Please sign the petition below to remove the statue of Jefferson Davis currently in Kentucky’s Capitol Rotunda, and replace it with a tribute to Muhammad Ali, “the Louisville Lip” and “the Greatest of All Time.”
I just heard from the Ali family: It is the Champ’s belief that Islam prohibits three-dimensional representations of living Muslims. Accordingly, I have adjusted the petition to call for a two-dimensional representation of Ali (a portrait, picture or mural) in lieu of a statue.
UPDATE (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)
In this interview with WHAS-TV’s Joe Arnold, Governor Steve Beshear endorses the idea of honoring Muhammad Ali in the State Capitol (although he disagrees with removing Davis). Arnold explores the idea further on his weekly show, “The Powers that Be.”
Click here to check out WDRB-TV’s Lawrence Smith’s coverage of the story.
And here’s my op-ed in Ali’s hometown paper, the Louisville Courier-Journal.
UPDATE (Saturday, June 4, 2016)
In the wake of the 2015 Charlestown tragedy, in which a Confederate flag-waving murderer united the nation against racism, all of the most powerful Kentucky policymakers — U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, Governor Matt Bevin, Senate President Robert Stivers and House Speaker Greg Stumbo — called for the removal of the Davis statue from the Rotunda. Today, as we commemorate last night’s passing of Muhammad Ali, there is no better moment to replace the symbol of Kentucky’s worst era with a tribute to The Greatest of All Time.
UPDATE (Wednesday, June 8, 2016):
Great piece by Lawrence Smith of WDRB-TV in Louisville on the petition drive to replace Jefferson Davis’ statue in the Capitol Rotunda with a tribute to Muhammad Ali.
UPDATE (Thursday, June 9, 2016):
Excellent piece on the petition drive by Jack Brammer that was featured on the front page of the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Highlight of the article:
Miller said he has received a few “angry comments” on his call to honor Ali.
“One of them encouraged me to kill myself,” he said. “You can quote me that I have decided not to take their advice.”
UPDATE (Friday, June 10, 2016)
The petition drives continues to show the Big Mo(hammed): check out these stories from WKYU-FM public radio in Bowling Green and WKYT-TV, Channel 27 in Lexington:
UPDATE (Saturday, June 11, 2016):
Still not convinced? Check out this excerpt from today’s New York Times:
By Nancy Slotnick, on Tue Oct 2, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
With the Obama/Romney debate on the American family calendar this week, it seemed only fitting to address the more prominent form of debate in American families- the marital debate. First, though we have to acknowledge the differences. In a political debate, the audience is the American public. In the marital debate, the debaters are the audience. Complicated. Further, in the political debate, there are moderators and referees, time limits and guidelines. In the marital debate, all bets are off. We don’t even have commercial breaks- usually.
Of course, couples therapy is another story. With the right counselor, that can be a lot more safe. In fact, I believe that it should be mandatory for engaged couples to go to counseling. It’s not that all couples have problems to iron out (though most do,) but rather that learning to communicate in conflict is a prerequisite for a happy marriage. When people say “We have such a great relationship, we never fight!” it’s bull…., in my humble opinion. And even in counseling we have to remember the difference- that the candidates are the audience. (It’s not about whom the therapist likes better! As long as it’s me.)
So, because these 2 genres are quite different, we should understand that the goal is different. We know that Obama is not going to convince Romney of anything and vice versa. We don’t expect that they will be heard and understood by each other. And they don’t have to sleep in the same bed at the end of the night. Thank G-d. That wouldn’t be legal in most states anyway.
With the marital argument, that same person that we disagree with so vehemently is the one that we have to make babies with, when the time is right. (And practice that the rest of the time.) We don’t want to be reachingacross the aisle; we want to be walking down the same aisle! But oftentimes it is not so. Bipartisanship is not just something to give lip service to, when it comes to marriage. It is mission critical.
By Zack Adams, RP Staff, on Mon Oct 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM ET
The Politics of Pigskin
A deal was finally agreed upon by the referees and the NFL last week which meant that Sunday was officiated by the regular refs for the first time this year. Here are the 5 big takeaways from the deal according to John Clayton. [ESPN]
According to Sportscenter, after the Packers-Seahawks game that prompted the deal between the NFL and the referees the league office received 70,000 voicemails. [Twitter]
Colts’ head coash Chuck Pagano will likely miss several games as he undergoes treatment during the season for acute promyelocytic leukemia. Offensive coordinator Bruce Arians will take over as interim head coach while Pagano is absent. [Indy Star]
On Sunday the Patriots scored 45 points after halftime to beat the Bills. That is the best score in the same period for the past 40 years. [Twitter]
The USA Today NFL staff hasn’t done the best job with their picks so far. [screenshot]
After the rough 1-2 start the Packers seem to have righted their ship on Sunday against the reeling Saints. Green Bay evened up their record while New Orleans dropped deeper into the hole at 0-4. [ESPN]
Here is your weekly update on the Recovering Politician Bowl standings:
By John Y. Brown III, on Mon Oct 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
An unsuspected gift from fate that impressed a son and grandson. And surprised William F Buckley Jr .
You know the old Groucho Marx joke, “I’d never want to belong to any club that would have me for a member.”
I think most of us feel that way about our families–at least in the sense that we don’t believe they are all that special. And that’s a good thing–mostly. We see them as they are–their faults and foibles, their best and worst and most ordinary.
(I remember meeting Ed Prichard’s wife Lucy shortly after Prich had died. I was awed by Ed Prichard and peppered Lucy with eager questions about her husband’s greatness. Until she resignedly said, “I knew him warts and all.”)
JYB Sr., JYB Jr. and JYB III circa 1972
Other people, by contrast, are seen as they’d like for us to see them. And that’s an unfair comparison–but it’s the best our brains can do.
This past weekend when I was alone with my son and we were talking about Big John (my father; his grandfather), Johnny was astounded to hear Big John was once a guest on Firing Line, the uber-erudite political talk show hosted by the eloquent sesquipedalian William F Buckley Jr.
(I’ve never gotten to use that word before –meaning a person who uses big words—-and not about to pass it up now!)
I remember when I heard about this show and had the same reaction as Johnny, namely: “I know Big John is smart and has a lot of common sense but I doubt he can hold his own on with William F Buckley.” Few can.
But it didn’t matter anyway because as I explained to Johnny I had tried for about 25 years to get a video or transcript from the 1981 show and had never been successful.
Until we got to our hotel room and found to our amazement it was available for free online.
And then found to our astonishment, that the plain spoken, quick witted family member of ours known more for horse sense than book sense, went toe-to-toe with Mr Buckley and…..Well, put it this way… For those watching who just saw Gov Brown for how he wanted to be seen (and weren’t biased family members), he held his own.
And even the two fellas who knew better than to think such nonsense had to admit they were awfully proud.
Here’s the transcript (click this link). I doubt anyone will be interested but you never know…. It just might inspire you to realize you are much more capable than you think. We all probably are….We just don’t get he chance to prove it often enough.
By Bradford Queen, Managing Editor, on Mon Oct 1, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
The Politics of Media
Jim Lehrer, arguably the most skilled moderator to ever live, is set to referee his twelfth presidential debate this Wednesday when the candidates meet for the first time face-to-face to discuss the issues of the campaign. Politico has a great look at the man that is Jim Lehrer. [Politico]
More people are reading news online than in newspapers. All the while, TV news is still king. [Poynter]
Arthur O. Sulzberger, credited with transforming the New York Times, died over the weekend. [NYT]
Still pining for the TV listings that TV Guide erased from its publication? Now, there’s an app for that. [AP]
Rick Perlstein, a elegant and perceptive left leaning writer, wrote a breathtaking account of sixties era polarization called “Nixonland”, which he marred only at the end by weirdly inquiring whether American ideological opposites secretly wish to kill each other. The answer is emphatically no, but based on the two most infamous “gaffes” of this cycle—Mitt Romney on the untaxed lower and working class and Barack Obama on the parentage of successful businesses—the truth might be that they would just happily tax the hell out of the other side.
In fairness, which inadvertent coining of a catch phrase, “the 47 percent”, or “You didn’t build that” lives on as a classic terminal wound, and which ends up being peripheral noise, is entirely unclear at week’s end: Gallup’s tracking poll still shows the race deadlocked; on the other hand, a flurry of other state by state polls this week showed more good news than not for Barack Obama, who leads in every large swing state even as a battery of smaller state polls remain in a statistical tie. And there is a lot of fog in this race, more than usual even by the standard of instant, all-day news and Twitter.
But it is striking that this year’s verbal blunders are different in kind and nature from their ancestors in prior races: John McCain’s “the economy is fundamentally sound” during the week Lehman Brothers capsized; John Kerry’s “I voted for it before I voted against it”, George W. Bush’s “do they think Social Security is some kind of federal program?” ranged from the inarticulate to the clumsy, to the horribly timed, but not one of them seemed to reflect any footprints around a larger ideological perspective. Rather than being hints of a future program, they were backfires from notably uneloquent politicians trying to riff their way through a lull in their prepared texts.
Negative ads. Robo calls. Finger pointing. Divisive politics… How did it come to this?
With Ohio once again in the spotlight of an important presidential race, the Ohio Historical Society partnered with No Labels, a Washington-based movement seeking bipartisan political reforms, to host a panel discussion, moderated by Ann Fisher, host and executive producer of WOSU’s “All Sides with Ann Fisher.”
The panelists included:
Bob Taft, former Governor of Ohio and research associate at the University of Dayton
Senator Charleta B. Tavares, (D) District 15 – Columbus
Tom Suddes, editorial board member of the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Gene Pierce, Columbus-based political consultant
Jonathan Miller, No Labels co-founder and former treasurer for the State of Kentucky
By John Y. Brown III, on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM ET
I rarely ever lose my cool. And even when I do, it usually goes unnoticed.
But that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate someone who can “lose it” easily—and really put it to impressive uses.
Here is one of my all time favorite “losing it” scenes from one of my all-time favorite movies about the mindset of criminals.
And the consequences of provoking their sometimes hair trigger temper. Unforgettably played by Dustin Hoffman.
Oh, and let me forewarn you, I once had a college counselor 30 years ago suggest to me that I had a “low frustration tolerance threshold.” He may have been trying to tell me that one day I could be capable of doing this too.
As I predicted when Rep. Todd Akin’s ignorant comments first broke, the anti-gambling zealot was going to call the party’s bluff. And despite the fact that the Republican Party’s reversal is an embarrassing sign of the party’s captivity to its lunatic fringe, yes, East Coast establishment, he could actually win.
Before explaining why, it’s worth noting that the NRSC’s about-face is also a story of personal ambition: Sen. John Cornyn understands that he’ll never become Whip (or ultimately, Majority Leader) if he blows his second chance to retake the chamber. With Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Connecticut especially difficult in a presidential year; North Dakota, Montana, and Indiana unexpectedly difficult in a presidential year; and Virginia, Wisconsin and Nevada all trending poorly, Cornyn realizes that any Senate majority goes through Missouri And given the specter of Ken Buck, Sharron Angle, and Christine O’Donnell, Cornyn also knows that there won’t be much forgiveness in his caucus if he blows it again courtesy of a nominee who could’ve been avoided had the primary field been limited to two.
So, how could Akin win? Since 2008, Missouri has swung as hard to the right as has any state in the country. First there are long term demographic shifts at play – not exactly a new trend, but an accelerating one. In a nutshell, ascendant conservative Republican legislators have repelled gays, immigrants, and young, mobile progressives, just as the continuing growth of Branson, Mo. (the live music capital of the world) and the conservative Springfield metro area have attracted hordes of conservative evangelicals and retirees. It was a vicious cycle: the more retrograde the political debate, the more progressives left Missouri or avoided it in the first place. And the more progressives disappeared, the more conservative the electorate became, and the more reactionary the debate. The burgeoning strength of grassroots conservatives in Missouri became apparent in 2010 when Republicans rode the wave to legislative majorities of 106-57 and 26-8 in the state House and Senate, respectively.
Read the rest of… Jeff Smith: Why Todd Akin Could Win
Recently, while cleaning up his law firm files, Friend of RP Harvey Burg uncovered a gem of a speech by the late Michigan Governor (and HUD Secretary) George Romney, who’s earning greater renown as the father of the GOP’s current presidential nominee.
In vivid contrast to his son — and to the current direction of much of his own Grand Old Party — George Romney makes a well-reasoned appeal to stimulate private participation by investors, by having the government prime the pump and put in place appropriate and coordinated programming. Mitt’s dad understood that federal government programming on a major level was required to stimulate the economy.
Here are several excerpts:
Speaking about his Republican government’s accomplishments in 1969, Romney states:
“Despite the worst credit crunch in modern times…we were able to keep enough capital flowing into the mortgage market to sustain housing production…”
Speaking about needed ingredients of a national housing policy, he lists among his components:
“adequate levels of government assistance for housing low income families.”
“efficient administration and prompt processing in government programs” and
“effective concern for the economic and social implications of housing, including equal job and enterprise opportunity for minority citizens.”
Read the rest of… RP EXCLUSIVE: A Full-Throated Appeal For Government Stimulus…By George Romney
Blog this!
