Derik Schneider Online

Life is a Highway

Life is a Highway
Source: YouTube

Thursday, 17 November 2011

Talking Points Memo: Video: "Senator Barack Obama Confesses to Socialists Leanings": Who Isn't a Socialist in America?


This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates

I’ll admit as a Liberal Democrat I’m not completely satisfied with the politics of President Obama. I didn’t like his politics as primary candidate Obama in 2008. I thought he was running to the Far-Left as a McGovernite New-Left government can do everything for everybody Social Democrat. I like him more as Democratic nominee Obama in the general election. When he ran as a New Democrat Liberal to get independent voters to vote for him. As President Obama he’s been a bit too weak and timid for me. But the results so far have been pretty good, 
Especially comparing where the country was three years ago and where we are today as President. But three years ago the economy was collapsing, so it is not hard to much  better than that. It would be like saying you inherit a winless football team and then you win four games the next season and you say, "see, I told you things would get better". President Obama has governed as a moderate Progressive. Somewhere between Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton. Not as a Liberal Democrat in the JFK sense, which is what I was hoping for.

The first Liberal Democratic President since Bill Clinton or even Jack Kennedy. But JFK at least as far as I'm concern is the God of modern liberalism in it's realest form. So saying you are not as good as a Liberal as Jack Kennedy, would be like saying you are not as good as a quarterback as Joe Montana. Anything close to that, is more than acceptable.  I’ve been with the President for the most part on economic and foreign policy. But I’ve been disappointed with him on national security, especially with the Patriot Act and Indefinite Detention.

President Obama hasn't eliminated big government when it comes to civil liberties. He's grown it like plants use water to grow to the point that he makes Dick Cheney look like small government Libertarian when it comes to civil liberties. Dick Cheney is actually a secret admirer of Barack Obama in this area and writes him love letters about it. Which scares the hell out of Barack and Michelle, but not to the point he changes his policies about security, privacy and liberty. 
The Patriot Act and indefinite detention, two things that then Senator Obama  used to be against as well, but now as President he’s for them. "I'm against these policies when I'm running for office and need votes. But now I have to govern and look strong on national security, so I'm for them". President Obama on truth serum.  I disagree with President Obama on the War on Drugs. I think as a lawyer as skilled as the President is, that he would be against the War on Drugs. Especially with his liberal leanings, but the President has escalated the War on Drugs. Which tells me again that Barack thinking with his head, knows the War on Drugs is a failure. But Barack the politician believes he needs the votes of Independents who perhaps are more big government on this issues.

Anyone who understands socialism, understands that Barack Obama isn’t one of them. Which is why Today's so-called Progressives, who are really locked in the closet Socialists, don’t like him. And anyone who understands liberalism, probably generally likes Barack Obama, but are disappointed with him as well. To describe Barack Obama’s politics I believe is fairly simple. In his heart I believe he’s a Liberal Democrat who considers Jack Kennedy to be one of his heroes. But as President he’s a moderate Progressive who rather govern, then fight the good fights and not come up with nothing. Making him a pragmatist, which is what most successful Presidents are.

Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Campbell 1308: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- Michael Moore Says Occupy Wall Street Will Only Get Bigger

Source: MSNBC-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates

Wow! I’m shocked that Michael Moore one of the leading Progressives/Democratic Socialists in America, is behind the Occupy Wall Street movement. I’m not sure he has much credibility on the issue. Bashing a governmental and economic system that he’s benefited greatly from. Fine, he sees a country that’s in a lot of trouble and wants to see us get through this and recover from it. I get that, but bashing a system that he’s benefited from, is hard to swallow.

The agenda of Occupy Wall Street I believe is pretty clear. They see America in a lot of trouble and blame Wall Street and capitalism for our problems and would like to see us move to an economic system that looks like Sweden or France. Where the people get education including higher ED, transportation, health care, health insurance, pension childcare, perhaps even housing and banking. Not paid for by the Federal Government, but by taxpayers. The Federal Government would take a lot of our money and if you’re in the middle class right now and have seen your wages go down in the last ten years and are worried about being laid off next week or next month. And feel overtaxed.

If you think you’re overtaxed right now, check out the social democratic system’s of Scandinavia. Forget about the middle class tax hike in any flat tax, because these Tax Hikes would trample that. Talking about the lowest tax rate starting around 25%. Going back to the 1950s tax rates. And those are for people making 25-30K a year. Just over the poverty line. Try living in Washington, New York or San Francisco making that type of money and paying those taxes. First of all you probably wouldn’t be able to afford to and if you did, you would probably be heavily dependent on public assistance just to survive. Instead of having the individual liberty to take care of yourself.

The last ten years we’ve been living under Cowboy Economics. Where the wealthy pay very little in taxes after all the tax deductions. And everything else compared to what they make. Where we essentially have very little if no rules in our economy, where we got screwed over by big banks. And then where we bail them out for behaving badly at taxpayer expense. Tell me if that sounds backwards or not. And where the middle class have gotten royally screwed. Where our poverty rate has essentially doubled from 13% in the 1990s.

That’s what a neoconservative economic policy looks like. Oh by the way two unfunded wars. And an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit. This is what economics looks like coming from the Far-Right. And now what we have coming from the Far-Left of course is the complete opposite direction. What we need to do is get back to American capitalism that worked in the 1990s where government pays for its operations. Keeps its expenses down, where we have a lot of economic liberty. But where it’s also regulated. And we need to start building things and selling them at home and abroad again. That’s how we rebuild our economy.

What we need to do is stop doing what doesn’t work which is Cowboy Borrow and Spend Economics. And not move to democratic socialism either. But get back to American capitalism which is how we got to be the number economic and military power of the world. Essentially the leader of the free world and avoid going back or moving to extremes.
Campbell 1308: Countdown With Keith Olbermann- Michael Moore Says Occupy Wall Street Will Only Get Bigger


Tuesday, 27 September 2011

Richard Nixon Library: Oral History- Tim Naftali Interviewing George McGovern

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates

George McGovern was someone with one hell of a political and professional resume. Who represented South Dakota in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate as a Leftist-Democrat in one of the reddest states in the union. And yet he represented South Dakota in Congress for twenty-two years. Who served as Director of the U.S. Food For Peace Program, who won the Democratic Party nomination for President in 1972, who rebuilt the Democratic Party almost on his own. By bringing in so many new Democrats. Who thought the Democratic Party was still the Dixiecrat Party that didn’t welcome ethnic or racial-minorities or women and so-forth.

Senator McGovern benefited the Democratic Party by 1976 with Jimmy Carter being elected President in 1976. Who was a Liberal Democrat from the South, but not as far to the left as the national Democratic Party. George McGovern was a man who truly believed in public service. That it was about representing the public and not furthering your career financially. George McGovern grew up in the New Deal era in the Democratic Party era. The Democratic Socialist or Progressive Era of Franklin Roosevelt and thought this was the politics of the future. And something that he believed in and was the dominant political philosophy up until the late 1960s or so.

The problem that Senator McGovern had was that by the time he was a national Democrat and becoming a major contender For President of the United States, Senator McGovern was still a New Deal Progressive Democrat. During a time when the country was moving to the right on economic policy and when high taxes, Welfare, big government were becoming unpopular.Yet Senator McGovern was not just running as a New Deal or Great Society Progressive Democrat, but as someone who in his 1972 presidential campaign wanted to create round three and create a real welfare state in America. And create a national healthcare system to use as an example. When high taxes were becoming unpopular.

The main difference between Barry Goldwater and George McGovern’s landslide presidential losses, is that Senator Goldwater was ahead of his tome and the country wasn’t quite ready for his let’s call it conservative-libertarianism in 1964. At the heart of the Great Society era in the country. But in Senator McGovern’s case the country moved past his and LBJ’s progressivism and democratic socialism. And that we just didn’t need t have the New Deal and Great Society. But that we needed to expand it and create a real welfare state in America. Like they have in Scandinavia to use as an example. With things like a national healthcare system universal higher education run by the Federal Government. Americans by in large, weren’t ready for democratic socialism in the 1970s.

Senator McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign, wanted a lot more Federal funding for public-schools in this country as well as regulations and so-forth. And the country simply didn’t want to pay the taxes to finance all of these new public programs. By 1976 the New-Democratic wing in the Democratic Party (the real Liberal wing of the party) that has a healthy skepticism of governmental-power in the economy and our personal lives, but not anti-government, was already forming. And were replacing the Dixiecrats in the party that were becoming Republicans. Jimmy Carter perfect example of that. So by 1976 the Democratic Party and country were moving past FDR progressive policies and Lyndon Johnson. So of course they weren’t ready for a Democratic Socialist (the Bernie Sanders of hims time) in George McGovern.

But what I call the McGovern wing of the Democratic Party, that’s different from the FDR or LBJ wing, was forming, but hasn’t had the power to nominate another McGovern Socialist to run for President in the Democratic Party. They tried with McGovern again in 1984, Jesse Jackson in 84 and 88, Dennis Kucinich in 2004 and 2008. But none of these Far-Leftist Democrats, have come even close to being a major contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. And we are now seeing McGovern-Democrats running for President in social democratic third-parties. George McGovern’s legacy for the Democratic Party, is that he expanded it. Taken it away from the right-wing Religious-Right of the South. And giving the Republican Party a Christmas gift from hell. And turning the Democratic Party into more of a Northern and West Coast party. That relies on minorities and women, to be successful politically.

Saturday, 23 July 2011

The Book Archive-C-SPAN: Washington Journal With Brian Lamb- Christopher Hitchens & Richard Brookheiser in 1996

This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates

To put it simply, the best way to help poor people move to the middle class and become self- sufficient and not need public assistance for their daily survival, is to give them temporary financial assistance and child care, so they can survive in the short-term, yes. But to move them out of poverty, they education, to give them an  opportunity to get their GED or go back to high school, as well as go to college like a technical school. So they can get the education and skills that they need, so they can get a good job to support themselves and their family's. And then finally job placement, help them find a good job that they are qualified for. So they can support themselves and their family's on their own and no longer need public assistance.

Along with deficit reduction and balancing the Federal budget, Welfare Reform of 1996, is President Bill Clinton's biggest achievement. It moved millions of people who would probably still be on Welfare Insurance today or working multiple minimum wage jobs just to barely survive today. Had it not been for the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. Millions of people who were on Welfare Insurance twenty years ago, now have good jobs today and some of them even own their own business's or manage a business. Then Governor Bill Clinton who made Welfare Reform a big part of his 1992 presidential campaign, didn't make a big push to pass a bill out of Congress his first two years. When he had a Democratic Congress, including a forty-seat majority in the House.

Even though President Clinton had good ideas on Welfare Reform, like education, job placement and child care. So these single parents could leave the home to go to school or look for work. His calculation was probably that he would never get the votes at least in the House, because the Far-Left flank in the Democratic Party there would never go along with a bill that had time limits for Welfare deficit reduction, the crime bill, Family Medical Leave and of course the nightmarish debacle of health care reform. All things he passed in his first two years except for health care reform. It took a Republican Congress for President Clinton to finally incorporate his ideas as well as republican ideas to make it law. And it was by far the best legislation that a Republican Congress in modern times has ever passed.

What we tried in the 1930s and 1960s with anti-poverty programs, where you essentially just give low-income low-skilled people money and expect nothing from them, that the "cycle of poverty" would just go away on its own, clearly did not work. Sixty-years later poverty was still a big problem in America which is why it was reformed. But in the 1990s we finally saw record reductions in poverty down to as low as 13%. One of those reasons being the economic expansion of that decade. But if you're low-income and low-skilled, you won't see the benefits of any economic expansion. Which is a big reason why Welfare Reform was so important, because it empowered low-skilled people to get the skills that they need to get themselves out of poverty and into the middle class.

Saturday, 11 June 2011

Huffington Post: Opinion- Richard Eskow- If the President Won't Do Something About Jobs, Who Will?: The On The Other Hand President

Huffington Post: Opinion: Richard Eskow: If the President Won't Do Something About Jobs, Who Will?

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

Ever since the mid-term elections of 2010, the President has been in full reelection mode. Thinking that if Democrats can lose the House, he could lose the White House just as easily. And every decision and policy position and speech he’s given, has been based on that. Only when President Obama has to take a stand on anything, its after endless concentrated thought on every possible proposal and idea that's out there. Libya being a perfect example of this and then after finally taking a position on anything.

Watching Barack Obama make up his mind on anything, from a distance anyway, is like watching a midget try to tackle an elephant. It is really difficult and painful thing to see that you want it to end and for some resolution to the matter. "If we do this, than that will happen and that will be bad. But if we don't do this, than than this could happen and that might be worst". Politicians who try to please everybody tend to be the most unpopular. Because they end up offending everyone. And that is sort of where President Obama is right now. 

It's the weakest position possible designed to offend the very least. It's  Independent voters that the President is targeting. Meaning that he can’t seem too strong on anything, because he might offend those who look for the middle ground on everything­. Which means that President Obama ends up doing what he wants the least, which is looking weak. Because he can't figure out what the hell he should do. Right now President Obama who’ve I tended to agree with on foreign and economic policy, is the On the Other Hand President. 

"Well if we do this, it could work, but on the other hand if we do this instead, it might work better. And costing the country economically because we have a weak economy that needs strong action". Sometimes you just got to say, screw it! And do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. That is what leadership is about and what being President of the United States is about. The On the Other Hand Presidency might turn out to be Effective Leadership in the long-term. But its definitely weak leadership in the short-term. And costing President Obama popularity and the ability to lead a large divided country.

Tuesday, 7 June 2011

Baltimore Sun: Sports: Jeff Zrebiec: Brian Matusz Good Enough as Orioles Beat Oakland 4-2

Baltimore Sun: Sports: Jeff Zrebiec: Brian Matusz Good Enough as Orioles Beat Oakland 4-2

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

Another decent outing from starting pitcher Brian Matusz as he went 5.1 Innings and gave up two runs. Especially since breaking his arm last year and this being his second game this year. The Orioles got 1 run in the 1st Inning and 3 in the 2nd Inning and that’s all they needed to beat Oakland Athletics and extend their long losing streak. This game goes to show you that when the Orioles score early and take the lead and get timely offense, meaning they hit and score when they need to, they can beat anyone in MLB.

Because of the Orioles starting pitching, the bullpen that they have on paper, that struggled early, but is now improving with two solid middle relievers in Jim Johnson and Kogi Uehara and of course their closer Kevin Gregg Mr. Dangerous, who seems to need runners on base for him to do his job. And with of course their defense especially with Derek Lee coming back at 1B, the Orioles can play with anyone when they get timely offense. It’s just makes their pitching better especially when they score first and early. Because their pitching can just do their jobs and not have to try to be perfect.

The Orioles in 2011 will go as far as their offense plays its role. Because they have the pitching starting and relieving and the defense and the coaching staff. And they have a good lineup on paper with depth. But their offense has struggled most of the season which is why they are 4 games under 500 right now. And hasn’t played up to its capability by far. But if it comes around, the 2011 Orioles will probably have a winning season.

AlterNet: Opinion: David Morris: "Why You Want Government Running Health, Education an d Defense"

AlterNet: Opinion: David Morris: Why You Want Government Running Health, Education and Defense

This post was originally posted at FRS FreeStates on WordPress

The title of this blog from the AlterNet that I read is called “Why You Want the Government Running Health, Education and Defense”. No for real, just look up top incase you missed it. Yet the whole blog is about comparing the American health care system with foreign health care systems. This blog had nothing about education and defense. Because I believe this writer understands that the American public education system isn’t very good right now. We’re ranked I believe by the United Nations, and organization that the Left especially the Far- Left puts a lot of faith in, 39th in the World.

And no one is calling for privatizing the Defense Department. Except for perhaps Dick Cheney, Ron Paul and Libertarians in the Tea Party. Another issue I have with the AlterNet blog is some of its facts. I know, why would the AlterNet care about fact or let them get in their way of a good ideological argument. But saying that in America the private sector runs our health care system and in the rest of the developed world the public sector runs their health care systems. Which is purely false, Holland, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, Taiwan and Japan to use as examples, France, Germany, Italy and Japan all being large countries, all have private/ public health care systems. America has a private/public health care system. Its just different and not nearly as effective as these other countries, with its health insurance.

Socialists like to say that government ownership or management of the economy and other key services, is the best way to go to have the best country possible. And they point to Sweden as their example of how well this system works. Not recognizing or realizing the fact that Sweden has a very large private sector and a lot of their economy is privatized. What Sweden does have and why I call it a social democracy, well because that is exactly what it is, speaking of facts. But what they have is a very large welfare state at least by American standards with very generous benefits financed through high taxes again at least by American standards. In other words the Swedish Government or Swedish Socialists tax most of their people’s money away, so they can give that money back to take care of them. Or another way of putting it, they tax people to death and them bring them back to life with their own money.

The economy’s that work best are the economy’s that privatize most of their economy, but regulate them well to prevent and punish abuses. That has unlimited fair and open competition and a substantial and affordable safety net for people who fall through the cracks. That empowers them to get on their feet. America used to have an economy like this, but we moved away from it and look where we are now. What doesn’t work well in an economy are monopoly’s, whether they are public or private. Where Big Government, “my people are essentially if not officially, because my public school monopoly doesn’t teach them very well. So what I have to do is take most of their money from them to prevent them from spending it unwisely, to take care of them”.

And you can just look at the former Soviet Union, or Cuba or North Korea today. What also doesn’t work well is what I and others would call “cowboy capitalism”. Which is capitalism with essentially no rules or the rules aren’t enforced. Or the referees are paid off and essentially taking coffee breaks over at the closest Starbucks from the stadium the whole game and they allow whatever to happen to happen, the free market being everything that is is. Except that it is not free when the government at taxpayers expense pays these companies for the hell of it, who play by no rules. And I give you the Bush Administration of 2001-2009 as the only example I need. And look at where we are today.

Government should let the people be free to live their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Thats the economy that works the best, freedom with responsibility. I don’t and I imagine most Americans don’t want a federal, or for that matter a state, country or municipal babysitter, meaning government to take care of us, for us, at of course our expense. Big Government to its taxpayers, “give me your money, so I can take care of you for you”. Uh no, just give the people the tools they need in life to be successful and allow for them to take care of themselves. Freedom and responsibility, reward good behavior and discourage bad behavior.

Saturday, 21 May 2011

Mary Queen of Shops: Designer Jeans Advice From Mary Portas


Source: Flickr-
Source: Mary Queen of Shops: Designer Jeans Advice From Mary Portas

The jeans denim explosion especially since the late 1990s and which went even further in the last decade and has probably gotten even bigger in the first two years of this decade especially with skinny denim and leather jeans for women. And with skinny jeans for women that have been around since 2005 or 06 which as guy I gotta admit I think it's great checking out sexy women who love their tight jeans. Especially checking out sexy female celebrity's in their tight jeans. And now that even tight jeans have become such a versatile pant for women, no longer considered just a casual pant. It has completely changed how sexy women dress in and out of work.

With women now wearing skinny jeans to the office, not just on Casual Friday, as well as out on the weekend and at night. And wearing them in all weather not just in the fall or winter. But during hot humid summers, like in the Mid-West, Mid-Atlantic and Southeast. Wearing tight jeans not just with t-shirts and tank tops, but with sweaters, blouses, suit jackets it's become very important for women to make sure that when they are out in tight jeans or shopping for tight jeans, that they are wearing the tight jeans and buying the tight jeans that show off their bodies as best as possible.

That they don't wear tight jeans that make them look fat, skinny or look like hookers. Like with the famous ass crack jeans of 2001-02. Where if a women sat down or bended over, she was at risk of revealing her ass crack and perhaps seeing it on TV or the internet or both. Especially with the camcorder revolution and people being able to record video on their cell phones. Low-rise jeans, skinny jeans good. Ass crack jeans bad, women should find the balance that makes them look sexy in them. And shows off their figures but doesn't make them look like prostitutes looking for a man to pay their bills.

Perhaps this video can help women find that right balance. Also for me anyway, not a fan of trouser jeans, they might be stylish for a women and make them feel like they can wear jeans to work and still look dressy or professional. But the office far as I'm concern might be the only good place for them. I'm not going to get the feeling to check out a women, I don't care how sexy she is physically, just because she's wearing trouser jeans. I would get the same satisfaction checking out a women wearing baggy sweatpants or slacks.

Denim to me on women anyway, like leather are meant to be tight. One reason why there are both denim jeans and leather jeans and a lot of women and men shopping for both denim and leather jeans that are the tightest possible without sucking the blood from their legs so they can no longer walk. Sort of like that Seinfeld episode (sorry I watched the show a lot) where Kramer was wearing designer jeans from like 1982 or something that were so tight that he literally couldn't move his legs in them.

So low-rise and skinny jeans great, jeans with boots, whether they are under or over the jeans are great. The tight dark wash designer jeans explosion for women in the late 1970s, the greatest advancement in style for women I believe ever. As far as sex appeal goes, but women should where the jeans that are best for their body and don't buy jeans that are for another body. That just causes problems.


Sunday, 1 May 2011

The Doors: The Lizard King Jim Morrison In Concert

Source: The Doors-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal Plus

When I see Oliver Stone’s movie The Doors from 1991, I see a pretty entertaining movie. Where Val Kilmer plays Jim Morrison, the vocalist of The Doors, does a pretty good job of playing the Lizard King. Sings all the lyrics himself, with no lip syncing. Except that he’s three inches taller and a bigger man physically than Jim Morrison.

From what I know about The Doors, the only scenes that were accurate, were the Concert in New Haven from 1967. Where Morrison gets arrested in concert for being vulgar to New Haven police. And the Miami concert, where Morrison again gets arrest for in descent exposure and trying to incite violence. It’s a very entertaining movie, funny even, but a fantasy of what happened with that band and especially Jim Morrison in the late 60s.

Oliver Stone is a big fan of Morrison, but I think he directed the movie, the way he thought Morrison was and his experiences of The Doors. Instead of the way they actually were. Val Kilmer who plays Jim Morrison in the movie, is in I believe all the scenes. The movie looks more like a fictional portrayal of Jim Morrison. Rather than an autobiographical movie of The Doors. Robbie Krieger who was the guitarist in the real band The Doors said that the only scene that happened in real-life, was the Miami concert scene.

The Miami concert wasn’t much of anything other than an improv. With Morrison showing up two hours late for the concert, more drunk than even usual. Jim Morrison didn’t drink like a fish, but a see of fish. He’s too drunk to sing, paranoid and a few minutes into the concert once it finally starts, Jim Morrison stops singing or giving his pathetic personation of singing. And starts cursing at the audience and insulting them. Actually accusing Miami of hiding Adolph Hitler of all people. The concert turned into Amateur Night at the Improv real fast.

One thing that Oliver Stone got correct besides Miami, was the Jim Morrison’s wardrobe. With over an hour of footage of the Lizard King wearing his famous skin-tight lambskin black Leather jeans. Silver concho belt, brown suede cowboy boots and black leather cowboy boots. There’s over an hour footage of Morrison wearing his black leathers the pants that he made stylish on his own. There’s a great line in the movie where Pam, Jim’s girlfriend tells to change those stinky leathers that he’s been wearing the last three weeks. Classic Jim Morrison.

The black skin-tight leather jeans you now see a lot of rockers wearing, I know this only because I’m a big fan of the Lizard King, I love blues rock, The Doors sound. And I own several books and movies about The Doors. So watching this movie was like reading a great fiction. Very entertaining, but you don’t learn anything knew about the subject that your watching. The real Lizard King is in this video.
The Doors: Jim Morrison- Shaman Dances

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

The Nation: Opinion: Dave Zirin: Taking Back The Los Angeles Dodgers?: Public Ownership vs. Government Ownership

The Nation: Opinion: Dave Zirin: Taking Back The Los Angeles Dodgers?

This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Journal on WordPress

I’m not a Socialist in any form, even though I do read The Nation Magazine and I’m in favor of a limited safety Net. Limited form of a safety net being the key words there. But as a Liberal I’m also not a big fan of centralized power, whether it comes from the private or public sectors. Liberals tend not to trust establishment power and like to see it spread around where a lot of the population can benefit from it. We like to see power whether it comes from the private or public sectors to benefit the many and not just the few.

I believe in capitalism and freedom of choice and decentralized Power. Where its spread around and the people can decide for themselves where to get their services from. The Green Bay Packers are an excellent example of this where they are run yes by a CEO, and Board of Directors and stockholders throughout the Green Bay area and the State of Wisconsin. The Packers don’t have one or a few people owning the club and collecting the profits. The Packers aren’t a socialist franchise that’s owned by the government, where the Mayor is essentially the boss of the club. Like Socialists in America have claimed that they are either. But they are owned by the people who are actual stakeholders in the Packers Club. And make money off of them with their stocks.

In today’s corporate dominated sports world, especially in pro team sports, the model of most if not each franchise in the NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA except for the Packers, is that you have one person owning and running the club. Sometimes others as well, but there’s generally a majority owner of the club. MLS is an example of a sports league that has a similar management model as the Packers. But the other four have essentially a strongman running each club. Who’s accountable to no one, other than having to follow the rules of the league.

But for the most part are chief executive of the club accountable only to the profits and makes decisions, good or bad based on that. And these owners are essentially strongmen with no term limits or contracts that they have to sign. In most cases not even a Board of Directors that they have to respond to. So they can pretty much do whatever they want, again as long as they comply with league rules. The Los Angeles Dodgers one of the greatest franchises in both MLB and pro sports in general, at least historically, are going to up for sale. Because the McCourt couple that owns the club, are going through a divorce and their battle has turned into a public soap opera.

And the McCourt’s can no longer afford to run the club. This would be a great opportunity for MLB to install public not government, but public ownership of the club. Where they would have a CEO and their administration, but with a Board of Directors that would represent the stockholders. Meaning the people of Los Angeles and the surrounding market that owns stock in the club, would make profits with their stocks based on how the Dodgers are doing. Where the CEO has a contract and runs for election to get the job and reelection to keep the job. Where the Directors would run for their jobs and run for reelection to keep their jobs.

This would make the Dodgers Management as well as players accountable. And they would know that they need to do a good job to keep their job. The Dodger franchise is worth around 1B$ or more, in a city of 4M people, in a market of 15-17M people. They are a great franchise that would make a great investment for their fans.