Ederik Schneider Online

Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: Haiku Deck

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Soul of Atlas: Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and Profit Motive in 1978

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Now: Soul of Atlas: Milton Friedman on Self-Interest and Profit Motive in 1978

The reason for capitalism or in America the reason for American capitalism, is that in an economy like that, its assumed that the people can make it on their own if given the opportunity. That there’s a limit to what government can do and should do. The whole point of constitutional law and limited government and federalism. That government doesn’t do everything right and when it tries to do too much, like taking so much out of the economy to take care of its people, doing things for the people that they can do for themselves. Like run a business, make their own health care decisions, plan for their retirement, decide where to send their kids to school, etc. And you can go down the line.

That if you give the Federal Government all that responsibility to go along with defending the country and other areas and then you add things like trying to run the lives of people, that you would get in a Marxist-Socialist system like in North Korea. That government will be too expensive and inefficient. Trying to make the decisions for people it doesn’t know. But if you give the people the power to make these decisions for themselves, they’ll be able to make much better choices for themselves, because they know who they are and what they need. Which is what we’ve been in America for 235 years now in this liberal democracy. And that you need profit motive in a liberal democracy. Perhaps not in every area of the economy, but in most sectors, so people have incentive to succeed to be as productive as they possibly can, to be as successful as they can.

You have profit motive in a liberal democracy so people know they can be as successful as they can based on their education, qualifications and production and you have a safety net. Not there to take care of people, but to help then when they fall down to get themselves up. So they know they’ll have to take care of themselves, because government won’t be there indefinitely to take care of them. Just to help them in their need. Which is different from government taking care of people. Which assumes that people in need having nothing to worry about, because government will always be there to take care of them.

But with a safety net you only have that there for people who are in need to help them sustain themselves in their time of need, but also help them get back on their feet. Take profit motive out of the economy, what do we have instead, you want government controlling everything with everyone dependent on government to take care of us? Do you want to make government an absolute power with no one to answer to like they have in North Korea? Or do you want a system where everyone has an opportunity to be as successful as possible based on what they put into the country.

I prefer the last approach and history proves that works better. It’s the old Jack Kennedy line, “not ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. Which is why we need what’s been called a world-class education system where everyone in the country has an opportunity to be successful in life. That’s how we win the so-called War on Poverty. By moving people out of poverty into the middle class and to become self-sufficient. Not by having them dependent on government their whole lives. And not allowing for their kids to be dependent on government their whole lives. Living on people who take care of themselves and are productive.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Darcy 757: CFL 1995-Grey Cup-Baltimore Stallions vs. Calgary Stampeders Highlights: Baltimore's Path Back to the NFL








When the Colts left Baltimore in 1984, Baltimore went out of its way to land a new NFL franchise, including landing the Stars of the USFL in 1984 who played two seasons there before the USFL folded in 1986.  After that Baltimore hosted NFL Preseason games at Baltimore Memorial Stadium, nicknamed, and for good reason, the "Outdoor Insane Asylum" because of the crazy fan atmosphere it had for sporting events.

And then Baltimore applied for an NFL expansion franchise in 1993 but was turned down and lost out to Charlotte and Jacksonville and then struck gold in 1994 when they landed a CFL franchise, the Stallions, that were around for two seasons, 1994-95.  It was two of the greatest two seasons that pro-football franchise had, especially for an expansion franchise, winning two Eastern Conference Championships, playing in two Grey Cup Finals, and winning the Grey Cup in 1995 and barely losing in 1994 to a very good Vancouver Lions team in Vancouver and then beating a very good Calgary Stampeders led by QB a Doug Flutie team in 1995 in Regina. I saw both games on ESPN.  They could've easily won both games, but in 1994 they lost on a last second field goal by Louis Pasiglia  The Stallions had two very good teams in their only two seasons.

But the Stallions were also very well managed, led by their General Partner Jim Speros, a native Marylander who understood Maryland and the City of Baltimore and how passionate they were for pro-football and how much they wanted it back as well as how much they missed the Colts and how much they wanted another pro-football franchise. Speros marketed his club very well and they played at Memorial Stadium, which has a great fan atmosphere.

For both football and baseball with the Orioles, he hired Don Matthews as his head coach/general manager, who had a long successful history in the CFL.  I believe he's in the Hall of Fame winning multiple Grey Cups, and they put two very good teams together, signing players, not based on how good they would be in the NFL, but on how well they would play in the CFL, such as QB Tracy Ham, RB Mike Pringle, WR Chris Armstrong, LB OG Brigance, and others.

And that's why they were so successful so early, because they had a team that had already been successful in the CFL and knew how to play the CFL brand of football, which is different from the NFL.  Without the Stallions and all the success they had and how well Baltimore and Maryland supported their new team by leading the CFL in attendance both seasons, Baltimore probably doesn't land the Ravens in 1995.

The Stallions proved to the NFL that they can support a major league pro-football franchise by how they supported the Stallions, even though Baltimore is only 40 miles from Washington with the Redskins and 90 miles from Philadelphia.  Baltimore could support its own NFL franchise and have the Stallions to thank for that.



Monday, October 24, 2011

David Walker: Meredith Brooks- Lay Down at Hard Rock Cafe

Source: NBC-Queen Latifah & Meredith Brooks-
Source: David Walker: Meredith Brooks- Lay Down at Hard Rock Cafe

I'm not a big Meredith Brooks fan, but I like her blues rock sound. Especially the song lay down. And love watching her perform this song because she looks just like a sexy rocker chick should look. She's a beautiful well-built tall brunette, performing in her go to black leather jeans and black leather boots. She has good voice, but her lyrics and sound are what are impressive about her. She's not a headbanger or a pop star, but a blues rocker. A combination of classic rock and blues, similar to Sheryl Crow. But I think she doesn't sound as good. Or Meredith Etheridge, but I believe she sounds better. And she gave this performance back in 1999 or 2000 at the Hard Rock Cafe, performing Lay Down as well as Bitch and a few other songs. And she performed Lay Down with Queen Latifah. Who she did the Lay Down music video with, as well kids singing group and they did a great job. She gives great performances and makes sexy music videos which makes her a great rocker chick.


Thursday, October 13, 2011

Liberty Pen: Video: The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand- Saving American Liberty

Mike & Ayn
Liberty Pen: Video: The Mike Wallace Interview: Ayn Rand- Saving American Liberty

I have some respect for Ayn Rand when it comes to individual liberty and even economic freedom. I’m not a fan of socialism either, but this idea of Cowboy Capitalism, which how we would describe her brand of capitalism today, is exactly what we shouldn’t be doing today. We have more than ten years now of evidence to know that doesn’t work. Cowboy Capitalism, is where you don’t regulate the economy at all. You essentially let American enterprise govern themselves and when they screw up, tough for taxpayers. Because now they have to bail them out. Which is what TARP represented in 2008 and why Dodd-Frank was passed in 2010 to reform how Wall Street was regulated.

One problem with the Bush Administration from 2001-09 was that they didn’t bother to do much if any regulating of Wall Street. They didn’t enforce the current laws that were on the book and the Congress not only passed new laws to go along with the laws that were already there, but not being enforced. So now the Federal Government has to figure out how to enforce its old laws which may be old and outdated now, as well as the new laws from the Dodd-Frank legislation. You need to have a referee in the economy. Especially an economy as large as America’s, otherwise people are going to be abused and screwed over. Because people can get away with it and you’ll see monopoly’s forming. Because again they can get away with it. Not public monopoly’s, but private monopoly’s and I’m not in favor of either.

American capitalism, works best when the Federal Government is spending a set amount based on what they take in. And only doing what they do well and can only do well. And you have to lay these things out ahead of time instead of letting them pick and choose what they do. The Federal Government, needs to be regulated as well and also when their taxes that we pay are low, but high enough not to hurt the economy. But so they can do the things that they should be doing. Again that are decided ahead of time. One of the problems with the Federal Government right now, is that it doesn’t budget and borrows 40% of the revenue it spends and this gives them a lot of freedom to do a lot of things.

The Federal Government, used to operate under a budget and we need to get back to that. We need a lot of economic freedom again that’s low taxed. With a maximum amount of free, fair and open competition. With anti-monopoly laws that can be enforced and are enforced. Let business’s and individuals run their business’s as they see fit, as long as they are not abusing anyone with their freedom. Including their workforce, without them they would be out of business. What doesn’t work in America is Cowboy Capitalism as we are finding out the hard way and socialism. Which so far we’ve avoided going down that road and only have a safety net. What works in America is American capitalism as I just laid out and regulation as well as economic freedom have to be part of that.


Saturday, October 8, 2011

Liberty Pen: Phil Donahue Show- Milton Friedman on Self-Interest & Self-Ownership- From 1979

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Now: Liberty Pen: Phil Donahue Show- Self-Interest & Self-Ownership- From 1979

I have a lot of respect for Libertarian Economist Milton Friedman, but we don’t agree on everything. I believe under the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution, that government has a right and responsibility to look after the safety of its people. I believe that government has a right to regulate free enterprise. In this sense to protect the safety of its people. Like forcing them to make cars that are reasonably safe. And this is where Dr. Friedman and I disagree. But government doesn’t have a role to tell auto companies what kind of cars to make. Except in how it relates to public safety.

Otherwise if people want to buy something, there will be market for people to buy it. Government doesn’t need to come in and try to force things on people. And shouldn’t try to prevent people from doing things, as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their activities. The power of American capitalism, is that if people have something to sell and then are able to market it and convince other people who they should buy what they are trying to sell, then they’ll end up selling a lot of what they have. You don’t need government to step in and force people to buy their products. The people know better than anyone what they should be buying, what they need and what they can afford. And if people have products to sell and convince a lot of people that what they have is worth buying. Then they’ll be able to sell a lot of what they produce and make a very good profit from that.

I make this case to supporters of single payer health insurance on a regular basis. That if single payer health insurance is so great and that we need a health insurance monopoly in America, that they should have no problem convincing people of that. And that they should take their message to the people. Instead of trying to get the Federal Government to force single payer down the throats of the country. Giving us no choice in where we have to go for health insurance or how we pay for our health care. But as long as 3/5 people in America like their Health Insurance and don’t want the Federal Government to come in and force them to switch health insurers, single payer supporters are going to have a very tough time at convincing people that they are right.

And then single payer supporters have to try to convince 3/5 Americans, that They are wrong about their own health insurance that they have selected for themselves. So what single payer supporters have to do, is take their message to the people instead. State by state like what is going on in Vermont and convince Americans state by state, that they are right about health insurance and the rest of the country is wrong. This is the power of the market. If people want fast cars, then fast cars will be made. If they want to eat healthy, a lot of healthy food will be made. They want to stop drinking, the alcohol industry will lose a lot of money. Government shouldn’t try to make these decisions for us by mandating them on us. If they want us to do something, provide some incentive instead of trying to take the freedom we have away. To make those decisions for ourselves.

Friday, September 16, 2011

The New American: Dan Smoot Report: A Constitutional Republic

Dan Smoot
The New American: Dan Smoot Report: A Constitutional Republic

It’s not a Constitutional Republic that should be goal for people who believe in individual freedom, but individual freedom that should be the goal. And then figuring out what type of governmental system is best that guarantees individual freedom for its people. A Constitutional Republic, doesn’t guarantee freedom, Egypt is a republic with a constitution. But even after the fall of the Mubarak Regime which was very authoritarian, they are still not a democracy ye,t but hopefully for the Egyptian people are moving in that direction.

And if individual freedom is a goal, then its democracy that you want. And then you have to figure out what type of democracy you want. A liberal democracy, conservative democracy in a neoconservative sense, not classical conservative and they are different. Or a social democracy, or a majoritarian democracy and then you have to figure out exactly what’s the best type of government to guarantee your democracy. If that is what you want, then you’re a democrat in the sense you believe in democracy. Small d democrat, actually both democrats and republicans are democrats. Republicans being Small d democrats. They both believe in democracy just have different views in what democracy is.

If you’re a Liberal such as myself, or a Conservative or Libertarian, you believe in liberal democracy. The ability for individuals to have the liberty to live their own lives and not be harassed by government. As long as they are not hurting any innocent people with their actions. Thats called individual liberty, or Freedom, means the same thing. If you’re a Socialist, or Democratic Socialist, you believe in social democracy. With a lot of individual liberty for the people when it comes to social freedom , for the most part, but where the state is highly involved in the economy.

With a social democracy, you get a big centralized government providing a lot of social services through a welfare state financed through high taxes. If you’re lets say a majoritarian for lack of a better word, that government has to be responsive to a majority of the people and what the majority wants is what the country gets and minority rights aren’t respected, then of course you want a majoritarian democracy. Where the majority rules over the minority and gets what they wants. And can make the minority do things, even if the minority doesn’t want to do these things.

After you figure out what type of democracy you want, you have to figure out what type of government is the best form to provide and guarantee this democracy. America as I see it is a liberal democracy and not just saying this because I’m a liberal, but its the case we are and have been a liberal democracy in the form of a Constitutional Federal Republic. Thats designed to guarantee our constitutional rights. Where Europe is made up of mostly socialist democracy’s. Mostly in the form of Constitutional Federal Republics, like in Germany, France and Italy, to use as examples.

And in Britain’s case, they are a social democracy with a monarchy. So if you’re a Liberal, Conservative, or a Libertarian, you probably prefer the American form of government. And if you’re a Socialist, you prefer the European form of government. And Liberals, Conservatives and libertarians debate Socialists in America all the time about what’s the best form of government, America, or Europe. And I’m in these debates on a regular basis as well.


Tuesday, September 13, 2011

The New American: Dan Smoot Report: Basic Constitutional Government: 1960s Leader of The Tea Party?

Dan Smoot
The New American: Dan Smoot Report: Basic Constitutional Government: 1960s Leader of The Tea Party?

If you’re a supporter of limited government, as well as individual freedom, that without limited government, individual freedom is threatened, as I am, then you believe in the U.S. Constitution. Because that’s what it’s about. The theory being that the more power that government and I mean any government at any level, has to regulate our lives and do more for us and take more of our money, the less freedom that we have to live our own lives and do these things for ourselves. It’s a big difference between America and Europe.

Where America in many ways is about individualism, the liberty for Americans to live their own lives without being harassed by government. And government taking a lot of their money away from them. Where Europe in a lot of ways is about collectivism. “That we are all in this together meaning life and that we need to put a lot of our resources together into one pot. For the betterment of all people. And government will take this money from people to make the country as good as possible. Through government services basically.”

This is a simple way of putting it, but accurate. If you’re a what’s called Constitutional Conservative, or a Constitutional Constructionist, that you basically believe that government should only do what is laid out for it in the Constitution, that you take that text to be literal and only read the constitution in its literal sense, then of course a lot of what the Federal Government does today would be unconstitutional as you see it.

For me, I see the Constitution as meaning that it’s based on limited government and individual freedom. And the main role of the Federal Government is to protect our individual freedom and not harass us. And not get involved in areas like medical care. Except to regulate it, or marriage at all, except to maybe how it relates to the tax code. Or marijuana, or alcohol, tobacco, prostitution, pornography, etc. Let the people live their own lives as they see fit. That free people have the right to live freely in a free society.

That government should only be doing what the people can’t for themselves, or not as well. That government should be there to regulate and protect. Not regulate people, but regulate how people interact with each other, which is different. Step in when innocent people are being abused unfairly and protect and defend the country. Law Enforcement and a military, both strong, efficient and affordable enough to defend the country. Basically looking after the welfare of the people like a referee, but not try to control the people. With the Welfare Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

I wouldn’t eliminate a lot of the programs that the Federal Government currently operates. I would just reform a lot of them. Most of them in the social welfare area by making them independent of the Federal Government. And letting each state set up their own system in how these services would be operated in their state. That would have to meet basic Federal standards and also run independently of the state and local governments as well. If we had a Federal Government like this, then I believe we could answer a lot of questions and settle debates. About the role of the Federal Government and what its supposed to do under the U.S. Constitution.


Monday, July 18, 2011

Liberty Pen: Milton Friedman on Collectivism- Collectivism vs Individualism

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeState Now

What is collectivism? It’s a belief by Socialists (and others) that no one in society should have more than anyone else essentially. That we are all in it together and that we should all put our resources to make society better as a whole. Even if some people have the skills and are productive enough to get a lot more out of life (so to speak) than others. In a Collectivist Society in a perfect world, there wouldn’t be any winners or losers essentially. We would all be even at least on paper. Now try imagining a sports event without any winners or losers, no champions right. What would be the point of watching the game? Athletes would essentially be entertainers, what would be the point of teams getting better and acquiring better players and coaches. If you know the answers to these questions, I would suggest that you’re a collectivist, someone who believes in collectivism. Now collectivism is a fine goal, even I will admit that, but that’s basically it a goal that you would see in a perfect world but not in real-life.

Imagine a world of no winners and losers , what would be the point of individual achievement and working hard and being productive as possible. Because the benefits that someone would receive from achieving those things, would be just as equal as the people who didn’t achieve on their own, who didn’t work hard, perhaps didn’t finish school, who weren’t productive. Someone who didn’t make them self the best person that they can be. Another issue with collectivism that I have is one of the ways that it achieves it. By taxing people at really high rates to take care of people who aren’t productive enough to even take care of themselves. Which sends two bad messages in my view. It tells productive people that they shouldn’t work hard and be productive. Because government is going to tax you so high, that you won’t see much of what you worked and well to produce. It also tells people that they don’t need to work hard and be productive, because the people who do those things will take care of you. And we would be left with a society of a lot of unproductive people.

Individualism or individualists which I’m one, believe that people should be encouraged to get a good education to work hard and be productive as they possibly can. And then collect a lot of the earnings from their work to be able to spend as they please. Yes pay their taxes based on their ability to pay, with the rich paying more than the middle class and poor and the middle class paying more than the poor. But not at such a high tax rate that it discourages people to earn a good living. This is how developed countries succeed, at least the large ones, where people have enough incentive to work hard and earn a good living. Individualism is not even a liberal, conservative or a libertarian value, but all three of these political ideology’s share it.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Fritz 5173: Tina Turner Viva La Money: Tina Turner, a Rock & R&B Goddess

Source: Fritz 5173-Tina Turner-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal Plus

Tina Turner to me is the Queen of Blues Rock because of her songs, her sound, her lyrics, her style. And the realness she puts into her music. She not only has one of the best singing voices in the music business, but one of the best sounds. She combines both classic rock with rhythm and blues as well as about anyone. Only Eric Clapton and Bob Dylan both Hall of Famers when it comes to musical artists I believe are better than Tina.

Tina doesn’t have one or two great songs, but a long list of great songs. Like Proud Mary, Rolling on the River, Simply the Best, I don’t Want to Fight and others. She’s not a one-hit wonder, but a master of developing hits that goes back to the 1960s. Because of how professional she is and how hard she works. She’s dedicated to her craft which someone would have to be to look, sound and perform as well as she has at now 71 years old.

She’s a Hall of Famer as a rocker, but also as a human being and I hope she last for years if not decades to come. And I wouldn’t be surprised if she does now in her early seventies. Because of how professional and dedicated to her craft she is. Tina Turner is the Queen of Blues Rock and Simply the Best at what she does because of her talent and how hard and well she works.
Fritz 5173: Tina Turner- Viva La Money 1979




Friday, June 3, 2011

Captain Cruise Control: Alyssa Milano's NFL Commercial

Source: Alyssa Milano-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal Plus

I used to have the impression of actress/comedian Alyssa Milano as a little baby-face cutie, who became famous from Who’s the Boss, Melrose Place and later Charmed. Who yes was and is beautiful, but her baby-face looks is what I noticed about her physically. But the last few years, she’s grown up physically and I’ve seen her in a couple of denim jeans commercials and she has looked great in them.

And she’s clearly has sex appeal while still being as adorable as she probably always has been. But now we see her out in public showcasing her sex appeal, the legs especially and even her butt. Lately we’ve seen a lot of her out in tight denim jeans in leather boots and photographers love to take her picture out in this outfit. Why wouldn’t they, she’s a beautiful sexy women and she loves to showcase that.

Not many better ways if any for a sexy women to show what she’s working with, especially the lower body, than tight denim jeans with boots. Whether it jeans in boots which is more common today, or jeans over boots, which is classic and still sexy, for women and men. Alyssa Milano is no longer a baby cutie, she’s still baby-face and probably always be that.

But now Alyssa has a women’s body to go with that. You gotta to be sexy women, a grownup to pull off the tight denim jeans in boots look. You have to have legs where you are short, average, or tall and that means healthy looking legs. Rail-thin women look rail-thin in this look and of course skinny jeans make obese women look ever large. But now Alyssa is a sexy women with a beautiful bab0-face that looks great in jeans in boots.
Captain Cruise Control: Alyssa Milano's NFL Commercial



Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Los Angeles Times: Report: Esmeralda Bermundez: This Bluesman Knows Whereof He Sings

Los Angeles Times: Report: Esmeralda Bermundez: This Bluesman Knows Whereof He Sings

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

I love probably everything about blues music. And if there’s something about it I don’t love, I don’t know what that is off the top of my head. I love the beat, the sound, I love what blues music is written about. And its versatility and no it’s not all depressing. I probably love the singing voices that come with blues music the most. And the passion that blues vocalists put into their singing. I especially love it when blues is mixed in with classic rock. My two favorite types of music and you get blues rock out of it as its combo.

From artists like Chuck Berry, Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Matthews Sheryl Crow and others. Combining the worlds of rhythm and blues with classic rock into one perfect sound. It takes a special type of voice to sing the blues, not everyone can sing it. You have to be able to reach way down into your vocal cords and pull it out without screaming. You need to have a lot of passion in your voice as well as true feeling. Which is one reason why I love the sound so much.

Because it takes a lot of talent to pull it off. And not everyone can sing it, which makes the great blues artists that much better because of how they stand out. Because they represent such a small percentage of people who can sing to this music. I love watching and listening to the blues. I love watching Sexy Women dance to it. It’s the perfect sound and perfect style of music, which is why its the best. The diversity of blues rock as well. It’s not owned by one ethnic or racial group in America. Or one region, but it is truly an American form of music that represents America as a whole.


Sunday, May 29, 2011

Bristol RE: Women in Jeans in Boots in London

Source: Bristol RE-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal Plus

One of the things I like about traveling and even flying and hanging out at airports, especially big city airports in big metro areas like Washington, is spending a couple of hours of free time checking out sexy women there. And how they look and what they are wearing. Whether I’m at the gate or at a food court and watching them walk by, as I’m doing something else. So I don’t look like an undercover agent or worse, a pervert.

Sexy women feel the need to look great out in public. “look at me check me out”, it’s one of the things that makes them sexy. Perhaps especially at big city airports, where there are lot’s of people. What type of luggage they are carrying, what type of technology they have. And my favorite, actually the only thing I pay attention to in this regard, what they are wearing and how they look in their outfits.

Sexy women seem to have a need to wear tight outfits at the airport, not complaining here. Especially tight denim jeans and of course they love wearing them with boots, under their jeans or over their jeans. You even see them in America wearing tight leather jeans at the airport. But unfortunately not many other places, except for maybe clubs and concerts. It really provides motivation for me to show up at the airport on time.

So I have time to kill and see what else is going on. If you’re a big fan of sexy women wearing boots with tight jeans, check out your local airport. That is when you’re flying it picking someone up, or have other legitimate business there. Not there to pick up girls like a pimp or something. Especially if you live in a major metro area and you’ll see plenty of women that you like.
Bristol RE: Women in Jeans in Boots in London





Saturday, April 30, 2011

DSRT Princess: Lauren Koslow on Criminal Minds- Suspect Behavior



Source: CBS's Criminal Minds- Lauren Koslow-
Source: DSRT Princess: Lauren Koslow on Criminal Minds- Suspect Behavior

Lauren Koslow, is known as Kate Roberts of NBC’s Days of Our Lives. She might actually be better known as Kate Roberts, or Cutie Katie as I call her, than Lauren Koslow. Perhaps if she changed her name to Kate Roberts, she would be a more well-known star. Because she is a star and plays the, well lets say, tough babe on Days as well as it can be played. Tough, but straight-talking and straight-forward. She is a schemer on that show, but has no issues in letting people especially her opponents know where she stands on things and how she feels about people.

I didn’t see the full episode of this Criminal Minds show and have never been a regular viewer of the show and have only caught a few reruns of it. But what I saw in this video of Lauren playing a doctor, instead of the businesswomen she plays of Days, doesn’t look that much different from the women she plays on Days. Cutie Katie, (as I call her) is so freaking adorable, baby-face cute and gorgeous with the voice, hair, personality and sense of humor to match. And has a habit of pissing people off. Because she’s so straight-forward and blunt and simply doesn’t like many people. One, to defend her family and interests. But the other to simply get people she doesn’t like and sees as threats.

The Justine Bateman character on this show, if you’re familiar with Family Ties and Mallory Keaton, you know who Justine Bateman is. And she’s also the sister of comedic actor Jason Bateman. Is obviously not happy with Dr. What’s Her Name (no, I don’t think that’s her real name) played by Lauren Koslow. To the point she’s so angry with The Doctor that she’ll try to shut her up and tape her mouth shut. Well if you’re familiar Kate Roberts, again played by Lauren Koslow on Days, you know that tape and perhaps only knocking her unconscious will shut her up. So this character played by Lauren on Criminal Minds, doesn’t look that different from Kate Roberts from Days. At least to me.