Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Friday, November 22, 2013

Los Angeles Times: Editorial: Why JFK Still Matters

Los Angeles Times: Editorial Board: Why JFK Still Matters

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I’m a Liberal Democrat because of Jack Kennedy, the more I read and watch about him, the more I like about the man. At least when it comes to his politics and it was really just his slow move to finally come out in favor of civil rights for all Americans and not just Caucasian-Americans that I give him mediocre marks. As opposed to the marks I give him when it comes to economic and foreign policy and even when it came to the safety net and public assistance in America. Where he saw the role of these programs was to empower the less-fortunate to be able to get on their feet and was a big believer in job training and education.

And if you are a Center-Left Liberal-Democrat such as myself, there are plenty of reasons to like Jack Kennedy. Because he represented the potential of American liberalism and what it could do for people. Not how it could expand government especially the Federal Government, but what it could do for people to be able to take charge of their own lives and be able to live in freedom at home. Which is what liberalism actually is rather, than being what government can do to run people’s live for them.

In many ways Bill Clinton represented Jack Kennedy had JFK lived and finished out his presidency. Because then Governor Clinton when he was running for president in 1992 spoke in terms like, “there’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be fixed with what is right with America”. Rather than speaking in terms of doom and gloom which is how Democrats were stereotyped in this era. Bill Clinton represented a positive approach into the future of America about how to make an already great county a more perfect union that benefits more if not all Americans.

Before this Democrats were seen as negative all the time “and how can we make America look bad and we need to become like Europe and stop pretending to be something that we aren’t.” And I believe President Clinton got this positive forward-looking view of America to make it a more perfect union from President Kennedy who is also one of Bill Clinton’s political heroes. Jack Kennedy represented the next generation of Liberal Democrats that was moving pass the Progressive Era and the New Deal and looking for ways to make government work for the people who need it to live better lives.

JFK wanted all Americans to be able to live in freedom. Instead of having a new agenda of social insurance programs designed to take care of people. Jack Kennedy wanted all Americans to live in freedom instead and be able to take care of themselves. And had President Kennedy lived, we do not get a Great Society of new social insurance programs. But more of what Bill Clinton was in favor of an Opportunity Society for more Americans to be able to live in freedom.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

Hail To The Redskins: Blog: Redskins OT Joe Jacoby Named Semifinalist For 2014 Hall of Fame Class

Hail To The Redskins: Blog: Redskins OT Joe Jacoby Named Semifinalist For 2014 Hall of Fame

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

To be blunt about this, it is about damn time that former Redskins offensive tackle Joe Jacoby went into the Hall of Fame. He should’ve went in with former Redskins offensive guard Russ Grimm together back in 2010. But both of them should’ve been in the Hall of Fame ten-years ago if not sooner. Joe Jacoby was one of the top three offensive tackles of the 1980s and his era. And Bengals offensive tackle Tony Munoz and Vikings/Broncos OT Gary Zimmerman are both already in the Hall of Fame.

And Big Jac as he was called is right there with them as the top OT’s of this era. Jacoby was both a dominant run blocker and pass blocker and a Pro Bowler who was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and four NFC Conference champions. Who without he and Russ Grimm and I would add OT Jim Lachey to this, the Redskins offense wouldn’t of been as dominant as it was. Being able to control the ball on the ground and giving three Super Bowl champion quarterbacks the time They needed to throw the ball down the field to those great Redskins receivers.





Wednesday, November 20, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion: J.R. Dunn: Barack Obama vs. Liberalism

American Thinker: Opinion: J.R. Dunn: Barack Obama vs. Liberalism

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Again it depends on what you mean as a Liberal and I’m getting tired of writing that, just as I hope you are tired of reading that. But it is important because if your idea of liberalism is so-called free stuff from government, that isn’t my brand of Liberalism and isn’t liberalism. Or government’s main role is to take care of people, is your idea of liberalism, than again you aren’t a Liberal. But my brand of liberalism and this blog’s brand of liberalism the real brand of liberalism.

Liberalism is about empowering people who need it to live in freedom, while at the same time defending freedom for everyone else. This would be the score that I would use to judge President Barack Obama in how he stacks up when it comes to Liberalism. And I have a mixed bag for him even though he still has another three years to go in his presidency. Where I give President Obama high marks when it comes to liberalism is his overall grade on what he believes government can do to help people in need and defend freedom for everyone else.

And President Obama’s overall vision for government especially as it relates to the economy and despite how he’s been inaccurately stereotyped as some big government Socialist that has a new program, or new tax hike to solve all of our nation’s problem, he’s simply not that and his record is pretty clear. No new programs to expand the safety net in America, the New Deal or Great Society. As much as partisan right-wingers do not understand this or refuse to acknowledge it, the Affordable Care Act is not a government takeover of health care in America.

The ACA is simply regulating the private health insurance industry and subsidizing people who can’t afford health insurance on their own. And if you still do not believe that Barack Obama is not a big government Socialist, why don’t you ask Socialists or Social Democrats or today’s so-called Progressives about how they feel about President Obama. Where President Obama scores badly with me as a Liberal when it comes to liberalism, has to do with national security and civil liberties and things like privacy, the Patriot Act.

President Obama has given a Christmas sized gift to Neoconservatives as far as the Patriot Act and the weakening of privacy in America. And of course the failed War on Drugs that has been expanded in this country under him. The Healthcare.Gov roll out has been a failure, but that doesn’t have much to do with liberalism as it has to do with bad governing. Not doing their homework and being prepared for all the people who would be interested in going to the site to get health insurance.

I’ve blogged this before, but Barack Obama is not a hard-core Liberal and hasn’t been one at least since he left the U.S. Senate to become President of the United States. His record in Congress shows a fairly liberal record, but as President he’s moderated more to meet the challenges that his administration has faced and still faces. And at best he’s a Moderate Liberal and not that Liberal Democrat that I believe a lot of Democrats were hoping for to move this country back to liberalism. And the next phase of American liberalism following Jack Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.


Tuesday, November 19, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion: Sierra Rayne: Big Government and Lower Economic Growth

American Thinker: Opinion: Sierra Rayne: Big Government and Low Economic Economic Growth, An American History

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I guess when you are talking about big government, it depends on what type of big government you’re talking about. Because both sides of the ideological isles let’s say have different versions of what actually is big government. And in some cases both wings have different versions of what big government is among themselves. The Religious-Right and Libertarian Right on the right-wing, perfect example of that and of course the. Socialist Left and Liberal Left on the left-wing, but since this article is how government relates to the economy, I’ll start with that and then go from there.

If big government is so bad for the economy, first of all anyone who believes that should first give their own definition of big government. Because compared with the rest of the developed world the U.S. Government is pretty small. Perhaps only Switzerland and Canada have smaller federal governments than we do. But even if you go by American historical standards, the United States has had a safety net for now eighty years. Which is one-third of our history as a country, but if you compare where we were as an economy pre-1933 lets say, we are much better off now than we were eighty-years ago.

And that includes things like the income tax, the Federal Reserve and the payroll tax. Plus the business regulations of the Progressive Era, we are now the economic power of the world with the largest economy in the world. As well as the military power of the world and thanks to the Federal Highway System we now have one of the best infrastructure systems in the world as well that we didn’t have eighty years ago. And the Federal Government has played a big role in this economic development.

Do we really want to go back to a time when seniors had to live off their kids who had their own bills to pay because so many seniors in this country didn’t have a pension or a pension big enough to pay their bills? Or back to a time with slave-wages and unsafe working conditions, because this part of the small government legacy of America that a majority of Americans do not want to see again. Plus America is not some socialist state or republic and we do not expect government to do everything for us anyway as a country.

And again our Federal Government is roughly half that of the European Union and United Kingdom or Scandinavia. And we won’t become a country at least in the near-future that has some type of welfare state that tries to make most of the economic and personal decisions of the entire country. Which is what you see in Europe at least in some cases. Again as I stated before it depends on the meaning of big government. I’m not in favor of big government or small government, but a good government that is limited and does the things that we need done as a country that government happens to be most qualified to do whatever the level of government is.

And big government at least to me and a lot of other Americans is government trying to do too much with the people’s money that people can do for themselves. And are better off doing for themselves and in some cases our government is too big. And one of reasons for the waste and lack of accountability in it. But you are going to have a hard time finding a large percentage of Americans who want to go back to 1930, or bring the European Socialist welfare state to this country.


Monday, November 18, 2013

USFL Forever-ESPN: USFL 1985-Week 8- Oakland Invaders @ Birmingham Stallions: Full Game


Birmingham Legion Field-
This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

Stallions quarterback Cliff Stoudt was Terry Bradshaw’s backup for the Pittsburgh Steelers in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Just another example the fact that the USFL was major league football. Not a league of career cab drivers, food service workers, or construction workers living out their dreams as pro football players. But guys who not only went to college, but played major college football and at major college football programs. And then were either drafted in the NFL or USFL and played there and in many cases played in both leagues. When perhaps they weren’t given the opportunity to actually play in the NFL and not just sit on the bench. And the Oakland Invaders and Birmingham Stallions were two of the best franchises in the USFL.


Sigman 2710: Video: ABC Sports: USFL 1985-SF-Baltimore Stars @ Birmingham Stallions: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Baltimore is the only city that has won the NFL Championship including three Super Bowls, the CFL Championship the Grey Cup and the USFL Championship in 1985. Baltimore is a crazy football city as far as how much they love pro football, that only lost the Colts because of the poor Colts management under Bob Irsay and that they weren’t given enough time to replace Baltimore Memorial Stadium and build a new stadium for the Colts. Or the City of Baltimore and the State of Maryland failed to make that happen. But not because they longer wanted NFL football and no longer wanted the Colts. And you can give me the poor attendance figures of the Colts the last few seasons all you want. But the fact is that the Colts were one of the worst franchises in the NFL in the early 1980s under Irsay and company. And that is what Indianapolis got in 1984 and what Colts fans were not going to support and subsidize.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

USFL Forever: Video: ESPN: USFL 1985-Week 12-Los Angeles Express @ Oakland Invaders: Full Game

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

The old Oakland Coliseum was a strange place for football. Because it was basically a baseball park that was renovated so the Raiders could play football there. And then later so the Invaders could play football there as well. But the old Oakland Coliseum was much better suited for baseball than football and had a better baseball feel. The Oakland Coliseum looked strange for football, because the Invaders played during the baseball season when the Athletics were playing. And you had the outfield seats of the baseball park essentially on the sidelines of the football field. And the Coliseum was an open air ballpark before the Raiders came back in 1985. Which meant the outfield was a single deck. Most football stadiums the sidelines have multiple decks, because those are where the best seats are for the game. And teams want to be able to seat as many people there as possible.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Libertarianism.org: Opinion: Leonard P. Liggio: Classical Liberalism vs. Socialism vs. Conservatism

Libertarianism.org: Opinion: Leonard P. Liggio: Classical Liberalism vs. Socialism vs. Conservatism 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I guess it depends on what you mean by classical liberalism. If you talk to a Libertarian or anyone who isn’t what I would describe as a real Liberal, someone whose not a Social Democrat or a Libertarian, but a real Liberal in the American tradition, classical liberalism is today’s libertarianism and Classical-Liberals are today’s Libertarians. As a Liberal myself classical liberalism is not only today’s liberalism but yesterday’s liberalism and the liberalism of the future, in that it is about the individual without being anti-government, but pro-individual.

And that the number one job of government is to protect individual freedom for those who have it and expand it for those who need it. And that everything that government does from education, to national security and foreign policy, to the safety net and regulation, everything that government does being based on protecting and expanding freedom, not running people’s lives. And making and keeping people dependent on government for our daily economic survivals. The first version I gave you is what liberalism really is and what it has always been. The second version is something else.

Liberalism is not about a superstate or a welfare state that is there to make most of the decisions for everyone in the country. Including local and state government’s and basically trying to run the lives for the people even to the point that it tries to protect people from themselves. So no one has too much or too little, meaning no one completely independent of government economically and personally. And no one having to go without the things that people need to live well. That is what is called ‘modern liberalism’, a term I hate. Because it is not liberalism at all. But a form of leftist statism whether it is socialism or something even further to the Left.


Thursday, November 14, 2013

Napa Valley Register: Opinion: Kevin Eggers: Difference Between Individual Rights and Privileges

Napa Valley Register: Opinion: Kevin Eggers: Difference Between Individual Rights and Privileges

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Without individual rights that come under a national constitution like the United States Constitution, we can’t have anything that looks like a liberal democracy. Meaning a country where the people have the freedom over their own individual lives. That is why the Constitution is so important, which I hope I made clear last night. Otherwise we would just be a place where government governs itself and the people and really except for perhaps elections. Where again elections wouldn’t be guaranteed either without a Constitution guaranteeing them for us.

Because government would then be able to stop elections from happening in the first place. We would still be at the mercy so to speak of the Federal Government and dependents on them. Instead of the people they are supposed to serve, which is different. So the individual rights that we have in America are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and that is the document that constrains what the government can do.

Privileges are different things that government can give to the people by passing laws. Things like health care and health insurance for the elderly population and the people who live in poverty. Unemployment Insurance for people who are out of work. Food Assistance for people who do not make enough money to feed themselves. Welfare Insurance for people who do not have the skills that they need to get themselves a good job. That allows for them to be able to take care of themselves and not need public assistance in order to survive.

These aren’t constitutional rights but public subsidies that the Federal Government has decided to give certain populations in order for them to be able to survive and to benefit the community as a whole. To have fewer people living on the street and ending up stealing to fill the gap that they have, that doesn’t allow for them to be able to pay their own bills.
Constitutional rights are things that we always have because they are almost impossible to repeal. But privileges or subsidies are things that government gives people to make their lives easier for them.

Because they do not make enough money to take care of themselves. But they can always be taken away from people by an act of Congress and a presidential signature. When the Federal Government decides to take those things away.


Saturday, November 9, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: Phillies TV: MLB 1983-NLCS-Game 4-Los Angeles Dodgers @ Philadelphia Phillies: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I don’t believe there was a better pitcher you would want pitching in a big game, a series clinching game than Steve Carlton. When he was on and generally that was most of the time, I believe he was the best of the 1970s and 80s. The only other two pitchers I would consider would be Tom Seaver and Jim Palmer of this era. And this is what the Dodgers were facing on the road at Philadelphia Veterans Stadium against perhaps still the best pitcher in the game at this point, certainly in the National League in Steve Carlton. And having to beat Carlton just to force another elimination game which would’ve been game 5. This game was perfectly set up for the Phillies. At home, with their best pitcher, if not the best in MLB and playing to eliminate the Dodgers and move on to the MLB World Series.


Friday, November 8, 2013

Reason: Video: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Jonathan Rauch, Twenty-Years of Political Correctness


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I’m not a fan of political correctness myself, because I am a Liberal not because I’m not a Liberal. I’m against all racial and ethnic slurs and all other types of slurs that try to paint one group of people as they are. All the way, but again as a Liberal I believe in the First Amendment and the ability for people to speak freely. As long as they aren’t threatening or libeling people in a negative way or inciting violence in public. And those are really the only exceptions we have to our First Amendment in the United States.

Just because people have negative, bigoted and ignorant views about others, doesn’t mean they do not have a right to express those opinions. As long as they aren’t calling for those people to be harmed physically or economically in any way. If you are a Liberal, you believe in the First Amendment and are in favor of it. And you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. Because liberalism is about one’s ability to speak freely and assemble in public and in private. And you take away free speech, you do not have much if any remaining of what can be called a liberal democracy. Because you are taking people’s freedom away from them.

So when I hear these political speech codes from people who are supposed to be on the Left, because someone or a group of people are saying things that these leftist groups find offensive, because it offends people they support, generally racial or religious minorities, or political minorities on the Far-Left, like Communists and Socialists, one I disagree with them. Because we all as Americans including the Far-Left have the First Amendment right to express ourselves and have our own opinions. Including the Far-Left and Far-Right.

But it gives me the impression that some at least on the Far-Left do not believe in free speech, or at least free speech that they disagree with. But the other thing that gets me as a Liberal is when I hear supporters of what is called the political correctness movement, people who are supposed to be Liberals, when of course they are not, because they believe in a form of fascism. “That is you can say what you want and believe in what, until you offend us. And that is when we are going to try to shut you up. And there is nothing liberal about that.

It is pretty simple. If you are a Liberal you believe in free speech and the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. But perhaps a Fascist either from the Far-Left or Far-Right. Bigotry is an awful thing and in many cases illegal in the United States when it is put into action. But that doesn’t mean Americans do not have a right to be stupid, it just means they do not always have a right to act on those stupid beliefs. When they hurt innocent people with them. Like denying people jobs based on race, ethnicity, gender to use as examples.



Thursday, November 7, 2013

American Thinker: Opinion: Jim Yardley: "A Different View of Paternalism"

American Thinker: Opinion: Jim Yardley: A Different View of Paternalism 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

There are two forms of paternalism at least as I see it. One that obviously comes from our parents as shocking as that may sound and I believe the only people it should come from. And as annoying as and in some cases positive parental paternalism may sound, our parents at least tend to have our best interests at heart even when they go too far.

But then there is what I call governmental paternalism whether it comes from governmental laws, or proposals to create new paternalistic laws and they are basically built around the notion even if they are done with the best intentions, that government knows best what the people themselves need for their own good. Things like proposals to outlaw homosexual activity or pornography from the Far-Right. To having the Federal Government regulate marriage in the United States.

To paternalistic proposals from the Far-Left in trying to regulate what people can eat, drink or smoke for our own good. Because paternalists on the Far-Left believe they know best what people should be eating, drinking and smoking. And as much as right-wingers especially those right-wingers who may have some governmental paternalistic views when it comes to social issues, like to label the Affordable Care Act as paternalistic, it is not. Because what it does with the minimum health insurance requirement is to say that everyone is required to have enough health insurance to meet their own individual health care needs.

So people in America can’t past their own health care costs on to other people. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t require people to live healthy and take care of themselves. What it says is that we are all responsible for our own health care costs at least those of us who can afford our own health insurance. And for those of us who choose to live unhealthy, they can still do that, but they won’t be able to pass the costs of their unhealthy decisions on to other people.