Ederik Schneider Online

Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: Haiku Deck

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Liberty Pen: Ted Ralls- We Get The Politicians We Deserve

Source: Liberty Pen-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To sound like George Carlin, we get the politicians that we deserve. Most if not all of us have voted for someone who has been elected to public office. And for those of us who haven't who you might be able to set up a small club and hold your meetings in a bathroom. Those people probably don't bother to vote. Or vote for losers, or vote for good people in a jurisdiction that has a lot of idiots or crooks. So if you voted for a crook even an oil slick crook, whose fault is that? The crook who knows they are a crook and is just doing what they normally do until they're caught? Or the good person who should know better than to vote for crooks and let their dog eat their homework before they voted?

I at least would argue that voters are always responsible for who they voted for. For anyone who voted for George W. Bush twice for president and now sees him as the worst president in their lifetime, they only have themselves to blame. For anyone who voted for Barack Obama twice for president and now see him as some weak moderate, or even worst. You had opportunities to vote for Dennis Kucinich and Jill Stein in both elections and instead went with the establishment Democrat. Crooked politicians (as if they're any other politicians) don't get reelected over and over because they have guns to all of their constituents heads. They're not Saddam Hussein, or some Marxist who says, 'Vote for me, or go to jail, or even die.'

Crooked politicians, stay in power by buying off their constituents and and taking a hell of a lot of money from groups that don't have the politician's constituents interests at heart and many times what they're protecting goes against their constituents interests. But the crooked politician always has to run for reelection to stay in power. And if they have a smart educated constituency they risk losing. Because someone steps up and says, 'I can beat this bastard and get the support to do it.' And the crook can get voted out. But as long as voters still use, 'the dog ate my homework' excuse and don't bother to do their homework before they decide who to vote for, crooks will continue to get elected and reelected and not be held accountable for their crookedness.
Tuttle Group: Why Politicians Glenn Collision & Mark Reid Deserve Your Vote


Monday, January 18, 2016

All About Judy: Judy Garland- The Jack Paar Program 1962

Source: All About Judy- Jack & Judy-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

Before GetTV started playing reruns of The Judy Garland Show on every Monday night starting back in October, I had heard of her. But didn't know much about her. I thought she was an actress from the 1940s, or something and didn't have much if any idea who she was. That is the advantage of these great classic TV and movie networks is that it gives people such as myself who didn't start watching TV at all until the early 1980s a chance to see what entertainment, Hollywood and what life was like before I was born. Which is something that today's Millennial Generation, who are all about now and everything before that is old school to them, which is bad to them, doesn't seem to grasp. But because GetTV plays The Judy Garland Show I now have a good idea who she was.

Judy Garland, was a hell of an actress, singer and comedian. She was good and funny enough to perform with, well Jack Paar. But Johnny Carson, the Rat Pack with Frank Sinatra and many other great performers. She was adorable, she was very lively, very funny and loved doing her job. She was probably a singer first, but she was a good actress and she was very funny and could make people laugh and also had one of the best and cutest laughs you'll ever see. As you see in this video on Jack Paar. The whole thing about these studio executives who didn't see her as attractive, I don't get all all. Was she Sophia Loren or Marilyn Monroe, or Lana Turner? Of course not, but most women and even entertainers are not. She was very cute, pretty and very good at what she was. Which is one of the best and most versatile entertainers of all-time.
All About Judy: Judy Garland- The Jack Paar Program 1962


Friday, January 15, 2016

NBC: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Rodney Dangerfield in 1981: No Respect

Source: NBC- 
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review 

Every time I hear Rodney Dangerfield talk about his wife I think of the sitcom Married With Children and the marriage between Al and Peggy Bundy. They have two kids as well and that might be the only reason why they stayed married. To hear Al Bundy (played by Ed O'Neal) you would think you were listening to Hot Rod do his standup routine about his wife. But replace Mrs. Dangerfield with Peggy Bundy. They make so many cracks about their wives you would have to think they were drunk when they got married and had kids together. Otherwise why would a sane sober man marry and have kids with a women he doesn't like and isn't attracted to. Unless he's an idiot.

The 'I get no respect' routine is what made Rodney Dangerfield a star. And then add the wife bit and that makes the routine ever better. Because now Rod can say he doesn't even get respect from his wife. Again, how believable this is, you can decide for yourself. Maybe the only reason why Mrs. Dangerfield stayed with Rod is because she rather be with an overweight unattractive successful man, than a handsome well-built loser who can't even hold down a job as a burger flipper at a fast food joint. I mean how hard is it to flip burgers anyway. But perhaps you would have to ask Mrs. Dangerfield that yourself. And she also might show also show you how flip charcoal, I mean burgers as well. But you take away 'I get not respect', what does Hot Rod have going for him. But he played it as well and as long as anyone could.
NBC: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Rodney Dangerfield in 1981


Monday, January 11, 2016

NBC: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Rodney Dangerfield in 1983

Source: NBC- Rodney Dangerfield-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I'm not an expert on Rodney Dangerfield, but I believe this is his best performance on this show. This wasn't an interview at all. Johnny Carson, maybe asked Hot Rod one or two questions. And Rod just did his act with one wisecrack after another. Mostly about his wife and kids which might be why male comedians get married so they can have people they know really well that they can make fun of. Unless they're always on the road and when they're in town they mostly are just hanging out with their mistress and their bastard kids they're keeping a secret in some hell hole of an apartment, its their wife and kids that they know the best.

This wasn't Hot Rod's, 'I get no respect routine.' Where he goes off on some airline for giving his first-class seat away because he was five-seconds late for the flight. Or the great view of the bathroom that he gets when he goes to his favorite restaurant. This was his, 'my wife and kids routine.' Where he goes off on his wife Mary, for sleeping with other guys, because she has to have sex and every time she sees her husband naked she just laughs and can't performed adequately as a result. And his son Joe, for being so dumb and wild that he believes every time Joe goes out he needs a leash. So he doesn't run into doors, because he forgot to open them. And his daughter Sally, who sleeps with her teachers, because she's too dumb to do the work in school. And he did a great job.
NBC: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Rodney Dangerfield in 1983


Friday, January 8, 2016

Tenzin Tsetan Choklay: Daniel Patrick Moynihan on Meet the Press

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Tenzin Tsetan Choklay: Daniel Patrick Moynihan on Meet the Press

In this whole video I was most impressed with Pat Moynihan when he was talking about what became Welfare to Work in 1996. Which is what he supported when he worked for President Richard Nixon in the 1970s. The Nixon Administration, actually proposed what became the 1996 Welfare to Work Law, but in 1969 and pushed it in the early 1970s, but couldn't get it through a Democratic Congress. He advocated for child care grants, so single mothers could go back to school and go to work. He advocated for job training and even work requirements for people on Welfare. So they're simply not collecting government checks, but not trying to move off of Welfare all together.

Now of course as Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, he voted against the 1996 Welfare to Work Law when Congress debated that bipartisan bill that was signed by President Bill Clinton. But before he came to Congress in 1977 that is the type of Welfare system that he wanted. An insurance system for uneducated adults who have kids too soon and aren't ready to take care of them. Who need help getting by in the short-term, but also help them become independent long-term and off public assistance all together. Because they're getting child care assistance for their kids. They're going back to school, they're working for perhaps the first time in their lives and getting themselves the skills to get themselves a good job and get off of Welfare all together.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Federal Expression: Dan Smoot Report- America's Promise

Source: Federal Expression-
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Just to start off with some of the things that Dan Smoot says here. I think you would get a more intelligent analysis from Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity about liberalism and so-called modern liberalism, than Dan Smoot. And that is not a complement. He lumps liberalism in with communism and fascism. Liberals, believe in human rights and individual rights. Communists, don't and believe that a state strong enough to take care of everyone you wouldn't need individual rights. Because everyone would be taken care of by big government. Liberalism, is about liberty, liberation and liberalization. Not statism, especially in a communistic, or theocratic form.

Now as far as what Dan Smoot's main point about President Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. I basically agree with everything he said here, except the nonsense about so-called modern liberalism. President Johnson's goals with the Great Society, was to create a country where everyone would be freedom from anything bad, especially poverty, but discrimination as well. He and his administration, with help from a Democratic Congress and Progressive Republican support in both the House and Senate, otherwise those programs don't pass, built off the New Deal and added new welfare rights to the American safety net. But didn't create some Scandinavian welfare state, where the central state becomes responsible for managing everyone's welfare for them.

So Dan Smoot, is wrong here about what liberalism actually is and what Lyndon Johnson was trying to accomplish with the Great Society. But was right about the dangers of a superstate big government welfare state that assumes responsibility for the personal and economic welfare of each and every individual. But that is not what we have in America and never will. Unless more than half of the country goes on a month long marijuana high and elects Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders President. But you might have a better shot at seeing snow in Atlanta at a Braves games in July, than Stein or Sanders ever getting elected President of the United States. So nothing to be worried about.
Federal Expression: Dan Smoot Report- America's Promise, 1965


Monday, January 4, 2016

My Twitz World: Dan Smoot- Should The U.S Negotiate With Communist China?

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: My Twitz World: Dan Smoot- Should The U.S Negotiate With Communist China?

'Should we negotiate with Communist China?' Is sort of a moot question since we already do. And have been for over forty-years now since the Nixon Administration. And we negotiated with Russia the whole time during the Cold War. Russia, which was a much larger threat than China ever was. At least militarily, but never had the economic strength that the People's Republic of China has today, because the Soviet Union was a total Marxist state, with a complete centralized command and control economy. As the total isolation of the Communist Republic of Cuba showed the least almost sixty-years now, you don't improve Communist states by simply ignoring them.

By America engaging with Russia and Communist states in Eastern Europe during the Cold War proved, was that America was by far a superior society and country. Not a people, but our values and form of government, our freedom, was far superior than anything the Communists could offer their people. We proved that by showing the people in those Communist countries what freedom and democracy were about and why they would want those things for themselves either in America, or back home. Americans, didn't emigrate to Russia during the Cold War for the most part. But Russian and other Slavs in the Soviet Union, as well as Jews, emigrated to America during that period.

So of course America should be negotiating with Communist China, Communist Cuba and Communist Korea, as we did with Communist Russia during the Cold War. Because it simply works, because it allows for people on both sides to see for themselves without government propaganda, the differences between freedom and statism. The quality of life that someone has in a liberal democracy, or even social democracy like in Europe, compared with how they would live in a Marxist state. Where there's no such thing as freedom and individuality. Just a superstate, an obese big government, that is addicted to controlling their own people.