Ederik Schneider Online

Friday, May 31, 2013

CFL Video: ESPN: CFL 1995-Week 5-Edmonton Eskimos @ San Antonio Texans: Short Video


This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

Inter-conference play in the CFL with the Edmonton Eskimos from the North or Canadian Conference, against the San Antonio Texans from the South, or American Conference. Which was really the goal of the CFL when they started their American experiment in the early 1990s. Was to create a continental or can-am league. Between America and Canada with a Canadian conference and an American conference. And have the winners of both conferences play in a continental or North American Championship game. This game between the Eskimos and Texans was a potential preview for the 1995 Grey Cup between Canada and America. Because they were two of the best teams in the CFL that year. The Eskimos were 13-5 and the Texans were 12-6. Both teams making the playoffs and looking to win the CFL Grey Cup. So this was a very good matchup.


CFL Video: TSN: CFL-1995-Week 18-Edmonton Eskimos @ Memphis Mad Dogs: Short Video


This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

Here’s a battle between one of the most storied and successful North American, not just CFL, but North American major league pro football franchises in the Edmonton Eskimos and one CFL American expansion franchises in the Memphis Mad Dogs. Who in their two CFL seasons were decent, but struggled to get over 500. A defensive oriented teamed coached by Pepper Rogers, who had some success in college football and the old USFL. But averaged less than twenty points a game in 1995. Which is a hard thing to do. Considering that they play on a longer wider field. The defenses tend to be somewhat undersized. They only play three downs, so you really need to pass the ball more anyway in the CFL to avoid second and long and having to pass to avoid punting on third down. Multiple players able to move in motion on offense pre-snap. Yet I guess the Mad Dogs didn’t have the firepower to take advantage of all of those CFL offensive advantages.


Sunday, May 19, 2013

The Friedman Foundation: Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue in 1979


Source: The Friedman Foundation-Professor Milton Friedman-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal Plus

I love this show and love this interview and if I wasn’t three years old when in 1979, I would’ve watched this show myself. Because here are two guys who agree on practically nothing. Coming from both ends of the political spectrum. With Liberal/Libertarian Milton Friedman on the Right and Progressive/Socialist Phil Donahue on the Left. But knowledgable enough about the others side and these issues to have a good discussion or debate with each other. To do it intelligently and respectfully without yelling at each other.

You have the ultimate of individualists in Liberal/Libertarian Milton Friedman. And about the ultimate as collectivists come in Progressive Phil Donahue. So you have a debate between someone who believes in a free society not an Anarchist. But in the sense that everyone should have the right to live their own lives. As long as they aren’t infringing on others to live their own lives. Against a Collectivist who believes that we are all part of the same society and have a responsibility meaning government to look after the welfare of others. And even at times protect people from themselves.

I’m with Professor Friedman on most if not all the social issues. Legalizing narcotics across the board, would be where I would differ. We agree on marijuana, but I would decriminalize the other narcotics and treat users and addicts as patients and not addicts, at their expense. And I’m with the Professor on most issues when it comes to economic freedom and policy. Except I believe you need government help and empower people who are down get themselves up and off public assistance all together. And to protect customers and innocent people in general from predators who would hurt them. And profit from their bad behavior.
The Friedman Foundation: Milton Friedman on Phil Donahue in 1979


Friday, May 17, 2013

Eric Holmberg: Milton Friedman Tries To Help a Future Wall Street Occupier


Source: Eric Holmberg-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Now Plus

I’m not sure Michael Moore could give Milton Friedman a good debate at any point in his life. Let alone in his mid twenties like he was in 1978. But this debate between a Classical Libertarian or Liberal, as Milton preferred to be viewed like Milton Friedman and an Occupy Wall Streeter let’s say in Michael Moore, who also happens to be part of the one percent because he went to school got himself a good education, got himself a good job, has been very successful now has his own production company and also happens to come from a blue-collar family from Flint, Michigan, is very interesting.

Mike Moore is obviously not a Roosevelt or a Rockefeller or a Kennedy. He’s a man whose earned every dime he’s made in life. Which is a big part of American capitalism. And yet he seems to feel the need to bash an economic system that’s made him so successful. Versus an economic professor a Classical Libertarian, whether you agree with him or not, at least you always knew where he was on the issues. And he always made a good case for what he believed in.

It’s one thing to come from a blue-collar family where your father makes cars for a living or is a construction worker with a very good job with pay, benefits and so forth with a good future in that company if he stays on course. Or be that person yourself and perhaps follow your father’s footsteps and suddenly see that job and future disappear. For Mexico and China where they can pay workers slave wages and treat them like the dirt they walk on. And then say, “this is what you get from American capitalism. Companies going where they can pay their employees the least.”

Even though that same economic system empowered you to be successful before you lost your job. But it’s another thing to bash a system that’s worked so well for you. Where you’ve taken advantage of every opportunity in front to you. Or at least most of them and now say, “even though this works for me and I now will have enough money where I’ll never have to worry about money again. Because I also have this job that I’m very good at that will allow me to make a lot more money.” And say even though it works for you, we should end it and not allow others to benefit from it.

Just the fact that Milton Friedman would give these lectures and take questions from people, who perhaps didn’t listen to a thing he said and based their questions on what they’ve read from him before is a good thing. Because it gave these students an opportunity to hear another viewpoint. Instead of being stuck in their own ideological world. Where there’s never anyone contradicting them. Which is what political speech is about. The opportunity to make your own case, hear the other side and see where you stand afterwords.
Eric Holmberg: Milton Friedman Tries To Help a Future Wall Street Occupier


Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Liberty Pen: Video: Walter E. Williams and Ron Walters Debate Affirmative Action in 1988

Liberty Pen: Video: Walter E. Williams and Ron Walters Debate Affirmative Action in 1988

The problem with affirmative action in a country that’s supposed to be a liberal democracy like America, that claims to be color-blind and that all people are created equally under law, is that affirmative action simply contradicts those beautiful liberal values that I share. Because under law, it denies people things based on race and color. While it’s benefiting other people things based on the same characteristics. So what we are doing is saying that we believe in things like color-blindness which is really race-blindness, but we do not believe in it enough to actually practice it.

And what we are doing instead is because certain groups of Americans have been denied their constitutional rights in America over the years simply because of their race and even at times have been denied those things by their own government, is saying, “what we are going to do now is let them benefit based on their race and discriminate against a certain group of people.” Not groups, but one group of people even by government because of their race. Affirmative action, is the ultimate trying to make up, payback attempt. “These groups of people have been denied their constitutional rights based on race. Now we’re going to pay them back by denying the group that is already doing very well in America.

What we should be doing instead, is enforcing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That says no Americans will be denied access in America, simply because of their race. And enforce it to the point that we’re not locking people up for violating that law. But hitting them in the pocket books when they do violate that law. And giving that money to their victims, so organizations in America would be hurting their own economic bottom-lines when they practice racism in this country. As well as expanding education and economic opportunities in America in communities that have been left behind economically, as the rest of the country has done well.


Monday, May 6, 2013

Malcolm X Network: Video: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner: Race Relations in Crisis, June 12, 1963


This post was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal on WordPress

Without Malcolm X and Martin L. King we probably never get the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. At least not until someone in the African-American community stepped up and demanded their freedom and to be treated equally under law. And these two men were finally just fed up or pissed off even and tired of being treated like second-class citizens in a country where they had the same constitutional rights as any other race of people in America.

These civil rights leaders brought along people who felt the same way and that’s how movements get started and many times by a leader or leaders who feel similarly about certain issues and feel the need for change and reform as well as progress. And in Dr. King’s case someone who brought in thousands of people if not tens of thousands of people. Of all different races and religions who said that American citizens should not be treated worst or better in a country where they have the same constitutional rights as any other race of people in America.

What the civil rights movement was about was simply about equal rights under the law for all Americans. And denying a race of people, in this case the African race in America the same rights under law as other races of people and in this case Caucasians, was simply unconstitutional under law. And just because racist bigots were in power and had the ability to deny people their constitutional-rights, was not still unacceptable.

And that civil-rights movement was about was defeating the racists in charge and changing the laws. So now denying people equal treatment under the law was not only unconstitutional which it already was. But now it was also illegal and we saw that with the passage of the civil rights laws in 1964, 65 and 68. With President Kennedy sort of kicking off the momentum for these laws with his great primetime speech in 1963. Of course he was assassinated before he saw the passage of the laws, but he finally stepped up and got behind them.

These shows as well as CBS Face The Nation and NBC Meet The Press were great for the civil-rights movement. Because of the attention that it brought to the movement and that civil rights leaders were not criminals or terrorists or crazy people. But were great Americans who all believed in America and believed in individual freedom, but that freedom should be for everyone. Not just for the people because of their race or complexion.




Thursday, May 2, 2013

The Week: Editorial: Matt K. Lewis: Why I Could Never be a Leftist: What's Different About The Left and Far-Left

Why I could never be a liberal - The Week

I find it amusing every time I hear someone on the Right especially someone whose fairly partisan or works for a fairly partisan publication. Like take Matt Lewis from the Right-Wing The Daily Caller to use as an example when they are talking about something they disagree with the 'Left' on. As if the Left is just one group of people where we all think alike and agree on the same things with no differences. Hearing Matt Lewis call murderous dictators like Joe Stallin from the Soviet Union a Leftist when he's probably the. Biggest Statist this planet has ever seen is a perfect example of how partisan Right-Wingers like Matt Lewis and others. Are either ignorant or dishonest about the Left or a combination of both. The fact is there is no one Left in America as there's no one Right in America either. The Left that I'm part of is made up wide variety of different political and ideological factions. From Liberals where I am on the center-left to Socialist-Anarchists on the far-left, the so called Progressives of today. Who a lot of times do not look very Progressive because they keep opposing things that give progress to so many. People because it doesn't have the central-government control or programs running them.

If you want to talk about the Left or Leftists in America, it helps to know who you are talking about specifically. Are you talking about Liberals or are you talking about Socialists. That's the divide on the Left right not and the divide in the Democratic Party. Between Bill Clinton New Democratic Network Liberals and Occupy Wall Street Socialists who at times are also Anarchists. Rather then writing some column that only the most partisan of Right-Wingers perhaps 10-15% of the country if they see it will. Take seriously because the rest of the country knows better and if you are familiar with both Barack Obama and Occupy Wall Street. You know that OWS doesn't think much of the President because he's not as far to the Left as they are. Which should be damn big clue that Barry is not a Socialist and not trying to run the lives of every American or really any American. And that if he were they could probably be getting along very well right now which they aren't.

When I'm reading these articles online or I'm on Facebook or something and I see someone post something about the Left. My first question is unless they actually name someone, is who are you talking about because the Left is a very diverse side of the American political-spectrum and not just made of. One political faction but we range from Liberals to Socialists and Socialist-Anarchists and have wide ranging views. Just like the Right-Wing but we are different.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

TruthOut: Sabrina Jones & Marc Mauer: "Ronald Reagan Made the War on Drugs a Race to Incarcerate": What Dumb on Crime Looks Like

Ronald Reagan Made the War on Drugs a Race to Incarcerate

I'm not soft on crime which sorta became popular when the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party came of age in the 1960s and early 70s. There are consequences for hurting innocent people in society as there should be as well as a price to pay like the loss of freedom. The question is what the price should be to pay and having the price fit the crime. For example we do not send shoplifters to prison for life who haven't killed anyone or physically hurt anyone. But we also do not slap them on the hand and tell them not to steal again or else. We come up with a sanction that fits the crime but doesn't harm them indefinitely or put overburden society with the costs of having to take care of them either. We shouldn't be soft on crime but we shouldn't be dumb on crime either. And give out harsh sanctions to people when they hurt people or basically not sanction them at all when they do hurt people. Actions have consequences good or bad but the consequences need to fit the actions. For us to have a functioning society.

Being dumb on crime is simply being too tough or too soft. Like sentencing a shoplifter who isn't an imposing figure physically or otherwise to prison for ten years in a maximum security prison. Would be too tough and just plain dumb. But sentencing a rapist to community service with no time in jail or prison who enjoys raping people. Would be too soft and just plain dumb. You don't slap your kid in the head when they spill their milk but. You don't tell them to stop or don't do it again and leave at that when they beat up their little brother. You tell your kid to be more careful with their milk and clean it up. And you ground your kid for attacking their little bother or something like that so they don't do that again. And these same principles should apply to our criminal justice system as well and that we should treat our. Nonviolent offenders exactly like that people who wouldn't hurt innocent people physically or who wouldn't robb banks or something. But petty thieves as such and not treat them like they are the worst criminals in society.

This whole tough on crime movement of the 1980s and 1990s would've been a good idea had it just been applied to real career criminals. Organize criminals, mobsters, gang bangers criminals like that as it was but the problem with the tough on crime approach. Is that it became a dumb on crime approach when it was applied to everyone especially drug-offenders and other nonviolent offenders. Where people with no previous criminal-records were now looking at ten, fifteen twenty year sentences for being in. Possession of illegal narcotics to use as an example and is a big reason why we have so many people in prison today. A lot of inmates who aren't threats to society.