Rik Schneider Online

Monday, May 28, 2012

1970s: The NBA vs. the ABA: Why the NBA Needed the ABA



The 1970s NBA or National Basketball Association for people who don't follow the NBA closely. Was coming off one of the best decades, not only in its history but one of the best decades in sports history. The NBA was dominated by the Boston Celtics and the Western Conference was dominated by the Los Angeles Lakers, the Celtics win nine NBA Finals in that decade and beat the Lakers like five times in that decade. The Celtics-Lakers Rivalry didn't start in the 1980s, with Legend Bird and Magic Johnson, that rivalry started in the early 1960s, you had a league surrounded by great players and Head Coaches. Players like Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, John Havlicheck, Oscar Robertson and others, so the 1960s was a great decade for the NBA, as well as for its popularity. By the early 1970s, the Celtics were no longer dominant and the Lakers were getting older, even though they won the NBA Finals for the first time in 1973. But with a very veteran and aging club trying to finally win their championship.

So the NBA was in transition from the 1960s, where you had several great teams, including one of the best ever in the 1967 Philadelphia 76ers, led by Center Wilt Chamberlain, that won the NBA Finals that year. Going from a decade where there were several great teams each year, to a decade that maybe didn't have one great team for the entire season. The 1973 Lakers being an exception to that, a team that had three Hall of Famers on it and won 69 games, had like a thirty game winning streak. The 1975 as I call them the Oakland Warriors, that had a great player in Forward Rick Berry, but that team wasn't great and beat a better team in the Washington Bullets to win the NBA Finals. Unfortunately American sports fans need to see great teams every year, they need to see teams that simply dominant their competition. For them to appreciate the sport they claim to love, otherwise they won't appreciate the teams they follow.

We have a hard time as fans appreciating good players for being good. Unless they are great and dominant, we simply don't appreciate them for what they are. Thats what happened in the 1970s in the NBA, the quality of play was still very good but it lacked the dominance and greatness, that it had in the 1960s and 1980s. And NBA fans didn't support their teams and the league that they had, to the point by the late 1970s, the NBA Finals were seen Tape Delay TV, after the late news. The ABA or American Basketball Association changed that, not by itself but brought Pro Basketball to more people in more cities and markets. That never had an NBA Franchise before, like Denver, Indianapolis, New Orleans, San Antonio and other cities and other people who were shut out from NBA Basketball. Got to see how great a game NBA Basketball was and how many great players were out there, to the point that most of the ABA Franchises were able to merge into the NBA.

Its really Earvin Magic Johnson, Larry Legend Bird and of course Commissioner David Stern, who brought the NBA back to good health. But the ABA contributed to that and showed them that they didn't have to be so Conservative, that they could be flashy, highlight their great players and their great teams. And still represent the game of Pro Basketball very well and is something that today's NBA has gotten away from.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Baltimore Orioles GM Dan Duquette Announces The Contract Extension of Adam Jones: A Building Block For The Future



To be honest with you, the Orioles had to resign Center Fielder Adam Jones, he's on the verge of being one of the Top 5-10 all around players in Major League Baseball. Along with Right Fielder Nick Markakis and the Orioles already have the best all around Catcher in MLB, in Matt Wieters. With a good young Pitching Staff and with solid veterans like, SS JJ Hardy, 3B slash OF Wilson Betemit, the best bullpen in baseball. The Orioles have been probably the worst franchise in MLB the last fifteen years, to go along with the Pittsburgh Pirates, because they've lacked direction. They would sign aging Free Agents, who wouldn't work out or Free Agents that they overestimated and wouldn't hold on to their young talent. Thats changing now that General Partner Peter Angelos has taken a step back and allowed Dan Duquette to run the club and invest money into their young talent and sign Free Agents that can help them, not getting the most expensive Free Agents out there. But saving that money and finding several at a time, like JJ Hardy and Wilson Betemit, that can help the team win now, along with bringing up young First Baseman Chris Davis.

The Orioles couldn't of afford to lose Adam Jones and they are going to have to resign Matt Wieters in the future as well. You lose Jones and the Orioles not only lose perhaps their best all around player but he's picked up right away for 50-100M$ and the Orioles are back to where they started a couple years ago. Good young talent but not willing to develop and keep them long enough, for that talent to pay off and for the Orioles to be winners again. By resigning both Adam Jones and Nick Markakis, the Orioles are making it clear to their players and their fans, that they are in the business of winning and want to contend. Thats what Dan Duquette has brought to the Orioles and Peter Angeloes finally seems to be waking up to the idea, that for the Orioles to win and to draw fans. He has to let his people do their jobs and give them the resources to do them.

Adam Jones is a five tool Center Fielder, tall, strong, can run, catch, throw, field, hit and hit for power. His stature aren't tools but makes his job a lot easier, he reminds me a little bit of a young Ken Griffey JR, not sure he'll end up being that great but has similar skills. And is someone the Orioles couldn't afford to lose and is a huge move by Dan Duquette and the Orioles.

Saturday, May 26, 2012

The Politics of Hollywood with Andrew Breitbart: The Fascism that the Tea Party doesn't like to talk about



Is there Fascism amongst Progressives in America, with Political Celebrities who are famous for their ability to entertain. Who have used their fame to voice their politics and who view people disagree with them, as Corporatists or slaves to the Military Industrial Complex or whatever. As well as there are Fascists amongst Progressives who work in politics for a living. Again who look down on people who aren't exactly like them, who look at life differently, who didn't grow up in the Northeast or San Francisco or Los Angeles or whatever. Thats been around for a hundred years or so but there's also Fascists amongst people in the Tea Party, who are still stuck in the 1950s . Who have a very narrow view of America and if you don't share their views, you are considered Un American as well. The Entertainment Industry tends to be on the left, both Liberals and people farther to the left then that. Creative people tend to be Liberal, thats not a secret and tend to look at the World, differently from people who aren't creative and not looking to change things. Where Neoconservatives tend to look at the World from the way it use to be and point to the 1950s. As the Glory Years of America and if you don't fit in that box, you are considered Un American.

This is something that Andrew Breitbart, RIP and people on his side of the Political Spectrum, don't tend to understand. That there's Fascism on both sides and if you don't fit into one of the boxes, you are so bad as a person, that you don't even deserve to be listened to. If you're view of America is only what you see from Hollywood, then you're view will be a fantasy. For the most part, because a lot what you see from Hollywood, is from some Hollywood Director or Producer's, view of how they want America to be. But if you're view of America, is only what you see from Neoconservatives, that all of America is in the Heartland, that all Americans go to church every week, that we all religious. That we all come from two parent families, dad goes to work, mom stays home and raises the kids, homosexuals and minorities are kept silent. Nothing but Family Programming on TV, with Family TV Night etc, then you also have a narrow view of America as well.

Hollywood to me is about entertainment, I watch movies and other things to be entertained and from time to time. You see something from Hollywood thats produced about True Life, a movie based on a True Story to use as an example. But I don't take the Politics of Hollywood very seriously, these people are entertainers and tend to look at things the way they want them to. And how they believe the World should be. Not how it is.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Invest Bliguru: Video: Free to Choose: Milton Friedman-Cradle to Grave-Public Assistance

Robert Lampman
Invest Bliguru: Video: Free to Choose: Milton Friedman-Cradle to Grave-Public Assistance

From Cradle to Grave, is referring to how people who were born onto public assistance, raised on public assistance, have kids before they are ready to raise them and live off of public assistance as adults as well, that we literally have had generations of families who’ve lived off of public assistance. Because they have never gotten the skills that they need, to be able to leave public assistance. Meaning they would have the skills that they need to get a good job and not have to live off of public assistance, because they have the means to be able to take care of themselves and their kids.

A lot of this is a result of the safety net that was created in America, in the 1930s with the New Deal and the 1960s with the Great Society. Where you had all the social insurance programs that were designed to help sustain people while they are in poverty, but not do anything to help these people to get themselves off of public assistance and out of poverty once and for all. This is what public assistance was in America, pre-1996. The TANF Law, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families, better known as Welfare to Work, changed all that.

It’s not a question in my mind and I believe many other Americans minds, of whether we should help people, who for whatever reasons can’t fend for themselves. The question is how to we do that. Do we just give them a few hundred bucks each month and expect nothing from them. Other than using that money to pay their basic needs, but continue to allow them to make the same mistakes, that they’ve made and while they are on public assistance. Having kids when they aren’t ready to take care of them, having more kids, when they can’t take care of the ones they already have. Using their public assistance checks to buy alcohol and other drugs, or do we instead help them help themselves, so they no longer have to live on public assistance.

Do we empower people to now have the skills to take care of themselves instead of what we’ve done in that past. The first question is what we were doing pre-1996. The 2nd question is what we’ve done ever since. This is what Libertarian Professor Milton Friedman was focusing on in his movie Free to Choose. And interviewed people who hate the current public assistance system and want to see it ended. People who were happy with the current system and people who were speaking in favor of the reforms that happened in 1996, that Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis ran on for President in 1988.


Monday, May 21, 2012

Calvin King: "Ronald Reagan Warned Us About Barack Obama": Really?

Calvin King: "Ronald Reagan Warned Us About Barack Obama": Really?

If you are ignorant and just downright so dishonest, that you'll say anything, to advance your cause and hurt people you see as opponents, or even enemies, you'll say whatever you can come up with and not let the facts get in the way of a good partisan attack. And perhaps you'll say so much that isn't true, that you'll start to believe your own nonsense. I use to believe that people who thought Barack Obama was a Socialist, or an African Atheist Muslim, how someone can both be an Atheist and a Muslim, someone needs to explain that to me, who was born in Kenya and is an Illegal Immigrant, who's President of the United States, I use to think these people were purely escaped mental patients. Who volunteered for the Michelle Bachmann presidential campaign.

I use to believe that people who said these things, were just straight up making this garbage up. Because they knew their followers, were ignorant enough to believe them. I mean you want to know why the American education system is in bad shape right now, all the evidence you need to see to believe that. Is with the people who actually believe this nonsense, I use to believe that the people who made these claims were simply fools, who don't know any better.

I'm sure there are plenty of those people making these charges, but they aren't the only ones. We simply still have a lot of ignorant people in this country. Who simply don't know any better, which is why they are ignorant, who make up these charges and believe them as well. And yes they are a fringe in America, but the fact is they all vote and all have loud voices in American politics. And powerful enough to get other ignorant Americans behind them.

But lets put some facts on the table just for the hell of it and maybe some ignorant people will learn something. Barack Obama born in Hawaii in August 1961, has a Hawaii birth certificate to show that. He's a practicing Christian who attends church on a regular basis. If he was a Socialist, he wouldn't of bailed out the banking and auto industries, he would've nationalized them. At least until they were ready to be independent again. And he wouldn't of cut taxes by over two-hundred-billion-dollars, but would've raised them by at least two-hundred-billion.

Americans can believe basically whatever the hell that they want to and don't have to pass an IQ test in order to do that. Which is a good thing for a lot of people who believe all of this garbage about Barack Obama and they can also say practically whatever they want to. As long as they aren't threatening to hurt people or incite violence and libeling people falsely. But again facts are facts and you can't argue with them, because once you do that, you are arguing against reality, trying to convince people of things that are simply false. Which is what a lot of the Far-Right is doing against Barack Obama in America.


Sunday, May 20, 2012

HBO Sports Movies: Michigan & Columbus Rivalry: Why its the Greatest Rivalry in Football



When you are talking about the greatest rivalries in sports and what are the best rivalries and what makes a great rivalry. You have to know that rivalries are between good if not great teams and that most of the time if not every time they play each other. The game has a lot of meaning, thats its very important to the teams and their fans but also important to the league and sport they play in. Great rivalries aren't between bad teams or even mediocre team, because when those teams play each other, those games just aren't very important. So when you talk about the Michigan-Ohio State Rivalry or as I call Ohio State, Columbus Ohio, because thats where they play and represent. And you are familiar with these two great Football Programs, the two most dominant Programs in the Big 10 Conference and two of the most dominant Football Programs in Major League College Football. And that when they play each other, its almost always to see who will represent the Big 10 in the Rose Bowl and who will have a shot at playing for the National Championship. As well as who'll win the Big 10, the Michigan-Columbus game is almost always a Championship game.

This is just one reason why this is such a great rivalry but shouldn't that be enough to call Michigan-Ohio the greatest rivalry in football. Do I really need to expand on that, I'm going to just because there is plenty more that deserves to be mentioned. Lets talk Regional Rivalry, sorta like when the Philadelphia Eagles play the New York Giants. The Michigan Wolverines essentially represent the Detroit Area, a large Metropolitan Area of 5M people or so. They come from Anne Arbor which is just outside of Detroit and about 200M miles South of Anne Arbor, is Columbus, Ohio, where the Buckeyes comes from. The biggest city in Ohio and no the biggest city in Ohio is not Cleveland, you are talking about a rivalry, thats a Border State rivalry, Michigan and Ohio, two of the biggest States in the Union.

Both Michigan and Ohio are Blue Collar States and Programs, that represent hard working Blue Collar people, people who have two work hard to make a good living. They both represent cold weather towns, that have real football weather, unlike lets say Washington or San Francisco. Oh by the way they are both great schools, two of the best in the country. So you know the players there are good hard working people and who are also very intelligent or they wouldn't of gotten into Michigan or Ohio or be able to last. And both programs are also very diverse and recruit all over for the best players in the country, that can make the grades in the classroom at their schools. So when these two teams get together, you know you are getting a great game, where both teams give their best effort and play smart football. And these are the main reasons why both schools have been so successful.

No offense to California and Stanford who call their annual game, the "Big Game" and I'm sure it is to both schools and the Bay Region. But those games generally don't decide Championships, whose going to win the Pac 10 Conference or play for the National Championship. The Michigan-Columbus game, is the game of the Big 10, the game of the Midwest and the game of the year. Because of how important their games are every year.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

CATO Institute: Video: George Will Keynotes 2010 Milton Friedman Prize Dinner



George Will said in an interview with Charlie Rose in October, 2008, a future blog about that coming up, that, "there's a Libertarian Wing and a Social Conservative Wing in the GOP." And that the "Libertarian Wing, is getting larger in the GOP." Thanks to Ron Paul, CATO Institute and others ,. He's mostly correct and I agree with most of that. I would just phrase that a little differently . And would put it this way, that there's a Conservative Wing and I mean Conservative across the board not Statist in any sense and there's a Statist Wing in the Republican Party. People who are Neoconservatives, who now make up the Christian Right, Tea Party and people who don't identify themselves with either of those groups.

Thats the State of GOP today. Made up of people who believe in economic freedom, except for the right for workers to organize. Religious Freedom for Christians, they want Big Government out of our wallets, so they can get in our bedrooms and living rooms. To tell us how we can live our lives, who we can sleep with, who we can marry, what we can watch on TV and what we can listen to. What bars and clubs we can go to etc. To a certain extent even what we can do with our own money. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Neoconservative Wing of the Republican Party is winning in the GOP. Which is bad for them and anyone who believes in liberal democracy and doesn't want America to become a one-party State, which is most of us.

Because as we move along as a country, we are getting younger, more tolerant, more liberal and Libertarian. We are becoming a country that wants Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms. Generation X and Y are perfect examples of that. But as the changes are happening, we have Neoconservatives who are still stuck in the 1950s. Haven't figured out that color TV is common and that people like to have a good time and don't want to be told how to live their lives. That not all Americans don't fit in with the establishment, that we are all individuals and don't fit into the neoconservative box of what Americans are supposed to be. And that if you don't fit in that box, which is only the size of a lunch box. That somehow you are Un-American, or Socialist.

George Will, is right about the GOP in the sense of the two wings that make up today's GOP. What he would call a Libertarian Wing, that he fits in, that I would call Conservative which is different. And a Social Conservative Wing, that I would call Statist. That are Neoconservative Republicans and are unfortunately for the GOP, the Statists are not only coming, but are winning in the GOP and are on course to put the Republican Party out of business.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Invest Bliguru: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- From Cradle to Grave

Helen Bohen O'Bannon
Invest Bliguru: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- From Cradle to Grave

When Libertarian professor Milton Friedman made his Free to Choose movie in 1980, he spent one of his chapters on the public assistance system. How we treat people who can't take care of themselves. Keep in mind, Professor Friedman is a Libertarian and went into this film with pre-conceive ideas about our public assistance system. But he not only interviewed Libertarians, but Progressives as well as professionals who work in social welfare.

And they talked about the people who collect public assistance and what their lives are like on public assistance. And what's expected from them as they are collecting public assistance. The history of our public assistance system, from when it was created in the 1930s as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal programs. And where we were as far the effects that the War on Poverty that President Johnson created in the 1960s. And the status of where we were as a country as of 1980 when this film was made.

They were talking about what happens when we take people who don't have the skills to be able to take care of themselves. Lack the education to get a good enough job that would allow them to be self-sufficient. Especially low-income low-skilled people who have kids, but lack the ability to make enough money to be able to take care of themselves. As well as the state of our education system, not producing enough people in the country that have the skills to be able to move on to college and more skills and learn a trade. So they will be self-sufficient and not end up on public assistance in the future.

Especially people with kids that they have to obviously look after, but which makes it more difficult to them to go to school. And get the skills that they need, so they can get themselves a good job and to be able to take care of themselves. And their families and not have to return back to public assistance in the future. Professor Friedman's, main point when it comes to public assistance, that I agree with, is that is you give people money, who can't take care of themselves and you expect nothing from the in the future other than spending what little money you give them to be able to take care of themselves, that they'll remain poor.

If you give people more money, to pay for their food and rent, then you are essentially rewarding them for not getting the skills that they need to be successful in life. But if you reward them to go out and get the skills that they need to be able to take care of themselves and even demand that they do, then they'll do that in return.


Monday, May 14, 2012

Smoked Video: Dick Cavett interview of William F. Buckley in 1995

Father of American Conservatism?
This piece was originally posted at FreeState Plus: Smoked Video: Dick Cavett interview of William F. Buckley in 1995

Forget about today’s Republican Party, when you are thinking or talking about Conservatives or conservatism today. Because the Republican Party is no longer a Conservative Party and hasn’t been a Conservative Party in at least fifteen years. Even though there are still come Conservatives left in the Republican Party, but those numbers keep getting smaller. As Far-Right candidates continue to defeat Conservative Republicans in Republican primaries. Today’s Republican Party, might not even a, Republican Party, only a Republican Party in name only. As they continue to move farther to the right and try to combine religion into politics. What their version of what Christianity is and that’s your first clue into what today’s Republican Party is. And an example of why I could never be a Republican.

Today’s Republican Party, is a Religious and Neoconservative Party. They’ve become a statist and nationalist party to the point that the Republican alternative to frontrunner Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, is in favor of constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage and pornography. To empower the Federal Government over the American people and States, to make these decisions for us. Something Bill Buckley would never support, who once described his politics as libertarian. Classical conservatism or conservative-libertarianism, which is exactly what conservatism is in a political sense, is about conserving individual freedom. Not subtracting from it, not passing constitutional amendments to weaken the U.S. Constitution. To give the Federal Government more power over its people, or to make America look like a theocracy. Or turn America into a theocracy. Conservatism is not stuck in the 1950s. Religious and Neoconservatives are stuck in that decade of the 1950s.

Neoconservatives, want to America back to the 1950s when it looked a lot different. The so-called Golden Age of the United States. When women weren’t expected to work, where the constitutional rights of minorities weren’t protected, etc. It’s progressivism that dominated American politics from the 1930’s to the 1970s. But that began to change, with Conservatives like Barry Goldwater, Ron Reagan and Bill Buckley came along. But Bill Buckley is really the father of classical conservatism in America. The person responsible for putting the movement on the map in American politics. Without the power of religious and Neoconservatives in the Republican Party today, Mitt Romney looks like a great presidential nominee for them. Because he’s a Conservative Republican, at least on paper. “Get Big Government out of our wallets and bedrooms.” As much as he tries to convince Big Government Republicans he’s one of them on some of the social issues, it’s the Bill Buckley’s of the world that put conservatism on the map. And religious and Neoconservatives, who are taking conservatism off the map in American politics. And Bill Buckley would probably be considered a Liberal by them today.

Sunday, May 13, 2012

John Edwards ABC NightLine Interview On Adultery From 2008: The Career that could've been for John Edwards



I haven't been following the trial of John Edwards this year, other then seeing a few highlights. On the tube, he's clearly guilty of bad behavior, like having an affair with another women. While his wife is dying, while he was running for President. And then trying to cover it up, whether he used Campaign Funds to cover it up or not. Which we would be stupid thing to do for a few reasons. For one its simply wrong, thats bad enough. Two its illegal, again bad enough and reason why you shouldn't do something like that. And three he didn't have to do that, again for several reasons. He's a wealthy man for one and could've paid his mistress off. And anyone else he needed to do, from his own finances and probably could've covered that up as well. But he should've never been in position to have to do something like that. To begin with, he should've had a big enough conscience to not have an affair. Period but specially considering his wife is dying, the mother of his kids. And of course the impact that something like that would have on his kids.

John Edwards before his affair, was not going to be elected President of the United States. At least not in 2008, he was the number three Presidential Candidate. Out of three and didn't manage to win one major primary or caucus, a State that could've. Put him ahead of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, he was number three out of three. And a dark horse at best to be selected for Vice President, he had that position in 2004. With John Kerry and other then being an exciting candidate for the Democratic Base. Didn't do much for Sen. Kerry in places like Ohio and Florida, Kerry wins either of those States. He's elected President in 2004 and perhaps reelected in 2008 and Sen. Edwards didn't do a very good job. Against Vice President Cheney in 2004, in the VP Debate, basically looking like a kid compared with Cheney. Sen. Edwards did run a solid Presidential Campaign in 2004 though and became a Democratic Star.

John Edwards was not going to be elected President in 2004 or 2008. He was a one term Senator with no prior political experience as a Public Official. He didn't even serve in the House before either, so he had a steep learning curve. Going from being a one term Senator to President of the United States, he would've had a big learning curve. Going from a one term Senator with no prior political experience, to becoming Vice President. But what Sen. Edwards brought to the table, was Star Power, the future of the Democratic Party. Someone who could bring in new voters, especially young Democrats. Who are tired of cookie cutter politicians, who tell us what we want to hear. Which is exactly what Sen. Obama brought in 2008 but took it to a much higher level. Had Sen. Edwards postponed his dream or fantasy about becoming President of the United States. And spent the next 4-8 years learning about the country, working at a Think Tank. Perhaps Governor of North Carolina or taking a Cabinet position. He might still have a political carer right now.

Serving as John Kerry's Vice President, had Sen. Kerry been elected President in 2004. Would've been a great role and job for John Edwards. He would've learned a lot from a President Kerry, about Washington about government. And would've been in great position to run for President in 2012, had a President Kerry been reelected in 2008. Similar to Richard Nixon under President Eisenhower but of course we'll never know.

Friday, May 11, 2012

Commonsense Capitalism: Video: Free to Choose: Milton Friedman- What's Wrong With Our Schools

Commonsense Capitalism: Video: Free to Choose: Milton Friedman- What's Wrong With Our Schools

Libertarian economist Milton Friedman made a documentary about the country. The society, covering the economy and several different aspects in the economy. Which education is definitely part of it, he made this film 1979-1980. When America still had a pretty good education system, up until twenty years ago. We still had a decent education system. Now we are ranked 39th in the world according to the United Nations and World Bank. International organizations that Progressives tend to trust now and then.

The level of education that students get, a lot of times is based on the economic level of their parents. and where they live. If you live in a wealthy area, or a middle class area, chances are you're going to get a pretty good education. The suburbs in the Washington area, are an excellent example of this. There are excellent schools in Washington as well, which is one of the wealthiest cities and areas in the country. A big wealthy city, but a city that also have some bad schools with a lot of low-performing students and educators. And the students who live there, get stuck going to bad schools. Just because of where they live.

So the two main things we need in education reform, is choice and accountability. Allow all parents no matter their economic level, or where they live, send their kids to the best school thats for their kids. Instead of having to send them to a school, whether its a good school, or not. And this would force all schools to do a good job and perform the best service possible for their students. Or risk losing their students to other schools. And the other thing which is just important as choice, is accountability.

Judging students and educators based on the jobs that they do. Pay and reward educators for their quality of service, not time of service. Which is different and only promote students to the next grade that are ready to go to the next grade. Don't promote them, because you are worried about hurting their feelings if you hold them back. I don't support a voucher system for schools, at least not from the Federal level. Whatever the Federal Government spends on schools and I believe it should be pretty limited, should be targeted to our public schools. In order to make them as good as possible. But we do need choice in our public schools. Instead of parents being forced to send their kids to the public school, just because of where they live.


Thursday, May 10, 2012

Commonsense Capitalism: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?

Thomas Sowell
Common Sense Capitalism: Video: Milton Friedman: Free to Choose- Are We Created Equal?

As much as Progressives may claim there is, there's no such thing as a Socialist Utopia in the world, there people living in poverty all over the world. Just as there are people living in abundance all over the world as well. The term did all men are created equal, goes to all races and ethnicities. That everyone Should be Treated Equally under law, That No One Should be Treated better or worse based on Their race, or ethnicity, under law. But did Does not Mean That We get equal Amounts of the resources are indeed produced in the world. What we get out of life, is what we put into it, in most cases. America, is a perfect Example of this. That if we have good skills, we get a good education and then we apply what we learn and our skills, we are indeed going to be very successful in life. And that the people who do not have skills thesis, or do not apply Their skills, They underachieve, then They are not going to get much out of life. And end up living in poverty or end up in the criminal justice system.

So need to do as a society, is create or go back to what we did at economic system empowers all Americans, to have a good opportunity to be successful in life. Have a system of equality of opportunity, or opportunity to society where we all have a good shot of being successful in life. Which is different from equality of result. Where the state collects all the resources and then divides them up based on what theyfeel the people need to survive. That would be a socialist system, with a heavy welfare state. Where the people would be dependent on The State for Their Survival. Even if theyhave the skills and are productive to take care of Themselves.

We can do much better than creating a collective state, or a superstate and allow everyone the opportunity to be successful in life on Their Own and not be dependent on the state. And we can even have a system did empowers people who fall through the cracks to be able to get up and take care of Themselves. We are not all equal as far as what we produce and create for society and ourselves. Some people are just more productive than others for whatever reasons. And Should be rewarded for that. But we do need a system did empowers everyone to be productive. So we can have less income inequality, but we'll never eliminate it, as long as we have Americans who are more productive than others.


Saturday, May 5, 2012

Other People's Money (1991) Board Election Address: A Satire about Corporate America



Other Peoples Money is a satire about Corporate America, about what happens. When someone tries to do a Hostile Takeover of another company. Where an investor or a group of investors of a company, decide they don't like how that company is being run. And believe they can do it much better. Its similar to Wall Street from 1987 but you have Danny Devito as the lead. So its a very funny movie , thats what you get from Danny Devito. In pretty much any movie he's ever done, he plays someone who's essentially pardon the term a prick. But does it in such a charming and funny way, you almost have to like the guy. Sorta the way Larry Hagman played JR Ewing on Dallas. Devito plays Larry Garfield a Wall Street investor, who essentially buys up companies. And then sells them fro a profit thats how he makes his money. Very similar to the role Michael Douglas played in Wall Street, playing Gordon Gecko.

The ironic thing about this movie to me and I'm not trying to sound partisan here. But this should be a movie thats targeted towards Conservatives. Because its about Private Enterprise, the person with the most money. And the best management skills to make the most money. Ends up getting the company he wants, yes it has a Hollywood Progressive slant to it. Making the Wall Street guy look like a prick, a charming prick at that. But the big shot gets what he wants, what he goes after. And there's nothing illegal about it, unlike the Gecko character. Who gets his information through Insider Trading. But here's where I'm going with this, Larry Garfield in the movie trying to make the case. That he can spend these peoples money better then them, give me your company and I'll spend your money better for you. On you're behalf.

The title of the movie is Other Peoples Money, thats a clue big enough that Stevie Wonder could see. Conservatives and Libertarians have been arguing for years. That no one can spend the peoples money better then the people themselves. When someone tells you they can spend you're money better then you. Ask them for a hundred bucks, a blank check even. And then tell them you are going to spend that money on their behalf. Just to see what kind of reaction you get from them. Thats the argument that the Larry Garfield character was trying to make in this movie. I can spend you're money better then you.