration of Independence that Louisiana’s schoolchildren in fourth through sixth grades will now be required to recite daily at the beginning of school.

Despite the somewhat incoherent objections of Rep. Barbara Norton, the bill to recite from the Declaration was revived last week and has now passed the Louisiana House with a 70-23 vote.  It now heads to the state Senate.

Most schools in Louisiana still recite the Pledge of Allegiance daily, to my knowledge and experience, and now this mandate will require the recitation of this passage from the Declaration.  I have no problem with it, personally, however I can see objections on the grounds that it is a mandate.  As educators, we are drowning in mandates.  Teachers want the government out of their classrooms and be allowed to teach their content material.  I get that.

I see both sides of this one and perhaps leaving this optional, as the Pledge is, is the correct compromise.

On the grounds of content, however, I have no objection whatsoever.

You can see where this becomes a slippery slope, however.  Everyone wants to add their two cents:

Before the legislation passed, Rep. Ed Price, D-Gonzales, tried to get an amendment attached to the bill requiring that students also recite a portion of King’s “I have a Dream” in addition to that section of the Declaration of Independence. The House shot Price’s amendment down on a 45-51 vote.

Other amendments to have students recite the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution — which abolished slavery — and a speech from the women’s suffrage movement had also been drafted. But the Legislature voted to block those proposals from consideration on a 58-38 vote. So they weren’t discussed with the whole chamber.

Soon, the whole morning would be filled with rote recitation.

While I love the language of the Declaration, I think the best compromise is to leave this optional, leave it to the history and civics classes, and if a mandate is required to make the legislators feel useful and necessary, then leave the Founding documents in the language arts curriculum as part of the Common Core mandate.  We already have several required documents there.

The regular session ends today, so it is unlikely the bill will be addressed before the close of session, but I doubt we’ve heard the last of it.

Pat Austin blogs at And So it Goes in Shreveport.

There is a bit of a fuss about this piece at Esquire arguing that the rioting and violence by the left at Trump rallies is “is a bad idea

Jesus H. Christ on a satellite feed, stop making it so easy for them.

In this piece written before San Jose he describes the violence at a Trump rally in Albuquerque by the left by adverbs “pointless” , “stupid”, “dumb” and “counterproductive” He argues for different rules of engagement:

Stay across the street. Protest silently and, in the name of god, don’t be such easy marks.

But if you read his piece in all of his arguments against attacking police while waving Mexican flags there is one description of the violent acts of the protestors that I found conspicuously missing from his piece.

WRONG!

Maybe it’s just me but I would think rioting and violence on its face is wrong and doing so in response to a political speech one disagrees with is even worse being so counter to the principles of American democracy. But apparently Mr. Piece thinks otherwise.

Then again in fairness it’s perfectly possible that he being more familiar with his allies of the left decided to use a utilitarian argument as I once did with a woman who asked me for advice on pursuing a married man, knowing a moral argument would be completely ineffective.

That’s the best case scenario for Mr. Pierce.

I don’t know what this tell you about the anti-Trump left but I think what it tells me echos the reaction to Karen Powers narrative of the events in San Jose by the folks at Chicago Boyz:

Let’s be really clear about the implications of this report. These rioters were acting as an official arm of the Democratic Party controlled San Jose city government in suppressing the civil rights of Americans. The presidential election in November 2016 is no longer about “Trump” or “Hillary”.

It is about whether we will retain American political freedom.

And the fact that a moral argument, either did not occur to or was considered untenable by an arm of the MSM supporting left to stop such violence proves this to be the case.

Once this election becomes a matter of survival then everything changes.

Exit question, if law enforcement is not willing to restrain violence against conservatives now, what will their feeling be if the country rewards this behavior with a Hillary Victory?


I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level