Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: Haiku Deck

Friday, May 31, 2013

Brother Jay: Malcolm X Speaks on Black Economics

Source: Brother Jay-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Real Life Journal Plus

Malcolm X talking about empowering an entire community so they can take care of themselves. And not have to be dependent on government or people who’ve been holding them down for their economic survival. But empowering people to be able to take care of themselves and build their own community. Create their own jobs, business’s economic growth, wealth. And he was talking about educating the African-American community so they can do these things for themselves. I think even Conservatives could respect Malcolm X. Not his racial rhetoric and I don’t respect that aspect about him, because I’m a Liberal. Not because I’m not. But what Conservatives can respect about Malcolm X is for his call for economic freedom and independence. Built around education and economic development. So African-Americans don’t need a welfare state in order to take care of them. And be dependent on public assistance in order to survive. But for African-Americans to be able to create their own economic freedom and independence.
Brother Jay: Malcolm X Speaks on Black Economics

CFL Video: ESPN: CFL 1995-Week 5-Edmonton Eskimos @ San Antonio Texans: Short Video

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

Inter-conference play in the CFL with the Edmonton Eskimos from the North or Canadian Conference, against the San Antonio Texans from the South, or American Conference. Which was really the goal of the CFL when they started their American experiment in the early 1990s. Was to create a continental or can-am league. Between America and Canada with a Canadian conference and an American conference. And have the winners of both conferences play in a continental or North American Championship game. This game between the Eskimos and Texans was a potential preview for the 1995 Grey Cup between Canada and America. Because they were two of the best teams in the CFL that year. The Eskimos were 13-5 and the Texans were 12-6. Both teams making the playoffs and looking to win the CFL Grey Cup. So this was a very good matchup.

CFL Video: TSN: CFL-1995-Week 18-Edmonton Eskimos @ Memphis Mad Dogs: Short Video

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

Here’s a battle between one of the most storied and successful North American, not just CFL, but North American major league pro football franchises in the Edmonton Eskimos and one CFL American expansion franchises in the Memphis Mad Dogs. Who in their two CFL seasons were decent, but struggled to get over 500. A defensive oriented teamed coached by Pepper Rogers, who had some success in college football and the old USFL. But averaged less than twenty points a game in 1995. Which is a hard thing to do. Considering that they play on a longer wider field. The defenses tend to be somewhat undersized. They only play three downs, so you really need to pass the ball more anyway in the CFL to avoid second and long and having to pass to avoid punting on third down. Multiple players able to move in motion on offense pre-snap. Yet I guess the Mad Dogs didn’t have the firepower to take advantage of all of those CFL offensive advantages.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

The Friedman Foundation: Milton Friedman- On Phil Donahue in 1979

Source: The Friedman Foundation- Economics Professor Milton Friedman, on The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979-
Source: FRS Real Life Journal Plus

I love this show and love this interview and if I wasn’t three years old when in 1979, I would’ve watched this show myself. Because here are two guys who agree on practically nothing. Coming from both ends of the political spectrum. With Liberal/Libertarian Milton Friedman on the Right and Progressive/Socialist Phil Donahue on the Left. But knowledgable enough about the others side and these issues to have a good discussion or debate with each other. To do it intelligently and respectfully without yelling at each other.

You have the ultimate of individualists in Liberal/Libertarian Milton Friedman. And about the ultimate as collectivists come in Progressive Phil Donahue. So you have a debate between someone who believes in a free society not an Anarchist. But in the sense that everyone should have the right to live their own lives. As long as they aren’t infringing on others to live their own lives. Against a Collectivist who believes that we are all part of the same society and have a responsibility meaning government to look after the welfare of others. And even at times protect people from themselves.

I’m with Professor Friedman on most if not all the social issues. Legalizing narcotics across the board, would be where I would differ. We agree on marijuana, but I would decriminalize the other narcotics and treat users and addicts as patients and not addicts, at their expense. And I’m with the Professor on most issues when it comes to economic freedom and policy. Except I believe you need government help and empower people who are down get themselves up and off public assistance all together. And to protect customers and innocent people in general from predators who would hurt them. And profit from their bad behavior.
The Friedman Foundation: Milton Friedman- On The Phil Donahue Show, in 1979

Friday, May 17, 2013

Eric Holmberg: Video: Milton Friedman Tries To Help a Future Wall Street Occupier

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStateNow on WordPress

I’m not sure Michael Moore could give Milton Friedman a good debate at any point in his life. Let alone in his mid twenties like he was in 1978. But this debate between a Classical Libertarian or Liberal, as Milton preferred to be viewed like Milton Friedman and an Occupy Wall Streeter let’s say in Michael Moore, who also happens to be part of the one percent because he went to school got himself a good education, got himself a good job, has been very successful now has his own production company and also happens to come from a blue-collar family from Flint, Michigan, is very interesting.

Mike Moore is obviously not a Roosevelt or a Rockefeller or a Kennedy. He’s a man whose earned every dime he’s made in life. Which is a big part of American capitalism. And yet he seems to feel the need to bash an economic system that’s made him so successful. Versus an economic professor a Classical Libertarian, whether you agree with him or not, at least you always knew where he was on the issues. And he always made a good case for what he believed in.

It’s one thing to come from a blue-collar family where your father makes cars for a living or is a construction worker with a very good job with pay, benefits and so forth with a good future in that company if he stays on course. Or be that person yourself and perhaps follow your father’s footsteps and suddenly see that job and future disappear. For Mexico and China where they can pay workers slave wages and treat them like the dirt they walk on. And then say, “this is what you get from American capitalism. Companies going where they can pay their employees the least.”

Even though that same economic system empowered you to be successful before you lost your job. But it’s another thing to bash a system that’s worked so well for you. Where you’ve taken advantage of every opportunity in front to you. Or at least most of them and now say, “even though this works for me and I now will have enough money where I’ll never have to worry about money again. Because I also have this job that I’m very good at that will allow me to make a lot more money.” And say even though it works for you, we should end it and not allow others to benefit from it.

Just the fact that Milton Friedman would give these lectures and take questions from people, who perhaps didn’t listen to a thing he said and based their questions on what they’ve read from him before is a good thing. Because it gave these students an opportunity to hear another viewpoint. Instead of being stuck in their own ideological world. Where there’s never anyone contradicting them. Which is what political speech is about. The opportunity to make your own case, hear the other side and see where you stand afterwords.

Monday, May 6, 2013

Malcolm X Network: Video: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner: Race Relations in Crisis, June 12, 1963

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

Without Malcolm X and Martin L. King we probably never get the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. At least not until someone in the African-American community stepped up and demanded their freedom and to be treated equally under law. And these two men were finally just fed up or pissed off even and tired of being treated like second-class citizens in a country where they had the same constitutional rights as any other race of people in America.

These civil rights leaders brought along people who felt the same way and that’s how movements get started and many times by a leader or leaders who feel similarly about certain issues and feel the need for change and reform as well as progress. And in Dr. King’s case someone who brought in thousands of people if not tens of thousands of people. Of all different races and religions who said that American citizens should not be treated worst or better in a country where they have the same constitutional rights as any other race of people in America.

What the civil rights movement was about was simply about equal rights under the law for all Americans. And denying a race of people, in this case the African race in America the same rights under law as other races of people and in this case Caucasians, was simply unconstitutional under law. And just because racist bigots were in power and had the ability to deny people their constitutional-rights, was not still unacceptable.

And that civil-rights movement was about was defeating the racists in charge and changing the laws. So now denying people equal treatment under the law was not only unconstitutional which it already was. But now it was also illegal and we saw that with the passage of the civil rights laws in 1964, 65 and 68. With President Kennedy sort of kicking off the momentum for these laws with his great primetime speech in 1963. Of course he was assassinated before he saw the passage of the laws, but he finally stepped up and got behind them.

These shows as well as CBS Face The Nation and NBC Meet The Press were great for the civil-rights movement. Because of the attention that it brought to the movement and that civil rights leaders were not criminals or terrorists or crazy people. But were great Americans who all believed in America and believed in individual freedom, but that freedom should be for everyone. Not just for the people because of their race or complexion.