Rik Schneider Online

Liberal Democracy

Liberal Democracy
The Free State

Sunday, November 24, 2013

American Throwback: Video: NBC Sports: NFL 1979-Pregame Show, 10/14/79


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

The New Orleans Saints starting to look like contenders in 1979 finally drafting well and had a good head coach in Ted Nolan to get this team to play well and even make a playoff run in 1979. But falling short of their first winning season and playoff appearance finishing 8-8.

The 1970s Saints didn’t fail to make the NFC Playoffs or even have a winning season, because of their quarterback Archie Manning. As Archie said on this show, a quarterback is only as good as his talent. A lot of that is true, but great quarterbacks have done well and even great with average or above average talent. John Elway with the Denver Broncos comes to mind very fast. But the Saints up until the late 1970s didn’t even have average talent around Archie on offense. They had a lot of players that most other teams didn’t want and who didn’t play very long in the NFL.



Saturday, November 23, 2013

Roger Sharp Archive: Video: ABC News Late Wrapup of The Ruby-Oswald Shooting


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

ABC News was still not a major news operation yet. CBS News was the biggest TV news division at this point at least in America. Thanks to the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. And NBC News with Meet The press and the Huntley Brinkley Report was its closest competitor at this point. But ABC News did the best job that they could even being buried in the ratings and with limited resources. And this like with CBS News and NBC News was the biggest story they ever had. I can honestly say I don’t believe Jack Ruby shooting and killing Lee Oswald was a bad thing and no I don’t consider it murder. Because of course Oswald hadn’t been convicted of assassinating President John F. Kennedy yet. But he is obviously the shooter of Jack Kennedy, the man who assassinated JFK. And he would’ve been convicted of that crime.

Friday, November 22, 2013

The American Conservative: Opinion: Gene Healy: John F. Kennedy Was No Conservative

The American Conservative: Opinion: Gene Healy: John F. Kennedy Was no Conservative 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Damn I found something that I agree with Conservative-Libertarian Gene Healy on. Jack Kennedy was no Conservative and I we completely agree. And you can say he was moderate on some things like his late entry for pushing for civil rights legislation. But the fact is if you are a real Conservative or Liberal, you do not believe in legal discrimination based on race. And Jack Kennedy was always in favor of civil rights legislation, including voting rights legislation. But had a more moderate approach before the summer of 1963 in how to get those bill through Congress.

Because he knew the uphill battles he would have and the political capital he would need to spend before being reelected in 1964, because of the power of the Southern Neo-Confederate Democrats. And a lot of these men in Congress were basically racists who had no interest in passing this legislation. Whether you agree with the Kennedy Administration’s strategy on that or not, that was what it was about. But he was always in favor of those bills but was slow to come out in favor of them.

As far as President Kennedy being in favor of tax cuts and a strong, but limited national defense. This is in the liberal democratic tradition that today’s so-called Progressives and today’s overly partisan right-wingers do not understand, or want to acknowledge. Because they both want liberalism to be seen as soft, dovish and about big government spending programs for the people. And giving them so-called free stuff and having a big centralize federal state deeply involved in the economy and in people’s lives for our own good.

Because today’s so-called Progressives and hyper partisans on the Right, want Liberals to be viewed as people who view private and individual power as dangerous. But it is the type of tax cuts and why President Kennedy wanted a large tax cut that made this policy liberal as well. Because the tax cuts that yes were across the board, but that were designed to benefit middle class families. And also cut a lot of wasteful tax loopholes in them to pay for them and to have a cleaner tax code that was more beneficial to everyone.

There are liberal tax cuts and there are conservative tax cuts and to a certain extent there are even progressive tax cuts. But in the classical progressive tradition like the Earned Income Tax Credit. That even President Ronald Reagan was in favor of. Three out of the last five tax cuts were signed into law by Democratic presidents. Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and just one more reason that made Jack Kennedy a Liberal Democrat. Because he believed in tax cuts that benefited middle class families and believed in individual power and freedom that benefited the many. As opposed to the few and a strong, but limited national defense that was based on defending America, not trying to govern the world.




Thursday, November 21, 2013

Roger Sharp Archive: Video: JFK at 50, Jack Ruby Killing Lee Harvey Oswald Coverage


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I doubt any American who wasn’t a hater of John F. Kennedy and wasn’t suffering from some form of mental illness felt sorry for Lee Harvey Oswald being killed by Jack Ruby. Not that many people were celebrating Ruby’s killing of Lee Oswald. But it is clear now that Oswald shot President Kennedy. The only question is left was there anyone else involved in the assassination of JFK. Was the other people involved in the planning of the assassination. Like other communist forces, or perhaps organized crime, especially in the Italian Mafia community in America. Of course what Ruby did was wrong and he should’ve been charged with second degree murder or manslaughter. Because he did intentionally kill a man who wasn’t a threat to him and his physical health. Who wasn’t going to get the opportunity to ever murder again, at least not on the outside as a free man.

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

United States Senator Mike Lee: Blog: Bring Them in: War on Poverty Fifty-Years Later

United States Senator Mike Lee: Blog: Bring Them in

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

Poverty in America is the thing that we should be talking about right now for a couple reasons. One and the most important one I believe, 1/5 Americans live in poverty. We have the highest poverty rate in the developed world which is twice that of the poverty average. In the developed world and the fiftieth anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s so-called War on Poverty. Speech from his 1964 State of The Union Address is coming up in I believe January, January or February. So now is a very good time to see how we are doing well in this so-called War on Poverty.

A term I hate by the way but perhaps that should be a subject of another blog. Like terms not to be used in describing things or false terms. Simply because similar to the so-called War on Drugs, these aren’t real wars. Wars are combat involving generally militaries or private militia’s and involved weapons and people getting. Physically hurt and killed and in many cases innocent people being injured and killed.

What the Federal Government has in actuality is a campaign against poverty. Using federal resources and programs to help people in poverty, which is obviously different from a war. And now is the perfect time to see how this campaign has gone. Fifty years ago we had 1/5 to 1/4 Americans living in poverty. Today we have about that same number of Americans despite all the economic growth we’ve had in. This time and the obvious answer would be that this campaign was a failure, a complete failure.

I agree that a lot of it has failed simply because of how these programs were designed for the most part. Giving people in poverty money to help them pay their bills and so much public assistance. Like Medicaid, Food Stamps, Public Housing to use as examples along with cash assistance which is. Welfare that these people do not technically qualify as living in poverty because of all the financial. Assistance they get even though it is not technically cash assistance.

The problem with the argument that if government or any other institution or even people. Are giving you money so you don’t have to live in poverty. Even though you might be able to make a technical argument that, that person does not live in poverty. Because they have what they need to survive and even live well, the fact that they are not independent. And rely on others to either pay their bills or help them pay their bills, because they aren’t able to do that. For themselves, they are still poor because they are not economically independent.

And if that assistance. For them were to be cutoff, they would be without the means in order to survive. So if you are going to have a War on Poverty or I prefer a campaign to eliminate or cut down poverty. Your programs have to be designed to actually move people out of poverty so they can take care of themselves. Which is the main lesson from the so-called War on Poverty and why it has had mixed results at best.

Either late next month or early next year this blog will have section full of posts about the War on Poverty. And how to have a real campaign and to fight and defeat poverty in America. That will be about yes temporary financial for people and families in need but going forward. It will mostly about education and job training to actually move people out of poverty because they’ll. Have the skills that they need to get a good job and actually pay their own bills.

Monday, November 18, 2013

Newsmax: Video: The Steve Salzberg Show: Ira Stoll, Author of JFK Conservative



I wrote a couple of blogs last week why Jack Kennedy would not only be a Democrat but a loyal Democrat, a good Democrat and even a Liberal Democrat and he’s a big reason why I’m a Liberal Democrat. And for people especially on the partisan Right who want to make any person in the Democratic Party, or anyone on the Left that they may claim to respect as less than democratic or liberal, they do not either understand the Democratic Party and the broader left-wing, or have chosen to ignore those things to make their partisan political points.

To listen to these partisan right-wingers, you get the idea that all Democrats are on the Far-Left and we are all Socialists or Social Democrats. Or today’s Far-Left is the mainstream left-wing in America. And even though I agree that the Far-Left in America wouldn’t have much to like about Jack Kennedy, someone who believe there was a limit to how much you could tax, people including the wealthy and a limit to how much government can do for people and still have a strong economy and you needed a strong national defense whether you are dealing with the Soviet Union or private Islāmic terrorists.

But these are all mainstream Democratic left of center thinking establishment Democrats and the Democratic Leadership all believe in these things. But also believe in personal freedom and that government has a role to see that all Americans have the opportunities to live in freedom and that freedom shouldn’t just be economic or religious freedom for Christians, or for people born to wealthy families. But that all Americans should have the opportunities to live in freedom in America. And Jack Kennedy was also a big believer in these things which is why he would’ve made a solid left of center Liberal Democrat today.

Today Jack Kennedy would’ve been like Bill Clinton or John Kerry and even Barack Obama. Someone with a lot of respect and love at least inside the Democratic Party. And in Jack Kennedy’s case outside of the Democratic Party as well because Independents and perhaps even Northeastern Republicans, people who I call the real Conservative Republicans and real Republicans, because of his beliefs in both economic and personal freedom. His healthy skepticism for what government could do for people. And his beliefs in a strong national defense, but to protect us and our allies and not to govern the world. It would be both the Far-Left and Far-Right where he wouldn’t fit in, but he didn’t fit in well there fifty years ago either.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Portland Basketball Classics: Video: CBS Sports: NBA 1983-WCSF-Game 3-Los Angeles Lakers @ Portland Blazers: Highlights


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

The Blazers were a very consistent playoff team in the 1980s. I believe making the Western Conference Playoffs every season in the 1980s. They just didn’t have much if any history of advancing in the playoffs in that decade. Consistently having to play the Lakers or Mavericks or Rockets, teams that were pretty good in that decade. Playing the Lakers not only the Western Conference team of the 1980s but the NBA team of that decade. The 1980s I believe should’ve been a decade where the Blazers took a step up and became a consistent Western Conference and NBA Finals contender. If you look at who their head coach was in Jack Ramsey. And then you look at their teams with Calvin Natt, later Kiki Vandeweigh, Clyde Drexler the best Blazer of all-time. Mychal Thompson and Steve Johnson were solid big men for them. And then of course Terry Porter as well as their point guard.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Tomley Kiss is Good: Video: NBC Sports: NFL 1978-AFC Wildcard-Houston Oilers @ Miami Dolphins: First Half


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I love these old games, especially starting in 1978 or so and going through the 1980s. The NFL of the last 10-15, years I would’ve lived very well without experiencing. Because the Roger Goodell is so offensive and money oriented, that they are coming damn close to eliminating defense and physical play on defense. But the NFL of the late 1970s and the 1980s was a balanced league. Where offenses and defenses were equal under the rules. Which meant back then you had balanced offenses and defenses. You had pass-first teams, that also ran the ball well and run-first teams that could also throw the ball well. And you also had teams that were known for offense, that were also good on defense. And teams that were known for defense, that were also good on offense.

This game between the Oilers and Dolphins is an excellent example of that. The Dolphins for the most part were no longer Super Bowl contenders, as far as the 1970s. But they were still good enough to win the AFC East and make a lot of noise in the AFC and NFL in general. The Oilers in 1978 were looking for their first playoff appearance since the 1960s and the AFL-NFL merger. And not only made the AFC Playoffs in 1978, but got to the AFC Final. And both of these teams were very good of both sides of the ball. Both had strong defenses, both could run and throw the ball well. Which is what makes this a classic matchup.
Houston Oilers


Tomley Kiss is Good: Video: NBC Sports: NFL 1978-AFC Wildcard-Houston Oilers @ Miami Dolphins: 2nd Half


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

The Houston Oilers were playing a AFC Wildcard game on the road in 1978, because they finished second only to the Pittsburgh Steelers that year. But not because the Miami Dolphins were a better team. Because if anything the Oilers were better, but back then and until 1990, you had to win your division in order to host an NFL playoff game. As it should be, at least as far as I’m concern. So because the Oilers were in the same division as the Steelers in 78 and finished behind the Steelers that season, the Dolphins won the AFC East, so the Dolphins hosted this wildcard against the Oilers. But the Oilers were the second best team in the AFC in 78. They just didn’t win their division, because again they were in the same division with the Steelers, the best team in the AFC in 78 and Super Bowl champion.



Thursday, November 7, 2013

Townhall: Opinion: Derek Hunter: The Problem With Libertarians

Townhall: Opinion: Derek Hunter: The Problem With Libertarians 

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

I’m just going to start this post by laying out what I believe libertarianism is from actual Libertarians that I respect. Even though I’m not a Libertarian myself and tend to disagree with Libertarians especially when it comes to economic and foreign policy. Even though I tend to agree with them on social issues.

Basically a Libertarian to paraphrase economics professor Walter E. Williams who I believe is now at George Mason University, is someone who believes in complete property rights as well as the right to privacy. That property rights extend to one’s own body and life and what they do with themselves and their own lives is their own business. As long as they aren’t hurting innocent people with what they are doing. That the money they make is there’s and how they spend their own money and what they do on their own time is their own business. As long as they aren’t hurting any innocent person with their own money and time.

So what people do with their own lives and time is their own business. But where government comes in is how people interact with each other. Someone can own a gun, but they can’t hurt an innocent person with it and certainly not murder anyone with it. To it bluntly a guy could bang a prostitute, but they are not allowed to rape anyone. No one would be allowed to rape anyone in a so-called libertarian society. People can smoke and sell marijuana, but can’t force people to buy, use or sell it themselves.

That is the definition of what I call a classical Libertarian, which are the real Libertarians. They aren’t anti-government, but are certainly anti-big government and want government out of our personal and economic lives. As long as we aren’t hurting innocent people with what we are doing. That government’s job is regulate how people interact with each other, not what we do to ourselves. And the basic reason why I’m a Liberal and not a Libertarian, is because even though we tend to agree On most if not all social issues, we tend to separate when it comes to economic and foreign policy.

And I do believe in limited government when it comes to economic and foreign policy as well. But I do not believe that the Federal Government should just be limited to a Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Treasury and perhaps a few others. That the Federal Government has more constitutional authority and responsibility than that. But it should be limited to doing only what the states, localities and people can’t do for themselves.

I could get into the difference between classical Libertarianism and what I call anarcho-Libertarianism. Anarcho-Libertarianism basically believe in a form of anarchism. But that is really for another blog, this what just about countering what Derek Hunter of Townhall wrote about Libertarianism today. Which was wrong and I instead gave you what it is at least in it’s classical form.

Monday, November 4, 2013

Classic MLB 11: Video: NBC Sports: MLB 1987-All Star Game-National League @ American League: Full Game


This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on Blogger

What I remember about this game is not much. I remember the Oakland Coliseum when it was beautiful and essentially a classic ballpark, with the Raiders moving to Los Angeles. I remember the rebirth of the Oakland Athletics to a certain extent, with them hiring manager Tony La Russa and Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire and Carny Lansford already being on the club before Canseco and McGwire. The Athletics starting to become very good again and were even in the AL West race, especially with Minnesota Twins winning the division with a 85-77 record. And this is not because this game was boring or anything, with the highlights I’ve seen of it on TV and online, it was a very good game. But I was only eleven years old at this point in 1987.

This was a great game with a lot of great players. The AL with Cal Ripken, Dave Winfield, Don Mattingly, Wade Boggs, Rickey Henderson and many others. The NL with Ryan Sandberg, Andrew Dawson, Mike Schmidt, Ozzie Smith and many others. You saw players from teams that were finally very good again and now contenders. Like the Bash Brothers from the Athletics, Will Clark from the San Francisco Giants. And great players that were from teams that were already very good, that on paper should’ve been Hall of Famers. Like Darryl Strawberry with the New York Mets, the Bash Brothers again, George Bell with the Toronto Blue Jays, Dwight Evans, who I believe at least is a borderline Hall of Famer. So there is a lot great things to remember about the 1987 MLB All Star Game.
Oakland Coliseum