Kire Schneider Online

Monday, September 19, 2016

Lock Carge: Real Time With Bill Maher- Christopher Hitchens in 2010

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

The way I look at Catholics and Christians in general when it comes to terrorists and other bad apples like child molesters, is the way I look at Muslims in this sense. There are roughly two-billion Muslims in the world, maybe a hundred-thousand of them are terrorists. You could do a lot with a military of a hundred-thousand especially if you're a mid-size country. But out of two-billon people that is not much of an army when it comes to percentages. The overwhelmingly majority of Muslims in the world are peaceful people. Who may have far-right cultural views, but not to the point they're willing to kill themselves and others to express those views. I'm not Catholic, even though a lot of Germans American and otherwise are Catholic or Lutheran, but most Catholics are good moral people. The sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church in the early and mid two-thousands, was a horrible scandal with a lot of people hurt badly. But if that scandal represented Catholicism in general, we would see a lot more people come forward and share their abuse stories at the hands of Catholic priests and other Catholic leaders. Chris Hitchens and to a certain extent Bill Maher, are guilty of over-generalizing here.

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Britcoin Faucets: Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher-Discussing 9/11 in 2001

This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

To blame Bill Clinton for 9/11 after the Clinton national security team warned the Bush Administration about Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden before the Bush team came into office, is like blaming the Pittsburgh Steelers for the lack of success that the Cleveland Browns have had in the last twenty years. "Hey, if only the Steelers hadn't been so good and beat us over and over, maybe the we the Browns wouldn't have had lost so much. It's all Pittsburgh's fault for our lack of success." The Clinton Administration went after Osama Bin Laden, at least since 1996 when Al-Qaeda attacked one of our ships in the Middle East. America was at peace when the Clinton Administration came into power in 1993 and we were still at peace when they left office in January, 2001. The economy was still booming and the Bush's inherited a budget surplus of two-hundred-billion-dollars and twenty-three-million net jobs.

Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was focused on trying to jump start the economy was starting to slow and worrying about what to do with the record budget surplus they just inherited and thinking they could be allies with Vladimir Putin's Russia and education reform. Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, wasn't a huge priority for them. It wasn't until 9/11 that they became neoconservative defense hawks, thinking that our civil liberties and constitutional rights, might be threatening our national security. And coming up with indefinite detention without arrest, the Patriot Act, that spies on who Americans associate with and what we read even. Where we could become potential suspects and even detained, for what we might read or who we might know. The Bush Administration, didn't have much of a national security or foreign policy, pre-911. The so-called War on Terror, wasn't part of our national language yet.

Did Bill Clinton eliminate Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as President, of course not. But to say they weren't paying attention to him and not trying to do that when they actually tried to assassinate him both in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998, is nonsense. George W. Bush and company, obviously didn't eliminate Osama and Al-Qaeda as well. But President Barack Obama, had Osama assassinated in his third year in office in 2011. And the Obama Administration has come damn close to eliminating Al-Qaeda the last eight years. And have destroyed a lot of ISIS in Syria and Iraq in the last two years. George W. Bush, obviously didn't create Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda either, but they got off to a late start to the threat of that organization. Especially since the previous administration were already going after them. And that the Clinton national security team warned the incoming Bush Administration about the threat in late 2000. According to Clinton counter-terrorism director Richard Clark.

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Canadian-C-SPAN: Christopher Hitchens and Patrick Buchanan, on Bill Clinton in 1993

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

"This is certainly an interesting combo to have Chris Hitchens and Pat Buchanan, on the same show. Hitchens, a self-described Democratic So..."

This is certainly an interesting combo to have Chris Hitchens and Pat Buchanan, on the same show. Hitchens, a self-described Democratic Socialist and Pat Buchanan, would be what's called today an Alt-Rightist. Someone who tends to be against free trade, multiculturalism, non-European immigration and perhaps immigration in general. Anti-internationalism when it comes to foreign policy and not believing that America should be involved in other countries human rights crisis's and civil wars. And then you have Socialist Chris Hitchens, who believes that the big central government, should decide what people need to live well. And that the central government should be responsible for a lot of those services. But tends to break away from Socialists when it came to foreign policy and did believe America and Europe, could play a positive role in seeing that people who live under authoritarian regimes, can break away from authoritarianism and even use military force to break those authoritarian regimes. Hitchens was in favor of America and Europe, being involved in the Balkans in the 1990s. Buchanan was against that. They weren't two men that even though one was clearly on the Left, Far-Left even and the other was on the Far-Right, that you could assume that either would automatically take a certain position on an certain issue.

Saturday, September 3, 2016

Reform Party USA: Official Interview With National Secretary Nicholas Hensley- What is The Reform Party


This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Without the emergence of the Christian-Right in the 1970s and 1980s, there is no Reform Party USA today. Why, because what is the Reform Party and what's the point of it? The Reform Party is what the Republican Party use to be and what they believed in. Before they recruited the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right out of the Democratic Party and into the GOP. They use to believe in fiscal responsibility, economic freedom, strong but limited national defense and foreign policy that's not designed to police the world and they were tolerant or federalist on social issues. Not believing that the Federal Government or government in general, should be used to tell how Americans should live their own lives and make their personal decisions for them. That was the GOP of the 1960s that Dwight Eisenhower essentially created in the 1950s, that Tom Dewey tried to create in the 1940s. That also had a growing conservative-libertarian wing in it led by Barry Goldwater and others.

If Donald Trump takes down the Republican Party in November and they lose the House as well as the Senate and he decides to take his movement with him and perhaps launches a new third-party and perhaps some nationalist party, the Reform Party could become relevant for the first time since Ross Perot launched this movement in the early 1990s. Along with the Libertarians and this is how the Republican Party could become a national party again that can win the presidency, because it would have the members and voters, to compete for the presidency and not need gerrymandered House districts to hold a majority in the House. Or low turnout elections to win a majority in the Senate, because again they would have the voters to be able to compete with Democrats everywhere. Or perhaps the GOP dies and the Reform Party emerges as the new Center-Right party in America. And brings in Libertarians and Northeastern Conservative Republicans.

The Reform Party, to me at least represents the Republican Party when it wasn't owned by the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right in America. A party where the Ku Klux Klan and other Far-Right European-American nationalist groups, didn't feel at home in. Because it was a big-tent party that welcomed African-Americans, Latin-Americans, Jewish-Americans, women, Catholics, immigrants, etc. Where it was the party of Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan and yes even Barry Goldwater. Not Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, David Duke, Donald Trump, or the Tea Party. A party that could not only competed in the Northeast with moderate-conservative Republicans, but in the Midwest and the West with Conservative-Libertarians and even California, but in the South as well. And could win high turnout elections, because it had the members and voters to compete everywhere with the Democratic Party. That is no longer the case for the GOP today.

Sunday, January 3, 2016

Remember This: C-SPAN- Carl Rutan Interviewing Pat Buchanan in 1988: Back to The 1950s and 1980s

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat: Remember This: C-SPAN- Carl Rutan Interviewing Pat Buchanan in 1988: Back to The 1950s and 1980s

The world that Pat Buchanan was talking about and advocating for in this 1988 interview, simply doesn't exist anymore and we were moving away from it in 1988 if not only escaped from there by then. Gays, no longer live in the closet. African-Americans, have just as much right to vote and are treated the same as Caucasian-Americans now. Women, now work and hold very responsible jobs, making good money, running and managing their own business's. The music is much different and much more open about life. Americans, now have the freedom and feel the freedom to be themselves. Which is Americans and individuals and we live our lives the way we want to. Not how Pat Buchanan and other Christian-Conservatives feel we should live.

The 1950s, was great for America in many ways. We were not just the economic superpower of the world, but became the number one military and diplomatic power in the world. This was post-World War II where our economy boomed and our infrastructure system boomed as a result. But the problem with this era was that many Americans didn't benefit from these American advances. Not because of anything that they did, but because of how they were born. Their complexion, their race, their ethnicity, their religion, their gender. Not because they were, or could be any less productive than Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. What the 1960s and the 1980s brought to America, was true individual freedom. Both from a personal and economic standpoint.

If you watch this video,  think you see Pat Buchanan, essentially acknowledging what I'm arguing here. That the America that he grew up with in the 1950s simply no longer exists. And when he was asked, "do you want to use government to bring that America back?" He answered truthfully and honestly and said he doesn't believe that, because its simply not possible. Which is a very practical answer and the correct answer. As far as the 1988 presidential election, you had Vice President George H.W. Bush, for the Republican Party. Who represented President Ronald Reagan and his policies in that election. Going up against Governor Michael Dukakis, who represented the New America and the direction that America has been moving to ever since.

Monday, December 7, 2015

Paramount Movies: Sunset Boulevard 1950- An Aging Silent Film Star Attempts a Comeback With a Hack Screenwriter

This piece was originally posted The Daily Review: Paramount Movies: Sunset Boulevard 1950- An Aging Silent Film Star Attempts a Comeback With a Hack Screenwriter

I don’t like using the word-perfect that often, because perfect is almost never seen and heard of, but Sunset Boulevard along with North by Northwest, is about as close to a perfect movie as anyone could ever see.

Great plot about a young almost wannabe screenwriter who at this point is desperate for work, so he can make his car payment. Whose on the run from repossessors and stops off at what he believes is an abandoned house only to discover that one of the top actress’s ever in Hollywood lives there. Which is how Joe Gillis (played by William Holden) meets Norma Desmond, (played by Gloria Swanson) otherwise they probably never meet each other. Joe Gillis, is considering giving up Hollywood and going back to Ohio and getting a blue-collar job. Norma Desmond, hasn’t worked in a while and the Hollywood studios no longer want her.

Norma Desmond, finds out that Joe Gillis is a Hollywood writer, struggling at that and owes three months back rent on his apartment, as well as a car he can’t afford. She knows he needs money, which is what she has plenty of and needs a job, which she has one for him. She’s not working now as an actress and doesn’t have any roles coming her way and decides to write her own script and get back into movies that way. And hires Joe to be his proofreader and to fix up her script so someone would take it and make a movie from it. Joe, is not impressed with the script so far, but believes he can work with it. Still has friends in Hollywood and has one his friends Betty Schaefer (played by Nancy Olson) help him rewrite the script and they work on it together.

Norma Desmond, is lonely and desperate to get back into movies and doesn’t want to live off her royalties and investments. She wants Joe to perhaps help her get back into the movies, but what I at least believe she’s looking for is male companionship and believes her script will get her back into movies. I don’t think it is ever clear that she thinks Joe Gillis, someone who she’s never heard of who can’t afford either his apartment or car and hasn’t worked in a while, is a talented writer and someone who has a future in Hollywood. Joe, needs a job obviously as well as money and I see them as basically using each other to meet their short-term interests. I don’t see them as a writing team that is going to write their own movie together.

Gloria Swanson, has just turned 50 at this point and so has her character in Sunset Boulevard. But Hollywood already sees her has washed up and way past her prime. Gives you an idea of how Hollywood sees the world different at least in the 1940s and 1950s than the rest of us. And in many ways this movie is pretty sad, because it shows how Hollywood treats its stars once they believe they no longer have any use for them and almost treat them like strangers and as people they don’t want to be seen with anymore. Gloria Swanson, is her beautiful and brilliant self now playing someone who s past her prime, but as an actress she still has everything going for her and is still the star of the movie. Bill Holden, is his usual charming and even funny self who mixes in clever humor in a very serious if not dark and depressing, but a great movie.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

NBA-TV: Kobe Bryant Retiring From The NBA After 2015-16 Season: Kobe Bryant's Time Has Come

NBA-TV: Kobe Bryant Retiring From The NBA After 2015-16 Season: Kobe Bryant's Time Has Come

Probably easy to say this now, but Kobe Bryant’s time to retire from the NBA has been here for a while. And it was really just about him finally seeing that and deciding to give up what has been one of the great NBA careers of all-time. As far as what he’s personally accomplished and what the Los Angeles Lakers have accomplished with him. At least arguably the team of the 2000s winning four NBA Finals and six Western Conference Finals. The player of the 2000s at least if not post-Michael Jordan. 2008 MVP, 11 times All-NBA First team. But the Lakers haven’t made the NBA Playoffs since 2012 and have been pretty bad since. Actually being the second best team not just in Los Angeles, but at Staples Center with the Clippers becoming a real force in the NBA. Yes the Clippers and you’re not seeing that, because you’re high right now. Either on Red Bull, or something illegal.

Kobe, has been beat up the last few seasons, because of age and so many miles that he’s piled up on the NBA court which takes a toll on anyone’s body even great players who accomplish superhuman feats. So Kobe I believe is late on this and the Lakers still aren’t very good and again looking like one of the worst teams in the NBA at 2-13 right now. Headed to their fourth straight non-playoff season in a league where 8-15 teams make the playoffs in each conference. All you have to do is be mediocre to make the NBA Playoffs and the Lakers aren’t even that right now. So as great of a career that Kobe has had and I at least believe the best player post-Michael Jordan, at least in the 2000s. But not the greatest Los Angeles Laker ever. Both Kareem and Magic are better, but it has been time for Kobe to call it a career.

I grew up watching NBA basketball in the 1980s just outside of Washington with the Lakers being my second team behind the Wizards, who were called the Bullets back then. And fell out of love with the Lakers when they signed Shaquille O’Neal and went to a more ball control half court style of offense. Which was common for most NBA teams in the 1990s. But I’ve always have a lot of respect for Kobe Bryant, because he was truly a great player and not just a great talent. He was a gentlemen and professional basketball player in an era of realty TV and pop culture celebrity wannabes who played basketball really just to get on ESPN Sportscenter, be celebrated online and further their NBA careers. Kobe, is very similar to Tim Duncan in how he presents himself as the constant professional who lets his game speak for itself. He was a great player who would have thrived in the NBA hey day of the 1980s just like Big Tim and will be surely missed.