Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Thursday, May 8, 2014

The Week: Shikha Dalmia: Affirmative Action is Doomed: Here's What Progressives Can do About it

Pro-Affirmative Action Rally 

The Week: Opinion: Shikha Dalmia: Affirmative Action is Doomed: Here's What Progressives Can do About it

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The rhetoric of affirmative action is running out of steam.  The real Roosevelt (Franklin and Theodore) and LBJ Progressives need to step up to the plate and say "We are losing ground badly on this issue and we need a real progressive alternative now."  They should tell the New Left Socialists who believe in equality at all costs, "Shut the hell up and go back to the kiddy table where you belong because the adults are now back in charge and we'll take us to the promise land."

What I'm saying here is that the real Progressives in America not the far-left Socialists and leftists and statist micro-managers on the Left who want to run Americans' lives for them, want to use government to see that all Americans have a fair shot at living in freedom and taking advantage of that freedom and the opportunities it provides.  They need to  restore the Progressive good name with a positive economic agenda built around education and economic development that would benefit communities that are struggling in America right now.

Instead of giving Americans access and status because of their race, ethnicity or gender, empower them to obtain that access and status for themselves.  Whether you support affirmative action or not, and I don't, even as we are moving to a majority-minority country, affirmative action is losing political support and support in the judiciary, as well. There isn't a current majority for support on the U.S. Supreme Court and there may never be again.

What what the real Progressives need to do to counter this is to say what we are going to do instead.

We are going to back strict and effective enforcement of civil rights laws as they obtain to race, ethnicity and gender with financial sanctions being assessed on anyone guilty of violating these rights,  the funds from those financial sanctions going to the victims.

We are going to empower all Americans who are disadvantaged by poverty to get themselves out of it.  We are going to target communities with high levels of poverty which lack education and infrastructure, regardless of race and ethnicity and encourage companies to invest in those areas with good jobs, more than service sector jobs.  We will make job training opportunities available from both the public and private sectors for low-skilled, unemployed Americans so they can get good jobs.  We will empower these Americans to build their own businesses in their communities.

We are going to have a real education reform agenda that will not have to be approved by the teachers' unions. Yes, we are going to give more funding to the low-income communities for their skills.  We are going to encourage well-qualified Americans to teach in underserved communities. We are going to allow parents to send their kids to the public school of their choice.  No longer will they be trapped in a failing school not getting the education they need to be successful in life simply because of where they live.  Teachers' pay will be based on how well their students are learning, not how long they've been teaching.

If the goal is to lift more people out of poverty and reduce it to the point that it is no longer considered a big deal anymore,  like inflation, here's a progressive agenda that would benefit millions of low-income Americans whether they are adults or not. If the goal is to have a progressive agenda that benefits millions of African and Latin-Americans, who tend to come from low-income communities, here's one  that benefits those communities and would make affirmative action a thing of the past, as it should be. 

Monday, May 5, 2014

Mises Institute: Mises Daily: Julian Adorney: "Killing the Maximum Wage Myth": Why a Maximum Wage Would be a Horrible Idea


Mises Institute: Mises Daily: Julian Adorney: Killing the Maximum Wage Myth

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger  

People on the far left get labeled as Socialists because they have a tendency to advocate socialist policies that are more common in Europe than in America.  The notion of  "maximum wage" that talk show host Bill Maher began advocating back in February is a perfect example of this.

It's is almost impossible to ignore the hypocrisy of Bill Maher on this issue, especially since he's part of the financial one percent  that he likes to bash and call greedy.  If he thinks that these people make too much money,  he could initiate the correction by living on three-hundred-thousand dollars a year, his suggestion for the Federal maximum wage.  He could donate the rest of his income to Uncle Sam or his favorite charity, if he has one.  He could begin by setting the example of unselfishness and compassion that he wants to impose on the rest of the country by law.

The idea of a maximum wage is a bad idea. Americans, as much as anyone, are guilty of human nature. We need to be incentivized in order to be as productive. "If you do this, we'll give that and the better you are at doing what we want you to do, the more we'll pay you for it". Capitalism and private enterprise are built on incentive, supply and demand. The better you are at something, the more money you'll tend to make by providing that service to the market.

Do we have overpaid CEO's and do companies and employers tend to set wage rates instead of the market as a whole?  Of course, but that doesn't get fixed by telling people "once you make a certain amount of money Uncle Sam is going to take most of everything above that amount from you." Instead, we should focus on the lower middle and bottom end of the economy and empower and incentivize those people to be as successful as possible.  

Saturday, May 3, 2014

Reason: Hit & Run: Jacob Sullum: New Clemency Could Free Hundreds or Thousands of Drug War Prisoners: A Better Approach in Dealing With Narcotics

Attorney General Eric Holder Speech on Criminal Justice Reform 

Reason: Hit & Run: Jacob Sullum: New Clemency Policy Could Free Hundreds or Thousands of Drug War Prisoners

President Barack Obama can end the failed War on Drugs in America and draft a new policy for dealing with narcotics in this country.  He wouldn't need approval from Congress.

The policy itself is called clemency. President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General Jim Cole are all on the record as saying that the War on Drugs is not working and we need a new approach for dealing with non-violent drug offenders.  We can cut their sentences, get them into halfway houses and reduce the population in our overcrowded prisons.

The Attorney General, under the direction of the President, has already decided that they aren't going after people for possession of marijuana who aren't intending to sell it. They could also say "we aren't going for long sentences and sanctions for people who are narcotics addicts or who are dealing small amounts of the harder illegal narcotics or people who are in possession of these narcotics without the intent to sell".

The result would be fewer non-violent drug war inmates going to prison and looking at 3-5 for simple possession of small amounts of these narcotics. They could be in halfway houses or doing community service or in drug rehab at their own expense instead.  This frees up a lot of prison cells for people who actually need to be there for the good of society, terrorists, gang bangers, murderers, rapists ,etc., criminals who pose a real threat to society. 

Thursday, May 1, 2014

American Thinker: Opinion: Christopher Chantrill: "Liberals Digging Their Political Graves": The Nonsense of Right-Wingers on Liberalism


American Thinker: Opinion: Christopher Chantrill: Liberals Digging Their Political Graves

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger  

Richard Nixon was a brilliant political strategist, whatever else you may think of the man.  In the late 1960s, he could see the country moving politically. The Democratic Party was moving left and away from the Confederate States, making an opening for the Republican Party to come back to power through the Confederate States.  His so-called, "Southern Strategy," was the result and the Republican Party is living with its consequences today.

Chris Cantrill, on the other hand, is not a brilliant political strategist nor even a reliable political reporter.  Reading an article by him on liberalism is like listening to an average American cab driver give a lecture on ancient Japanese history. This person does not know what they are talking about.

I don't like making my posts completely personal, so I'll critique Cantrill's article from here on. He says that Liberals aren't interested in creating a just society or a utopia but are interested only in power and elimination of opposition, which would result in a fascist state.  Once this is accomplished, they might work to create that utopian paradise.

The power that Liberals truly want is power to the people, creating an environment where everyone has power over their own lives, including the ability to vote for candidates across the political spectrum. Liberals also want freedom of expression.

Nixon acquired the label, "Tricky Dick," because of his relentlessly unscrupulous drive to eliminate all political opposition.  We see this factor in modern Republican tactics which are devoid of fact and reason. While decrying big government they call for big brother to constrain what people can do in the privacy of their own homes.

Cantrill's article was one of the dumbest that I've ever read.  It was full of falsehoods, if not damned lies.  We still have too many Americans who are dumb enough to believe this garbage, which Cantrill was counting on and why I felt the need to respond to it.

These overly partisan far-rightists are smart enough to know that the country is moving politically.  It is becoming more liberal everyday as the electorate becomes better educated.  The X and Y generations are perfect examples of this and, when the next generation starts going to college, it will just continue. Younger Americans now and, even more, middle aged Americans simply want control over their personal and economic affairs.  They do not want big government telling them how to live.  The far-right tries to combat this movement by making up garbage and saying, "This is why you shouldn't be a Liberal."