Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

John Stossel: Who Own Your Body?

Source: John Stossel-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

I'm going to paraphrase political humorist P.J. O'Rourke on this. I'm very conservative socially in the sense that I live a conservative lifestyle. I don't even smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, not even beer for crying out loud. I don't gamble or even go to casinos. And no, I'm not even religious at all so its not because of some strong religious beliefs why I don't do these things. But instead I don't enjoy these activities and I don't like what tobacco and alcohol do to people, I don't want to become a gambling junky who either has collectors constantly on my ass (if not up my ass) or can't pay his bills because I'm out of money and looking for my next big score at some card game.

And no, I would never even contemplate selling by body for sex or buying sex. I rather listen to a Donald Trump marathon of speeches with him telling everybody how fabulous he is and perhaps end up in coma because of how boring those speeches are. But that is just me.

Again to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke, just because someone is socially conservative as far as how they live, doesn't mean they believe they have the wisdom and knowledge to run everyone else's lives for them. And be in charge of a national adult day care center telling people when they should go to bed, wake up, eat their meals, what they can eat, who they can talk to and about what and how they talk to people.

Being a social conservative means someone who lives conservatively. Not someone who is so hardcore fundamentalist with their religious beliefs that they believe they know exactly how everyone else should live as well. Even to the point that they would force their religious and cultural beliefs on everyone else though government force. I might be a social conservative when it comes to lifestyle, but I'm a Liberal when it comes to my political beliefs, as someone who bases all his views not just on politics, but everyone else in life based on the best available facts and evidence. My views are based on reason, not faith.

Prostitution like every other activity in life that comes with risk and in prostitution's case a lot of risk as far as the people you work with, go to bed with and the clients you deal with, but like gambling, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, certain plastic surgeries, are things that have been around forever and are never going to disappear. They'll always be with us whether they're legal or not. So the question then becomes what should be done about them.

Do we put people in jail simply because they're personally involved in activities that aren't good for them and as a result create a gigantic nanny state that makes the Communist Republic of North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran, look like thriving first world liberal democracies, or do we legalize these activities so we can make them as safe as possible and no longer allow people who work in these activities avoid paying the taxes that everyone else hates to pay (except Socialists) but pays, because these workers are involved in illegal dangerous activities . And are obviously afraid to report their income. That is the question when it comes to prostitution or any other dangerous activity in America.
John Stossel: Who Owns Your Body?

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Saturday Night Live: Roy Moore & Jeff Sessions Cold Open

Source: SNL-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Of course there are perhaps millions of reasons why Alabama is considered a backwards stuck in the 1850s, let alone 1950s state that perhaps only Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the other gulf states could be proud of.

Like people being selfish when it comes to their names and feeling the need to have two first names instead of just one. Jim or Bob, is not good enough for a lot of Alabamans so they combine the two and call themselves Jim Bob. Elizabeth or Susan, not good enough for a lot of women in Alabama, so they go by Betty Sue.

Fundamentalist religious beliefs that don't come from anywhere in the Bible at least, but a lot of Alabamans put their faith and fundamentalism over annoying little things like facts, reason, and science.

Alabaman cousins falling in love with each other.

People going to the University of Alabama not because they believe its a great university, but because they want to play football in the NFL and be part of a great football program.

Low literacy rates, high poverty, lack of infrastructure and education. But what do you expect when you put your religious fundamentalism or what Roy Moore calls God's Law, over education and facts.

But if there was just one reason and I just named five for why even Southern states like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, look at Alabama as if it was an embarrassment and joke. Like that next door neighbor who mows his lawn naked, or has a Nazi flag hanging from their house who has Jewish and African-American neighbors. Its how Alabamans are seen at least when it comes to male and female relations. What men in Alabama seem to believe they can get away with or is completely acceptable when it comes to how they treat women and even girls.

A 14 year old girl, is obviously not a woman. Even in Alabama legal consent is 16, even though most of the rest of the country legal consent is 18. But, again we're talking about Alabama. And if you're not from the Bible Belt talking about Alabama can be like talking about Afghanistan. Some far away country that is very backwards, at least compared with the Western developed world.

In almost every other state in the Union except for perhaps Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, and perhaps Texas, at least in the deep rural parts of that huge state, Roy Moore wouldn't be considered a joke or an embarrassment. Perhaps that would be like complement compared with what he really is. He would be considered a disgrace. Women outside of the Bible Belt, wouldn't have waited 35-40 years to speak out about what Roy Moore did to them when they were girls. Because they wouldn't worry about the backlash that could have come from speaking out against this fundamentalist redneck who calls himself a Christian, and yet he has very anti-Christian beliefs. And is more of a religious theocrat with no real religion backing what he believes.

About a month from now we're going to see if Alabama is ready to join the 21st Century. Because they missed out on a lot of the 20th Century, at least the positive aspects of it and reject this neanderthal who calls himself a Christian and say that Alabama also believes that pedophilia, child molestation, and sexual harassment, are wrong. And they don't want anyone like Roy Moore representing then anywhere in Congress, especially in the Senate, but the House as well. And hopefully they'll overwhelmingly reject him. Even if that means having a Democrat who doesn't have the sexual baggage as their next U.S. Senator.
Saturday Night Live: Roy Moore & Jeff Sessions Cold Open

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Sargon of Akkad: Communists At Berkeley

Source: Sargon of Akkad-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

The main woman in this video said the according to her the free speech movement at Berkeley from the 1960s, which really was a free speech movement and something that Berkeley has moved away from, this woman said that was the real free speech movement, because of what they were speaking against. Which is what's called white supremacy and the authoritarian establishment back then at Berkeley that tried to censor cultural and speech movements that they disagreed with. In other words, if its speech that she agrees with, then its free speech. But if she disagrees with the free speech, then its fascism according to her and therefor it doesn't deserved to be heard. Should be silenced and those people should not be be allowed to exist and should be forcefully removed if necessary.

ANTIFA if they really were an anti-fascist movement, then I could probably respect them. But they're instead a hypocritical contradiction of a movement. They claim to be against fascism on the one hand, while on the other hand they try to shut up and stop speech that they simply disagree with and are even offended by it. Which is basically the definition of fascism. Preventing speakers that you disagree with from speaking and trying to physically stop if necessary speakers that you don't like and disagree with from speaking. ANTIFA are not anti-fascists, but Neo-Communists if not just pure Communists, who want to destroy the American system and form of government and replace it with a socialist state by any means necessary as the woman in the video proudly stated
Sargon of Akkad: Communists At Berkeley

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Sargon of Akkad: Why Do People Hate Feminism? Feminist Fundamentalists

Source: Sargon of Akkad-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

According to Merriam-Webster's definition of feminism. Feminism is the belief that women and men should have equal rights and opportunities. To put that even simpler feminism is the belief that women should be treated equally as men and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender.

Thats not controversial, because probably 7-8 out ten or more Americans believe that men and women should be treated equally under law and not be punished or rewarded simply because of their gender. You polled Republicans (not including the Christian-Right) and you would get a substantial majority of Americans who believe men and women should be treated equally.

Its radical or fundamentalist feminists, as Sargon of Akkad calls them or even fascist feminist who believe you're either with them and that means 100% of the time, or you're against them. You either believe that men (especially Caucasian men) are ignorant bigots and sexist pigs who struggle to tie their own shoes, or you're part of the problem. You either believe women are superior to men and should have most if not all the power in the country, or you're a sexist pig (even if your'e a women) who hate women of all races and ethnicities.
Sargon of Akkad: Why Do People Hate Feminism? Feminist Fundamentalists

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Reason: Hit & Run- Matt Welch- Republicans: 'We Have To Cut Taxes Because We're Too Cowardly To Cut Spending'

Source: Reason Magazine- Senator Rand Paul & President Donald Trump-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

According to Wikipedia.

'Fiscal conservatism is the economic philosophy of prudence in government spending and debt. Fiscal Conservatives advocate the avoidance of deficit spending, the reaction of overall government spending and national debt, and ensuring balanced budgets.'

Call me silly, but when I think of fiscal Conservatives I think of people who believe the national debt and budget deficits, not only exist (unlike at least some Socialists) but its a big deal. (Unlike most Socialists) That when government borrows heavily and run up high deficits and debt especially when their economy is growing and job growth is high, which is what the American economy is doing right now, that running high deficits and debt is not a good thing.

Because you end up having your government, as well as your economy depending on others to make sure your government gets the borrowing that it needs run its operations. Plus, when you run high deficits and debt, which is where America is now while your economy is strong which is where are now as far as growing economy with low unemployment and high job growth, your government ends up competing with the private sector for borrowing. Which affects interest rates and makes it more difficult for private organizations to borrow money. Which is where we are now which isn't much different from the 1980s that had strong economic and job growth for most of the decade, while the U.S. Government was piling up deficits and debt every year. Which affected the stock market with the 1987 crash and was partially responsible for the recession of the early 1990s.

So to me anyway a fiscal Conservative is someone who is not only concern about high deficits and debt, but is crazy enough to believe that those issues need to be dealt with so at the very least they don't get out of hand. If there is anything positive about having a Republican united government (and most of the country is still looking for anything positive about that) it would be at least now there's a political party in power and in control that will finally deal with our deficits and debt. And works to pass policies out of Congress that brings our deficit down and perhaps even puts the budget on a path where it could be balanced at some point. Where at the very least the national debt is now growing faster than the economy.

Again, if there's anything positive about having the Republican Party in charge of anything, it would be at least you would have fiscal Conservatives in charge who'll bring down our debt and deficits. get our spending under control, decentralize the Federal Government, get more power out of Washington. But thats not where the Republican Party is right now. They seem to believe that fiscal conservatism is about obtaining power, not about governing. But as a tool to use to get into power, but once you're there then it becomes about staying in power.

And I'm not picking on Socialists anymore than they deserve to at least, but tax cuts in America are popular to anyone who is not a Socialist. Perhaps more popular to Republicans and the Republican Leadership in Congress and at the White House, has concluded that the best way for them to stay in power is to pass popular bills that will help them get reelected and keep their majorities next year. And then let their children and grandchildren figure out the costs of their parents and grandparents borrow and spending. National debt card spending spree that covers everything from defense spending and generous tax loopholes, to Federal spending covering public education and medical research. As well as the Federal safety net.

I really could call this piece The Death of Fiscal Conservatism, because that is what we're seeing in the Republican Party. Even with House Republican who in 2014 were railing against the so-called Obama deficits and national debt and overspending and arguing about how big a threat to our children's future and other nonsense that they've seem to forgotten. Apparently power does corrupt and its a lot easier to be loudmouth when you're on the sidelines than actually in the game with the ball. Apparently Republicans now believe that you don't have be in the game to govern, but don't even have to have any balls to take on high deficits, the national debt and that governing to them is just about staying in power. And again leaving it to others to figure out how much their governing which is really borrowing, is going to cost others later on.

The great political humorist P.J. who is a Libertarian and I don't think you could pay him to be a Democrat today and even if you could it might bankrupt the Democratic Party and perhaps major economies to get P.J. to even consider doing the Democratic Party, gave a speech at the National press Club several years ago talking about so-called Conservatives and fiscal responsibility. I wrote a piece for FRS Real Life Journal where I write lifestyle and entertainment, as well as humorous pieces and put the link of his speech on that blog. And you can see that here. FRS Real Life Journal

I argued back in 2014 that Republicans when they only controlled the House of Representatives while Barack Obama was will President and Democrats still controlled the Senate, that so-called fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism, were just tools to blame the Democrats for the financial and economic problems of the country. Republicans and the Tea Party, only saw fiscal conservatism as a way to get back into power, but never as a tool to actually use to govern and finally bring down our deficits and debt. And with President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress, I'm being proven right everyday.
Source: FORA-TV- P.J. O'Rourke: Conservatives and Fiscal Responsibility

Wednesday, October 18, 2017

Reason Magazine: Robby Soave- Mel Brooks: 'We Have Become Stupidly Politically Correct & Its Killing Comedy

Source: Reason Magazine-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Mel Brooks is damn right here! Now, imagine if I said damn right in a movie or on TV back in lets say 1952, I probably would've been expelled from Hollywood back then for using the word damn, because it would have offended someone's religious and moral values. Which was a form of political correctness from a different time.

If comedians, writers, and other commentators, don't have the freedom to express themselves even if it offends someone who wears underwear that is way too tight for them, or is a coffee or Red Bull junky and is so wound up they couldn't fall asleep even if they watched a PBS telethon for 48 hours straight and simply does not know how to relax, who has a glass jaw for an ego and the slightest form of criticism like telling them they're 30 seconds late absolutely destroys their glass jaw, meaning to put it simply, that they can't take a joke. They can't even handle criticism that is fair and even accurate. If people with glass jaws become in charge of what is appropriate and inappropriate in comedy and other forms of communication, well yes we can then make the appropriate funeral arraignments for comedy in America.

Because it will die simply because comedians, writers, and other commentators won't want to take a risk and make fun of something or someone that can later sue them for it, put in jail, or risk losing their job because they're not politically correct. They'll simply find something better to do with their time and find another way to make a living. Perhaps instead of performing on stage, they'll perform in private clubs where you only get in by invitation. Perform at private homes. Perhaps write books and articles, but the only people who'll get to read them are people they approve of who won't turn them into the Political Correctness Police. Maybe they'll have and give private readings of their material.

You take away comedians ability to perform and express themselves, you're taking away comedy in America. And we'll be left with comedians making fun of the Christian-Right and what the Far-Left calls White people and White trash. Because anyone who understands political correctness in America knows that the Far-Left pretty much dominates it.

Which makes modern political correctness hypocritical and partisan , because jokes about fundamentalist Christians especially if they're also Protestant and of Southern English background, are considered acceptable, but you make a joke about fundamentalist Muslims especially people who believe in and practice Islamism, you're considered a racist by the New-Left in America. People who are Socialists and even what I would at least call Neo-Communists, because they believe in  a certain level of democracy, but where communication should only be limited to people who think and believe the way they do.

So if you make a white trash joke, you're considered progressive by this community. But you make fun of ghetto people, you're considered a racist. Political correctness from so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left in America, is about as hypocritical as Donald Trump calling someone selfish, or accusing someone of being too self-centered, as consistent as one of Donald Trump's political positions.

Political correctness is kryptonite for comedy in America. One thing that you would think that could never die in America is comedy, because of our free speech rights that are guaranteed by our First Amendment and the fact that we have a lot of stupid people and dishonest people who tend to be our politicians that are elected by most of our stupid people. But the one thing that could kill comedy is political correctness.

And no, people will never be arrested for cracking a joke about someone that offends them, or perhaps not even sued for it because it would probably get thrown out, unless the Political Correctness Police takes over our judiciary. But what would happen instead is that people will be afraid to be funny and take risks, because they're worried about the aftermath from people who again wear underwear that is too tight, or drink too much Starbucks or Red Bull and simply can't handle criticism about themselves, or people they claim to care about.  The way you kill comedy even in America, is not just by having too many oversensitive tight asses in America, but actually having those people in charge and running things for everyone else.
Source: Watch Mochit- Mel Brooks- Political Correctness is "Death of Comedy"

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Roll Call: David Hawkings - Whiteboard: What is a Filibuster?

Source: Roll Call-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

David Hawkings is right about what an actual filibuster is. Its generally one Senator or a group of Senator's who take to the Senate floor and talk forever basically, or till they run out of breath, faint, have to use the bathroom, discover they have lives, perhaps miss their kids and wives, etc. Maybe the Senate Leader finds the 60 votes that he needs to cut off the Senator or Senator's that are speaking.

And generally but not always filibusters are performed (if you want to call filibustering a performance) by a member or members of the minority party. The Senate has a filibuster and the cloture rule, but its really the cloture rule is used by the Minority Leader who rounds up enough votes to stop the majority from moving ahead on legislation that is used by the minority to block legislation.

Instead of minority members speaking indefinitely about a particular bill, the Minority Leader will round up 41 or more votes to simply prevent the majority from moving to final passage on a bill that probably has no minority input on it and perhaps didn't even go through committee. And then the Minority Leader or his deputy who is generally the lead minority member on the committee that has jurisdiction of the bill, will argue that the Senate simply hasn't had enough time to consider the legislation and the minority simply can't support this and isn't ready to vote on the bill.

The minority party blocks legislation all the time with the cloture rule. The Minority Leader will announce that they intend to block the legislation. The Leader will then move to final passage, but to get to final passage of legislation which is the final vote, the majority party needs 60 votes to accomplish that. Which generally doesn't happen on partisan legislation because Congress tends to be very divided at least in the last 40 years or so. Even when on party controls both the House and Senate, their majorities tend to be fairly small, especially in the Senate. And the Senate minority party tends to have at least 45 members which is more than enough to block legislation on their own, if the Minority Leader keeps them unified against partisan legislation that the majority party wants to pass.

I'm somewhat divided on the Senate filibuster myself. Even as a Democrat who sees his party both as the minority party in Congress, but as the opposition party and in the White House. Filibusters themselves I'm not a fan of. The idea that one Senator or even a group of them can command so much attention and power by themselves, which makes them as powerful as both the Minority Leader and Majority Leader, even if there're a freshman and perhaps have no other experience in Congress other than their first year or 2 in the Senate, seems counterproductive and makes the party leaderships seem very weak.

But on the other side as a Liberal who believes in both limited government and is against absolute power even if the Democratic Party is the party with complete control over the government, I don't want the Senate to become like the House of Representatives. I actually believe the House is too much like the House and not calling for the House minority party to be able to block legislation on their own that majority brings to the floor, but the House minority should at least be able to offer relevant amendments and alternatives to all legislation that majority brings to the floor and committee. And at the end of the day if the majority party has a simple majority or more to pass legislation, then they would be able to do that even if not one minority Representative votes for the bill.

What Congress needs to return to is regular order. Where if the majority parties in either the House or Senate, decide not to work with the minority on legislation, then their bills at least have to go through the relevant committee or committees where hearings are held, amendments and alternatives are offered, debated and voted on. And then if the final bill passes out of committee, then the bill goes to the floor where the same process is done all over again, but this time with everyone in the chamber able to debate and offer amendments to the bill.

If Congress both the Senate and House did this and you eliminated gerrymandering, you could see less obstruction and partisanship in Congress. Because the majority party in both chambers would then know they can't steamroll the minority and be able to pass partisan legislation with very little if any debate and probably no amendments. And the minority party in both chambers would then know that they have a stake in the game (so to speak) and know they'll be able to offer amendments and alternatives to all legislation that the majority brings up and be able to force the majority to take tough votes and have new issues to run on the during the next election.

I'm not a fan of the filibuster because it makes both the Minority Leader and Majority Leader weak. It makes back-benching Senator's seem as powerful as the two leaders. But I don't like absolute power especially when one party controls both the White House and Congress. So you need to strengthen the leadership's while protecting minority rights and our checks and balances.

So I would eliminate the filibuster and say for legislation to be blocked from final passage in the Senate, it can only be done by the two leader's. Have a motion to table that only the Leader and Minority Leader can propose and similar to the cloture rule when the Minority Leader moves to table the bill, the Leader can overcome that with 60 votes.

Along with the new amendment process where the members of both parties can offer relevant amendments to all legislation and the minority can offer alternative bills to all legislation. And then I believe you would see less partisanship because now both parties would be able to debate and even legislate and just need to the votes for the amendments to do that.

And I believe you would also see less obstruction from the minority party, because instead of the Minority Leader trying to block legislation by himself, he might just decide to let legislation go through once it has been fully debated with a real amendment process and use those votes as election issues.

The filibuster is outdated but checks and balances aren't and absolute power with the opposition having no ability to hold the party in power accountable is un-liberal democratic. This is not a one-party state or a parliamentary system where the party in power doesn't just have the power to govern, but the power to rule. We'll always need checks and balances especially when one party has complete control of the government.
Roll Call: David Hawkings- Whiteboard: What's a Filibuster?