tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41564910021545298122024-03-05T21:31:09.474-08:00FRS FreeState Current Affairs, Politics, History, Sports, Entertainment and Satire From a Liberal Democratic Perspective Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.comBlogger1074125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-29405749362324798062022-01-29T16:10:00.000-08:002023-06-02T11:06:57.306-07:00Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rule, How The Left Was Lost'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiSMs9P4g6R5UR4AGRjs7Q63-FPobR0tzB9weC_VJNEdu-BuNav20BsPxFe1JeNh_jzFgsKs4tkoquJmjUcZHxciW3HUku3BaRH3tSc3MCfzSzdqZJSqkcO8exjQljpmg7Bcd1RrR90_9_us7Kcw9yotgGUxQuhTIqtStgbG__xHq5YMAGbKBgYNg-0g/s1200/Real%20Time%20With%20Bill%20Maher_%20%E2%80%98How%20The%20Left%20Was%20Lost%E2%80%99.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="1200" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiSMs9P4g6R5UR4AGRjs7Q63-FPobR0tzB9weC_VJNEdu-BuNav20BsPxFe1JeNh_jzFgsKs4tkoquJmjUcZHxciW3HUku3BaRH3tSc3MCfzSzdqZJSqkcO8exjQljpmg7Bcd1RrR90_9_us7Kcw9yotgGUxQuhTIqtStgbG__xHq5YMAGbKBgYNg-0g/s320/Real%20Time%20With%20Bill%20Maher_%20%E2%80%98How%20The%20Left%20Was%20Lost%E2%80%99.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?authuser=0&sxsrf=APwXEdcSS9hqRcN7fCQrPFCf4vajvC9pSg:1685302892234&q=New+Rule:+How+the+Left+Was+Lost+%7C+Real+Time+(HBO)+(2022)&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp2OvB4pj_AhViElkFHTLgCX8Q0pQJegQIQhAB&biw=1383&bih=722&dpr=1#imgrc=pZT_tsiSsBYjpM">Real Time With Bill Maher</a>- telling the Far-Left in America to grow up.</td></tr></tbody></table><br />Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2014/08/caney-ment-video-hbos-real-time-with.html#.V41SHiMrJdg">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br /><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">"Bill slams this ridiculous new era of mind-numbing partisanship, where simply speaking truth to your own party can make you an instant hero to the other side." </span></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;">From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdJOLMgY4p0">Real Time With Bill Maher</a> </span></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></span></div><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span style="color: #333333;"><span style="background-color: white;"><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">Because of America's crazy and outdated two-party system, you have two, large, political parties in America, that have two crazy factions in it. Which means you have a Democratic Party that believes in both liberal democracy, quality of opportunity, equal rights, and equal justice, as well as personal freedom is dangerous, capitalism is racist, free speech is bigoted, minorities and women should be treated better than the majority population and Caucasian men. Because the Democratic Party has a Center-Right and Center-Left, that believes in liberal values that I mentioned before and a Far-Left that believes in the crazy values that I just mentioned. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">So America has a Democratic Party that looks and acts like the adults in the room, but only because they are the adults in the room. Who tend to run the Democratic Party and don't need a gerrymandered district to get elected to anything, who can not just get elected statewide in swing states, but who can get elected statewide in Democratic states. (Where Far-left Democrats can't, like in California) And a Far-Left that really should be in the Green Party (when they're not occupying mental institutions) who can't get elected anywhere, to anything, that doesn't just have an overwhelmingly Democratic population, but left-wing Democratic population. </div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on"><br /></div><div dir="ltr" trbidi="on">I'm not saying America should have a parliamentary political system, because that would make me a crazy leftist as well. But the two-party system is why America has a Democratic Party that has two political factions that simply don't agree on much, because the Far-Left has nowhere else to go, because they represent such a small percentage of the country. And the Green Party is simply to small for them to get elected to anything, that's worth anything in America. </div></span></span></div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-43518746136877062262021-08-09T13:10:00.002-07:002022-10-27T11:56:12.976-07:00Associated Press: 'Today in History for August 9th'<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcSK2qC0p3tyci3lbLFjY_sV60j9uiBFUbS8GyTI3XulJ0gBKBdioc8KjQ834w6otCz9wj8Vey_1VGZ6XfwDBjf1RcQY-uMeQlSHXhM1bmtQLzWY5WdhtIq1cXbXSAObQk2ASRhoxOjEQWWdB4VkMz6eG_m4DCVaYXmjE-SI_nc1BYf-GeKp29mpyn5g/s1280/Today%20in%20History%20for%20August%209th.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcSK2qC0p3tyci3lbLFjY_sV60j9uiBFUbS8GyTI3XulJ0gBKBdioc8KjQ834w6otCz9wj8Vey_1VGZ6XfwDBjf1RcQY-uMeQlSHXhM1bmtQLzWY5WdhtIq1cXbXSAObQk2ASRhoxOjEQWWdB4VkMz6eG_m4DCVaYXmjE-SI_nc1BYf-GeKp29mpyn5g/s320/Today%20in%20History%20for%20August%209th.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Today+in+History+for+August+9th+(2021)&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS962US962&sxsrf=ALiCzsaUXRVCP5w97IFlsOUoACGAms4oIA:1666896186846&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkmeCYiIH7AhUPEFkFHWP1BBoQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1440&bih=821&dpr=1#imgrc=8kjGKqpwHh2BDM">Associated Press</a>- Today in History.</td></tr></tbody></table><br />"Aug 8, 2021 Highlights of this day in history: The U.S. drops an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan; President Richard Nixon resigns; Charles Manson cult murders actress Sharon Tate and four others; Singer Whitney Houston born; Musician Jerry Garcia dies." <div><br /></div><div>From the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0aE02xsEDw">Associated Press</a> <br /></div><div><br /></div><div>I'll take a few of these stories one at a time and go from there.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>President Harry Truman dropping the bomb on Japan in 1945: </div><div><br /></div><div>When you are at war with another country, which is what America was with Japan, after Japan attacked Hawaii in 1941, it literally becomes a you against them situation. Doesn't mean you take out innocent lives simply to do that or to win, but without the bomb, (not da bomb) that war perhaps goes on for another 2-3 years, costing America, as well as Japan, a lot more military personal, money, as well as innocent lives. Obviously a horrible call to have to make because of the damage that it did to Japan and the Japanese people. But it was the right call to make. It ended that war and Japan has been a thriving liberal democracy and developed country, almost ever since.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>Sharon Tate is murdered in 1969: </div><div><br /></div><div>I'm not going to say that the Manson Crime Family were a bunch of amateur criminals and I don't want to put their murders of Sharon Tate and other people they murdered lightly. But those 1969 murders starting with Sharon Tate, was Amateur Night in Los Angeles. </div><div><br /></div><div>First of all, the Manson Family soldiers led by Charles Manson, but with Tex Watson in charge of this operation (if you want to call it that) went to the wrong house and murdered the wrong people. They wanted to murder Dennis Wilson, but Wilson no longer lived at that house. And the crazy crime scene that they left, with all the blood, DNA, finger prints, motive, even. It was like they were handing our free invitations to the Los Angeles Police Department to pick them up and arrest them for murder.</div><div><br /></div><div>Whitney Houston born August 9th, 1964: </div><div><br /></div><div>As far as I'm concern, if Whitney Houston is not the voice of my generation, (Generation X) then Mariah Carey is. And what do I mean by that? I'm not saying that Whitney is the best singer or has the best music, I'm saying she has the best voice, the best delivery, the best face, the best smile. I mean, to be that beautiful and cute, and have that voice, all at the exact same time, God (if there is one) must have been feeling very generous when he create her that day. </div>Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-6683028420492729842020-07-27T11:41:00.005-07:002023-08-25T11:07:36.415-07:00Danny White: Dallas Cowboys (1980-88)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9TuOsZ1xj54/Xx8fkuk37OI/AAAAAAABvPQ/DGELUyeqptU0XQ1ckUEKbnh9I7DbewNAQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Quarterback%2BDanny%2BWhite%2Bof%2Bthe%2BDallas%2BCowboys%2Bpassing%2Bin%2Ba%2Bgame_.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1067" data-original-width="1600" height="213" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9TuOsZ1xj54/Xx8fkuk37OI/AAAAAAABvPQ/DGELUyeqptU0XQ1ckUEKbnh9I7DbewNAQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Quarterback%2BDanny%2BWhite%2Bof%2Bthe%2BDallas%2BCowboys%2Bpassing%2Bin%2Ba%2Bgame_.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=new+york+giants+v+dallas+cowboys+irving%2C+tx+-+december+11%3A+quarterback+danny+white+%2311+of+the+dallas+cowboys+passing+in+a+game+against+the+washington+redskins+on+december+11%2C+l983+in+irving%2C+texas.+(photo+by+ronald+c.+modra%2Fgetty+images)&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiDy4aGhe7qAhUGMt8KHUQjD5YQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgBMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnMgcIIxDqAhAnUKLLBViiywVg29kFaAFwAHgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWewAQrAAQE&sclient=img&ei=4xkfX8PNBobk_AbExrywCQ&bih=789&biw=1440#imgrc=0J6ZIcpKtsE0NM">Getty Images</a>- Dallas Cowboys QB Danny White, against the Redskins in 1983.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2020/07/getty-images-danny-white-dallas-cowboys.html#.Xx8fAPhKhQI">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"IRVING, TX - DECEMBER 11: Quarterback Danny White #11 of the Dallas Cowboys passing in a game against the Washington Redskins on December 11, l983 in Irving, Texas. (Photo by Ronald C. Modra/Getty Images)"<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.gettyimages.ie/detail/news-photo/quarterback-danny-white-of-the-dallas-cowboys-passing-in-a-news-photo/73374053?adppopup=true">Getty Images</a><br />
<br />
"Danny White career highlights. I do not own any of the audio or footage shown in this video."<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hlQjc2mtoqk/Xx8fMQq9PvI/AAAAAAABvPI/pcuFP86xbKUroXN-zphezYyZNehL6rbGwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Danny%2BWhite%2BCareer%2BHighlights.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hlQjc2mtoqk/Xx8fMQq9PvI/AAAAAAABvPI/pcuFP86xbKUroXN-zphezYyZNehL6rbGwCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Danny%2BWhite%2BCareer%2BHighlights.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Danny+White+Career+Highlights&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiV-ILb8O3qAhVJBd8KHbPODOYQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Danny+White+Career+Highlights&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoHCCMQ6gIQJ1CmgMECWJWawQJg6Z_BAmgBcAB4AIABR4gBR5IBATGYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ7ABCsABAQ&sclient=img&ei=kAQfX5XwCcmK_AaznbOwDg&bih=789&biw=1440#imgrc=V4dzuMJ6mN9_mM">DC 4 Life</a>- Dallas Cowboys QB Danny White, playing against the Los Angeles Rams.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Nw58uLhuQ">DC 4 Life</a><br />
<br />
When I was growing up in the 1980s the Redskins (I still say that) and the Dallas Cowboys was not just the premier rivalry in the NFL, but perhaps in all of professional sports. Maybe the Philadelphia 76ers-Boston Celtics, or Celtic-Los Angeles Lakers rivalries in the NBA were better, but the Redskins-Cowboys was right there with those rivalries.<br />
<br />
The term hate when it comes to rivalries gets thrown around a lot in sports, but it's not the same type of hate that would be between, racial, ethnic, religious, or even political factions. Sports hate is more about respect than anything else, that you hate your arch-rivals as much as you respect them. You hate and respect them so much that every time you play them, you don't just want to beat them, but beat them. Beat them so badly that you and they remember how badly you beat them, because you know how good the other team is.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s, the Redskins knew that the Cowboys were very good and the Cowboys knew that the Redskins were very good. Every time they played each other at least after Joe Gibbs arrived in Washington, it seemed like it was a battle for the NFC East and to get top position in the NFC as well so you would be in great position in the NFC Playoffs to get to the Super Bowl.<br />
<br />
Cowboys QB Danny White, is a big reason why I hated the Cowboys so much back then when I was growing up, because he was so good. I mean every time the Redskins played the Cowboys, it seemed like White was hitting WR Tony Hill for a big play down the sidelines for a touchdown. Or hitting TE Doug Cosbie down the middle of the field for a big play. When White had time and protection, he was as good a QB in the NFL as there was back them. He was so accurate and had an excellent arm, as well as mobility.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s the Dallas Cowboys under Tom Landry were no longer the premiere franchise in the NFC, let alone in the NFL. They no longer had their doomsday defense, their receivers, weren't as good as they had been. Their DL wasn't as dominant, and the secondary wasn't as good either. And I believe Danny White took a lot of the blame from Tom Landry for the fall of the Cowboys. And even though White wasn't as good as Roger Staubach, but no other QB was back then.<br />
<br />
The Cowboys were still consistent winners in the 1980s, as well as Super Bowl contenders: 3 straight NFC Final appearances from 1980-82, 12-4 in 1983 and just win shy of winning the NFC East that year. Danny White, is not the reason for the decline or fall of the Dallas Cowboys under Tom Landry, but a big reason for why they remained one of the best franchises in the NFC, as well as NFL during the 1980s and he deserves more credit for that, because he was about as good as any other QB in the NFL back then when he was healthy and you gave him time to throw the ball.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-85467117949852853442020-07-07T16:05:00.004-07:002022-02-22T11:01:08.496-08:00Gene Sperling: Economic Dignity<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjYv3utTPuS2X2RrSdSVwEKh-VaqZqkgqxDhrKXd0kEGBVOdazdjMNBVx8Phg4R2rqSCoaQUHdCufr4DUbjbDB1BBSYNyaEQGaC4Syvr3Wy1Qf7CaL2_cMzfvQI30F2J3qTx2dxNwaVXn3DsskOb4qd9uxgCe1W4WTxGMFew2R0kJkVG-jnYOG_ryPCrQ=s1466" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1466" data-original-width="1000" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjYv3utTPuS2X2RrSdSVwEKh-VaqZqkgqxDhrKXd0kEGBVOdazdjMNBVx8Phg4R2rqSCoaQUHdCufr4DUbjbDB1BBSYNyaEQGaC4Syvr3Wy1Qf7CaL2_cMzfvQI30F2J3qTx2dxNwaVXn3DsskOb4qd9uxgCe1W4WTxGMFew2R0kJkVG-jnYOG_ryPCrQ=s320" width="218" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Gene+Sperling,+%22Economic+Dignity%22+(with+Samantha+Power)+(2020)&sxsrf=APq-WBugMJx8hVN5tBo8qtsafeX978gtdg:1645555188064&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMjMXj-pP2AhVxUt8KHeFuBMIQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1440&bih=821&dpr=1#imgrc=UhlPCO3gRNO1IM">WBUR</a>- with a look at Democratic economist Gene Sperling's book.</td></tr></tbody></table><br />"Too often, he found that our economic debate confused ends and means; that we measured economic success by metrics like GDP instead of whether the economy was succeeding in lifting up the sense of meaning, purpose, fulfillment, and security of people. Too often, he found debates framed by old divisions or pro-market ideology that increasingly failed to capture whether economic policy was fostering exploitation, economic insecurity, and disillusionment that were too often invisible within our current framework. Now more than ever, at a moment when the very capacity of modern capitalism to avoid accelerating inequality, a hollowed-out middle class, and structural poverty is being questioned, we need to step back and reflect on our ultimate goals.<div><br /></div><div>Economic Dignity is Sperling's effort to do just that - to frame our thinking about the way forward in a time of wrenching economic change. His argument combines moral and intellectual seriousness with actual high-level policy experience. Economic dignity, Sperling maintains, can be seen as resting on three pillars. The first: the capacity to care for family without economic deprivation denying people the capacity to experience its greatest joys - the birth of one's children, the companionship of a loving partner, the love of family and friends, the fulfillment that comes from providing. The second: the right to the pursuit of potential and purpose, including the right to first and second chances - the right to a life of active striving. The third: economic participation with respect and without domination and humiliation. All three pillars are rooted in the highest and most noble values of the American project. But getting there is the rub, and in Economic Dignity, Sperling offers paths that policymakers and citizens can follow for years to come. As he puts it, if you live in times when major steps forward are needed, it is important to be clear on your destination - or at least to know the North Star that is guiding you. His answer, in two words, is economic dignity." </div><div><br /></div><div>From <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/52511663-economic-dignity">Good Reads</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>"In the realm of economic policy, dignity is often invoked with power and eloquence to refer to a higher, more spiritual impact on individual integrity and self-worth beyond dollars and cents—especially related to work, retirement, and civil rights. Labor leaders from Mother Jones to Cesar Chavez, and civil rights icons like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bayard Rustin, made clear that beyond the higher wages or better benefits that came with unionization or new civil rights laws was the sense of dignity won through those gains. A person’s race, gender, or lack of labor market power could no longer be used to deny her the basic respect, autonomy, and agency she should possess by virtue of her effort and humanity. From Franklin Roosevelt’s creation of Social Security in the 1930s, to Ai-jen Poo’s advocacy for a revolution of care more than 80 years later, as the head of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, the notion of a “dignified retirement” has been invoked by countless political leaders. Former Vice President Joe Biden has, for decades, talked eloquently about the idea that a job is never about just a paycheck, but “your dignity,” while Senator Sherrod Brown frames many of his policies as promoting the “dignity of work”—as do job guarantee advocates like professor Darrick Hamilton. I identified “economic dignity” in 2005 in my book The Pro-Growth Progressive as the first of three progressive values by which we should guide and judge economic success." </div><div><br /></div><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjXSws3nf-__XJX7HWiZx0PlB25o1WDW0rUy7rt_hsV8ckDKfWfyWQamm2ztaD8FJcvQjiHbTMM-GBb3CM03FXh-ZzqL6SuiICUw8Ar2KsodvWh4cR7f8_FxzC9htkEIBvQ0eEKRtZLrFTRlYYzKgpaJ3YESnNlMd0iyB-r93NF2OfYpnK1xOwM99Qkug=s704" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="469" data-original-width="704" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjXSws3nf-__XJX7HWiZx0PlB25o1WDW0rUy7rt_hsV8ckDKfWfyWQamm2ztaD8FJcvQjiHbTMM-GBb3CM03FXh-ZzqL6SuiICUw8Ar2KsodvWh4cR7f8_FxzC9htkEIBvQ0eEKRtZLrFTRlYYzKgpaJ3YESnNlMd0iyB-r93NF2OfYpnK1xOwM99Qkug=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Economic+Dignity+(2019)&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiuwebl-pP2AhVzgHIEHVVKA1AQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=Economic+Dignity+(2019)&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoKCCMQ7wMQ6gIQJzoFCAAQgAQ6BAgAEBhQgQ1YvEFgt0RoAHAAeACAAVmIAewEkgECMTCYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZ7ABCsABAQ&sclient=img&ei=-C0VYq7lMPOAytMP1ZSNgAU&bih=821&biw=1440#imgrc=Qw3VIVQtxFIHUM">Democracy Journal</a>- "Construction workers march toward the Washington, DC Metro headquarters, Nov. 11, 1974... From The Democracy Journal. </td><td class="tr-caption"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption"><br /></td></tr></tbody></table>From <a href="https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/52/economic-dignity/">Democracy Journal</a></div><div><br /></div><div>"From one of our wisest and most influential economic thinkers--the only person to serve as Director of the National Economic Council under two Presidents--comes a profound big-picture vision of why the promotion of dignity should be the singular end goal by which we chart America's economic future.In Economic Dignity, Gene Sperling frames our thinking about the way forward in a time of wrenching economic change. His argument combines moral and intellectual seriousness with actual high-level policy experience. As Sperling himself puts it, if you live in times when major steps forward are needed, it is important to be clear on your destination, or at least to know the North Star that is guiding you. His answer, in two words, is economic dignity. </div><div><br /></div><div>Sperling is in conversation with Ambassador Samantha Power, the Anna Lindh Professor of the Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy at Harvard Kennedy School and the William D. Zabel '61 Professor of Practice in Human Rights at Harvard Law School. Power served as the 28th U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, as well as a member of President Obama's cabinet." </div><div><br /></div><div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj_uEVgVX2_SJ_MMNvpLDwyjfCAVXLo6cGXR5xk6AAx8GW_ZXbL8mQJ7W3E8bdittEroKXAIwz8oJ8neo7-dKcIS3yqMNAIPYZ8xPkox5_Y5tbJDYzhtz3u-23B64y79UGD_V2Or5IEtei41I0hWkq8rYUJSmGeLr7wTyG9E0tccit7Qq6X4vswY8xsyA=s1280" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEj_uEVgVX2_SJ_MMNvpLDwyjfCAVXLo6cGXR5xk6AAx8GW_ZXbL8mQJ7W3E8bdittEroKXAIwz8oJ8neo7-dKcIS3yqMNAIPYZ8xPkox5_Y5tbJDYzhtz3u-23B64y79UGD_V2Or5IEtei41I0hWkq8rYUJSmGeLr7wTyG9E0tccit7Qq6X4vswY8xsyA=s320" width="320" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Gene+Sperling,+%22Economic+Dignity%22+(with+Samantha+Power)+(2020)&sxsrf=APq-WBugMJx8hVN5tBo8qtsafeX978gtdg:1645555188064&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMjMXj-pP2AhVxUt8KHeFuBMIQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1440&bih=821&dpr=1#imgrc=i5YXJFN-WxKV3M">Politics & Prose</a>- Samantha Power interviewing Democratic economist Gene Sperling, for Politics & Prose Bookstore in Washington.</td></tr></tbody></table><br />From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJyOFeg8cJI">Politics & Prose</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>I already laid out what Democratic economist Gene Sperling is talking about as far as the issues that he wrote about and the issues that he sees with Americans workers and the issues that he wants to address. That our economy shouldn't just be about creating as many jobs as possible and having as many workers as possible, with Americans who are working, but it should also be about the dignity that comes with those jobs. Are American workers able to pay their bills and put money away for themselves and their families. He's really talking about economic security, not just employment. Are American workers not just working, but are they economically secure or not. </div><div><br /></div><div>But what I'm really interested in here are Gene Sperling's proposed solutions to the issues that he sees American workers having to deal with. And what I get from his book is that Economist Sperling is essentially talking about a 21st Century safety net or social contract in America, with a higher minimum wage and making it easier for American workers to organize in America, but an expansion of government, economic, benefits as well. </div>Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-79656213268790199012019-09-16T11:58:00.003-07:002021-07-18T10:35:00.812-07:00Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Anthony Kronman: 'The Assault on American Excellence'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U0t8ZbFFi_Y/XX_bDn_28iI/AAAAAAABmZI/oMwa2Oz_i8oGlg6C-D-lYKCH4mn0VNcWQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Michael%2BShermer%2Bwith%2BAnthony%2BKronman%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2BThe%2BAssault%2Bon%2BAmerican%2BExcellence%2B%2528SCIENCE%2BSALON%2B%2523%2B79%2529%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch%2B%25281%2529.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1000" height="179" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-U0t8ZbFFi_Y/XX_bDn_28iI/AAAAAAABmZI/oMwa2Oz_i8oGlg6C-D-lYKCH4mn0VNcWQCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/Michael%2BShermer%2Bwith%2BAnthony%2BKronman%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2BThe%2BAssault%2Bon%2BAmerican%2BExcellence%2B%2528SCIENCE%2BSALON%2B%2523%2B79%2529%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch%2B%25281%2529.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Shermer+with+Anthony+Kronman+%E2%80%94+The+Assault+on+American+Excellence+(SCIENCE+SALON+%23+79)&sxsrf=ACYBGNS2ByyvEAr_Df5WCOEyK6aYC_W93A:1568653675167&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirzdWo6tXkAhURmeAKHXTbBckQ_AUIFygA&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=j87REVILwfrMLM:">Skeptic Magazine</a>- Michael Shermer: interviewing Anthony Kronman about his book.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/search?q=Anthony+Kronman#.YPRmJBNKhQJ">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"The former dean of Yale Law School argues that the feverish egalitarianism gripping college campuses today is out of place at institutions whose job is to prepare citizens to live in a vibrant democracy. In his tenure at Yale, Anthony Kronman has watched students march across campus to protest the names of buildings and seen colleagues resign over emails about Halloween costumes. He is no stranger to recent confrontations at American universities. But where many see only the suppression of free speech, the babying of students, and the drive to bury the imperfect parts of our history, Kronman recognizes in these on-campus clashes a threat to our democracy. Shermer and Kronman discuss:<br />
<br />
• free speech vs. hate speech<br />
<br />
• how language affects how we think about other people<br />
<br />
• diversity of characteristics (race, gender) vs. diversity of viewpoints<br />
<br />
• the search for universal truths vs. understanding other’s perspectives<br />
<br />
• affirmative action in the academy: from the University of California to Harvard<br />
<br />
• taking down statues of Hitler and Stalin vs. taking down statues of Confederate Generals<br />
<br />
• the problem of applying current moral values to the past, and<br />
<br />
• how to reform the academy to refocus on excellence.<br />
<br />
Anthony T. Kronman served as the dean of Yale Law School from 1994–2004, and has taught at the university for forty years. He is the author or coauthor of five books, including The Assault on American Excellence; Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life; and Confessions of a Born-Again Pagan.<br />
<br />
This dialogue was recorded on August 12, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US40G1dVoAg&feature=em-uploademail">Skeptic</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYXHUdIx1PAPW8uJlgV3RfHm6w9vWbd7Ekcr7LP6_Mnra0vbHL1s0pZmq0YZuwo6L4jXdLKCc-qvFzWdG0vxubBFyUNFIQRID53ZynXNhoqN0z-6lXifcTFUsl38QPmheUQ6J_WnSctMDA/s1600/Michael+Shermer+with+Anthony+Kronman+%25E2%2580%2594+The+Assault+on+American+Excellence+%2528SCIENCE+SALON+%2523+79%2529+-+Google+Search.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="604" data-original-width="401" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYXHUdIx1PAPW8uJlgV3RfHm6w9vWbd7Ekcr7LP6_Mnra0vbHL1s0pZmq0YZuwo6L4jXdLKCc-qvFzWdG0vxubBFyUNFIQRID53ZynXNhoqN0z-6lXifcTFUsl38QPmheUQ6J_WnSctMDA/s320/Michael+Shermer+with+Anthony+Kronman+%25E2%2580%2594+The+Assault+on+American+Excellence+%2528SCIENCE+SALON+%2523+79%2529+-+Google+Search.png" width="211" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Shermer+with+Anthony+Kronman+%E2%80%94+The+Assault+on+American+Excellence+(SCIENCE+SALON+%23+79)&sxsrf=ACYBGNS2ByyvEAr_Df5WCOEyK6aYC_W93A:1568653675167&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirzdWo6tXkAhURmeAKHXTbBckQ_AUIFygA&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=CPwf_6WwGHCrwM:">Skeptic Magazine</a>- "Science Salon - Science Salon Archives"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I realize I'm not on expert of college having not even gong through a whole year of college and I'll be the first to admit that, but if college is for anything it's to prepare young adults for life in the real world.<br />
<br />
College is not a gigantic spaceship to the Planet Paradise or Planet Utopia where there's no such thing as any bigotry, including racism and life is supposed to be swell ( to use a 1950s word ) or awesome, ( to use a Millennial word ) for everyone on the planet. But college is supposed to represent life and what life looks like on both the outside, as well as in college. All the good, the bad, the in between, awards for performing well, consequences for doing poorly, steep consequences for breaking the rules. People who think like you that you even like or love. As well as people who just don't think like you, but where you're so far apart what the person believes and says angers you and you even hate what they have to say and what they think.<br />
<br />
College is not a free ride, ( even for the athletes and cheaters ) everything that people are supposed to gain there is supposed to be justified. You're supposed to earn your good grades and other experiences there and suffer the consequences when you don't do well, or even do poorly, or even break the rules. And people who go there regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, culture, politics, etc, thinking that they're entitled to never have to see or hear anything that they don't like or disagree with, don't belong in college. And perhaps would be better off to moving to Planet Utopia or Paradise where they never have to see or hear anything that they dislike.<br />
<br />
Sort of like hardcore Libertarians who believe they should never have to pay any taxes, because they've never personally approved of the programs that their taxes pay for: well: if you don't want to pay taxes in America or anywhere else, go look for, find, and move to a place where there's no taxation. Or get elected to office and try to make the case for why there shouldn't be any taxation. But until the Detroit Lions win the Super Bowl, if not even longer ( to use an NFL analogy ) you have to play by the same rules as everyone else.<br />
<br />
For these so-called Che Guevara a man they don't even understand, (by the way and yet somehow they got into college ) loving so-called social justice warriors, who really are just illiberal leftists, ( Neo-Communists if you will ) who believe that anyone who isn't of European background and who has dark skin is entitled to never having to see or hear anything that they disapprove of, you should find another platform or place to express your fascist views other than college. Which is supposed to be an arena of ideas and liberal democracy where all views are heard and debated. Not some social laboratory where the scientists there are supposed to design the perfect people ( in their minds ) as far as how humans are supposed to look and think. And where everyone else need not apply. </div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-43288275696268620312019-09-09T12:21:00.005-07:002023-06-04T11:13:49.411-07:00Classic Film & TV Cafe: The Notorious Landlady (1962) 'Scene With Jack Lemmon & Kim Novak'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J4b8jLv9Tcc/XXal06JLAHI/AAAAAAABmKU/LRvR6dhNTZgfkgxCObKg6AFeybDlGFV2ACLcBGAs/s1600/The%2BNotorious%2BLandlady%2B%25281962%2529%2B-%2BScene%2Bwith%2BJack%2BLemmon%2Band%2BKim%2BNovak.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J4b8jLv9Tcc/XXal06JLAHI/AAAAAAABmKU/LRvR6dhNTZgfkgxCObKg6AFeybDlGFV2ACLcBGAs/s320/The%2BNotorious%2BLandlady%2B%25281962%2529%2B-%2BScene%2Bwith%2BJack%2BLemmon%2Band%2BKim%2BNovak.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Notorious+Landlady+(1962)+-+Scene+with+Jack+Lemmon+and+Kim+Novak&sxsrf=ACYBGNRPc54QJZ_sLunErR9mxEuZ_Sshsw:1568051210088&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUmPf6pcTkAhUCVt8KHfIWDXMQ_AUIEigB&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=04reVT60bu9chM:">Classic Film & TV Cafe</a>- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak, in The Notorious Landlady, from 1962.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/09/classic-film-tv-cafe-notorious-landlady.html#.YOoALC1h1QI">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"Diplomat Jack Lemmon has just returned to England and doesn't know that everyone else suspects Kim Novak's character of murdering her husband!"<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca_14JIAuDI&feature=em-uploademail">Classic Film & TV Cafe</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VV4sMcoCQPE/XXaldBxZ8GI/AAAAAAABmKM/PzpgHfo8Nr4WB_2YwDJuOweRFSLck-KMQCLcBGAs/s1600/7a4b0313-8a60-4b62-9961-f60b33f79214.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="773" data-original-width="1000" height="247" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VV4sMcoCQPE/XXaldBxZ8GI/AAAAAAABmKM/PzpgHfo8Nr4WB_2YwDJuOweRFSLck-KMQCLcBGAs/s320/7a4b0313-8a60-4b62-9961-f60b33f79214.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Notorious+Landlady+(1962)+-+Scene+with+Jack+Lemmon+and+Kim+Novak&sxsrf=ACYBGNRPc54QJZ_sLunErR9mxEuZ_Sshsw:1568051210088&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUmPf6pcTkAhUCVt8KHfIWDXMQ_AUIEigB&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=0AqqmAwWOrxNOM:">Alamy Stock Photo</a>- Kim Novak and Jack Lemmon, in The Notorious Landlady from 1962.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Just on a personal note first: it was the early summer of 2009 June of that year when I was home on a Saturday and there was a an all day Alfred Hitchcock marathon and Vertigo was one of those movies. I heard the name Kim Novak before, but I didn't know who she was. Vertigo is a good movie, but it's really Kim Novak who caught my attention to the point for the rest of that summer at least and into the fall my goal was to see as many Kim Novak movies that I possibly could. I saw Boys Night Out, Strangers When We Meet and perhaps 2-3 other Kim Novak movies that year. Whenever they were available on TV and I had the time to see them. I literally grew a crush on her.<br />
<br />
There's something about Kim's voice, eyes, face that all come together at the same time that makes it impossible at least for me to concentrate on anything or anyone else when the camera is on her. She's absolutely adorable and even childlike at times and yet is also drop-dead gorgeous, with incredible sweet, sexy voice. She's like the great talented athlete that has you begging for more every time you see him play, because he's such a great player and then one tragic day it's all over after he breaks his leg in a game and never plays again. And you keep think what if he didn't get hurt, how many more great plays and games, how great would his career had been, had it not been for that one tragic play. Except that Kim Novak was never tragically injured: she left Hollywood voluntarily in the 1960s.<br />
<br />
So I think I know how the Jack Lemmon character feels in The Notorious Landlady, with the Kim Novak character knowing how much he likes her and just leaves him begging for more. The Notorious Landlady is not a great movie, which unfortunately can be said about most of Kim Novak's movies, but she and Jack were great together in it. And if they were the only two main characters in it, perhaps it's a great movie, because they had great chemistry in. And Jack Lemmon was always a master comedic actor and comedian.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-8715890428026214872019-08-26T12:04:00.002-07:002022-01-24T11:02:48.732-08:00Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C7Tl2l-jDmE/XWQsyu3PPWI/AAAAAAABlpQ/G1jnSZbiK6UZd9meh_GaL5JYpNPda_r3gCLcBGAs/s1600/Michael%2BShermer%2Bwith%2BDr_%2BDonald%2BHoffman%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2BThe%2BCase%2BAgainst%2BReality%2B%2528SCIENCE%2BSALON%2B%2523%2B78%2529.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C7Tl2l-jDmE/XWQsyu3PPWI/AAAAAAABlpQ/G1jnSZbiK6UZd9meh_GaL5JYpNPda_r3gCLcBGAs/s320/Michael%2BShermer%2Bwith%2BDr_%2BDonald%2BHoffman%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2BThe%2BCase%2BAgainst%2BReality%2B%2528SCIENCE%2BSALON%2B%2523%2B78%2529.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Shermer+with+Dr.+Donald+Hoffman+%E2%80%94+The+Case+Against+Reality+(SCIENCE+SALON+%23+78)&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwsKP_iaHkAhVDneAKHYM0CSoQ_AUIFCgE&biw=1440&bih=740#imgrc=9nXsWdOApkhu5M:">Skeptic Magazine</a>- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/08/skeptic-magazine-michael-shermer.html#.Ye73uljMJQI">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2019<br />
<br />
Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'<br />
<br />
Source:Skeptic Magazine- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />
<br />
"In his new book, The Case Against Reality: Why Evolution Hid the Truth From Our Eyes, the U.C. Irvine cognitive scientist Dr. Donald Hoffman challenges the leading scientific theories that claim that our senses report back objective reality. How can it be possible that the world we see is not objective reality? And how can our senses be useful if they are not communicating the truth? Hoffman argues that while we should take our perceptions seriously, we should not take them literally. His evolutionary model contends that natural selection has favored perception that hides the truth and guides us toward useful action, shaping our senses to keep us alive and reproducing. We observe a speeding car and do not walk in front of it; we see mold growing on bread and do not eat it. These impressions, though, are not objective reality. Just like a file icon on a desktop screen is a useful symbol rather than a genuine representation of what a computer file looks like, the objects we see every day are merely icons, allowing us to navigate the world safely and with ease. The real-world implications for this discovery are huge, even dismantling the very notion that spacetime is objective reality. The Case Against Reality dares us to question everything we thought we knew about the world we see.<br />
<br />
In this conversation, Hoffman and Shermer get deep into the weeds of:<br />
<br />
• the nature of reality (ontology)<br />
<br />
• how we know anything about reality (epistemology)<br />
<br />
• the possibility that we’re living in a simulation<br />
<br />
• the possibility that we’re just a brain in a vat<br />
<br />
• the problem of other minds (that I’m the only sentient conscious being while everyone else is a zombie)<br />
<br />
• the hard problem of consciousness<br />
<br />
• what it means to ask “what’s it like to be a bat?”<br />
<br />
• does the moon exist if there are no conscious sentient beings anywhere in the universe?<br />
<br />
• is spacetime doomed?<br />
<br />
• quantum physics and consciousness<br />
<br />
• the microtubule theory of consciousness<br />
<br />
• the global workspace theory of consciousness, and<br />
<br />
• how Hoffman’s Interface Theory of Perception differs from Jordan Peterson’s Archetypal Theory of Truth (Shermer’s label for Peterson’s evolutionary theory of truth).<br />
<br />
This dialogue was recorded on April 8, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfMCn42RRfw&feature=em-uploademail">Skeptic Magazine</a><br />
<br />
I'm not a scientist ( obviously. What was your first clue? ) so I'm not qualified to get into one's brain as far as why they do certain things, especially when they're obviously wrong and go against their own personal interest, as well as the interests of the people around them. But I'm an observer of people and as a man myself I am qualified to speak for myself as far as why people do certain things, including things that go against their own personal interests and why people even feel the need to try to escape reality and reason when making certain decisions.<br />
<br />
I'm not an Atheist and I'm not a Randian ( term named after author Ayn Rand ) but as an Agnostic and I believe even as a Liberal I believe in reason and reality and don't believe in the faith for the most part. Perhaps the least romantic person you've ever met ( assuming you've never met Ayn Rand ) and I believe that you always should go with reason and reality, over how you want things and people to be. I also don't drink alcohol and or use any other narcotics, so I'm always forced to live in reality and see things they way they are, at least to my best ability, because I'm don't have that escape to take me away from the way things really are, for good and bad. I'm not going to have a bad day and then hit a bar to get wasted to try to get that day or whatever happened that day out of my mind.<br />
<br />
I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything and I'm the best at anything including personal decision-making. I'm just saying reality and reason are my approach to how I choose to look at the world and then try to make the best decisions that I can based on what I'm personally seeing and hearing in life. Based not on how I want people, things, or places to be, but how they are based on the best available facts and evidence.<br />
<br />
But for too many Americans reality is not good enough for them to the point that they just don't try to change it for them, but start seeing and hearing things that simply aren't there to make themselves feel better. The example I gave about not going to the bar when I'm having a bad time to get wasted and escape from my negative reality, that's not what a lot of Americans do and perhaps is a reason for alcoholism that people need to get wasted and feel better when they're going through tough times and see alcohol as their personal escape, regardless of the negative consequences that come from abusing alcohol.<br />
<br />
For intelligent, sober, responsible, sane people, reality is all we need to do well in life: "these are the facts on the ground ( for good and bad ) and this is what can be done about it. And this is how we can make the best of it." Is how these people look at the world to make the world the best that they can make it for themselves.<br />
<br />
The alcoholic, the celebrity culture crazed person who might not even be popular or even well-known in their own neighborhood, let alone the rest of the country, for them reality is not good enough. So they see things that simply aren't there, think more of themselves than they deserve too, and perhaps especially the alcoholic make a lot of bad decisions that come with really bad consequences for them and people around them. Because the real-world is not good enough for them and have mentally escaped reality.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-15450308110877249552019-08-19T12:11:00.004-07:002020-07-31T14:27:30.584-07:00ATHENAISM: 'Why Is John F. Kennedy so Popular?'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--0ObLQt4bmw/XVr0NYN3hNI/AAAAAAABlVY/B3qeSLxfYfk7yAaHC51Ptjh5j3tLUV5EgCLcBGAs/s1600/Why%2BIs%2BJohn%2BF_%2BKennedy%2Bso%2BPopular_.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--0ObLQt4bmw/XVr0NYN3hNI/AAAAAAABlVY/B3qeSLxfYfk7yAaHC51Ptjh5j3tLUV5EgCLcBGAs/s320/Why%2BIs%2BJohn%2BF_%2BKennedy%2Bso%2BPopular_.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=ATHENAISM+-+Why+Is+John+F.+Kennedy+so+Popular%3F&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS848US848&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMtMO9v4_kAhWEslkKHaO-DXUQ_AUIEygD&biw=1440&bih=740#imgrc=sU69nU_TbfUv9M:">ATHENAISM</a>- Depends on who you ask for JFK's popularity.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/08/athenaism-why-is-john-f-kennedy-so.html#.XySLkBNKhQI">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"John F. Kennedy is one of the most popular US presidents. Was he as good as people remember him being? What exactly is it that makes him so popular?"<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3-CAFX9XeM&feature=youtu.be">ATHENAISM</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JBNeU5iaY8Y/XVrzquR2j8I/AAAAAAABlVQ/y-KdSLO45eQACTSMP-SIehc22zqNnTTJACLcBGAs/s1600/Why%2BIs%2BJohn%2BF_%2BKennedy%2Bso%2BPopular_%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="509" data-original-width="702" height="232" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JBNeU5iaY8Y/XVrzquR2j8I/AAAAAAABlVQ/y-KdSLO45eQACTSMP-SIehc22zqNnTTJACLcBGAs/s320/Why%2BIs%2BJohn%2BF_%2BKennedy%2Bso%2BPopular_%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Why+Is+John+F.+Kennedy+so+Popular%3F&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVjKPtsI_kAhXKqlkKHTXKByIQ_AUIEigC&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=BDfJ1Ak3HJvZTM:">Caleb & Linda Pirtle</a>- John F. Kennedy: I believe in 1960 when he was running for President. But I don't know for sure.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Why is John F. Kennedy so popular? It depends on who you ask and who you're talking about.<br />
<br />
As a Classical Liberal ( a real Liberal ) myself I like JFK and consider him to be one of my political heroes, because of his politics and policies. You're talking about a Democrat who was not just an anti-Communist, but anti-authoritarian, and an anti-collectivist all together. Who actually believed in economic opportunity, individual freedom, personal responsibility, like all real Liberals that liberty is not just worth defending, but is something that has to be defended.<br />
<br />
JFK believed in equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, things that Democrats apparently don't believe in today ( for the most part ) with few exceptions. President Barack Obama, being one of the last of those Democrats despite his right-wing Tea Party stereotypes that President Obama was actually a Socialist.<br />
<br />
But as I mentioned last week on this blog about JFK's rules for success, he wasn't just a brilliant man, but a man ( at least as far as how he spoke ) was full of such brilliant commonsense. Brilliant commonsense probably sounds like a great economy car: how great can an economy car be, otherwise it wouldn't be an economy car, but he's so quotable because he said things that sound brilliant at first, but then when you think about it they're really just commonsense that too many people had simply forgot about.<br />
<br />
JFK's peace speech where he's talking about the shared human values between America and Russia and how it was in both superpowers best interests to cooperate for the good of the planet and our people's. He's someone that if you gave speeches for a living and tried to help people improve their own lives with your advice, would want to use JFK by quoting him.<br />
<br />
So that's why I like him so much, but JFK's popularity of course is bipartisan and perhaps even nonpartisan, otherwise he wouldn't have an 83% approval rating or whatever the current figure is. Why do Conservatives like him? Why do Socialists ( who call themselves Progressives or Liberals ) like him? Why do even Libertarians like him? And finally, but certainly least: why is Hollywood if not in love with the man ( women and men ) why do they love him?<br />
<br />
Conservatives like John F. Kennedy, because he was an anti-Communist, who really didn't like socialism in any form. He believed in economic freedom, as well as personal responsibility, which is why he pushed for what was certainly back in 1962 a very large across the board tax cut. He believed in a strong defense and that liberty was worth defending.<br />
<br />
JFK, believed in things that today would look very conservative, especially with socialism being so popular at least with young Democrats today, but are actually very liberal ( both in a classic and real sense ) but look conservative, again compared with the modern Democratic Party. Back then Liberals were supposed to believe in these things and not sound and believe like Socialists. And Classical Liberals ( the real Liberals ) still believe in these things today.<br />
<br />
Why do let's just call them what they are Socialists, who now see Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representative Alexandria O. Cortez, Che Guevara, and other leftists as their heroes: why do they admire JFK?<br />
<br />
President John Kennedy, wanted to expand the safety net in America and create new social insurance programs for people who struggle to survive economically in America. Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, Federal Aide for Education, because he was a Progressive ( not Socialist ) who believed that government, including the Federal Government could be used to improve the lives of struggling Americans.<br />
<br />
But unlike let's say Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders he didn't think these programs should be universal and that the Federal Government should replace private employers as the source for how Americans get their what most of us call employee benefits: health insurance, paid leave, childcare, life insurance, pension, education, etc. And JFK also talked about the need for peace a lot.<br />
<br />
Libertarians, similar to Conservatives like JFK for his beliefs in lower taxation and individual freedom all together. Jack Kennedy, didn't see the role of government especially the Federal Government to manage and run the lives of free Americans.<br />
<br />
And finally, but certainly least why is Hollywood still in love with John F. Kennedy? If you're familiar with Hollywood, you know that it's not just the entertainment capital of America ( if not world ) but they're also the capital of pop culture and faddism.<br />
<br />
If it's considered cool, it's probably because some Hollywood celebrity either started it or got behind it. And because of their faddism and addiction to popularity and hipsterism, Hollywood always feels the need to be popular and cool. They don't love the man because of his policies for the most part, even though they will talk about his policy accomplishments.<br />
<br />
Hollywood loves JFK because he was cool and see him as an honorary member of their Hollywood club. He had friends in Hollywood and they even planned his 45th birthday party in 1962. We're a big part of the production of his 1961 inauguration. Hollywood has this dying need to be seen with the in-crowd and be associated with anything that's cool in America.<br />
<br />
If fascism, Islamism, and Christian-Nationalism ever became popular in America, at least with young people, Hollywood would be promoting those philosophies with their movies and other productions. Which is also why Socialists love JFK, because Socialists tend to be hipsters and follow the cool people as well. Which is why Hollywood claims to love Socialists and socialism as well, because socialism is popular with young people.<br />
<br />
To have an 83% approval rating, you either have to be God in a very religious country where even young adults are very religious, or you have to be leading a country that's just been under attack and you're the one who successfully led the country through that crisis and came out stronger, like President Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor in 1941. Or you have to be a politician who is so popular, because you're able to connect with so many people on so many different levels. Which is why John F. Kennedy is still so popular in America.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-83045522618812842462019-08-12T12:33:00.000-07:002019-08-12T12:33:04.456-07:00Evan Carmichael: 'John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c1xJUvgWhFw/XVG-mWZVYvI/AAAAAAABlIE/W1bY2WlW2igkTSoUs-miLanUfakgUSv1gCLcBGAs/s1600/John%2BF_%2BKennedy%2527s%2BTop%2B10%2BRules%2BFor%2BSuccess.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-c1xJUvgWhFw/XVG-mWZVYvI/AAAAAAABlIE/W1bY2WlW2igkTSoUs-miLanUfakgUSv1gCLcBGAs/s320/John%2BF_%2BKennedy%2527s%2BTop%2B10%2BRules%2BFor%2BSuccess.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=John+F.+Kennedy%27s+Top+10+Rules+For+Success&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS_Iey6f3jAhVEn-AKHUoPBokQ_AUIEigC&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=Q-i1FAM9zxo72M:">Evan Carmichael</a>- From some of John F. Kennedy's greatest speeches</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/08/evan-carmichael-john-f-kennedys-top-10.html#.XVG9IwWnHjb.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success:<br />
<br />
In this video we're going to learn how to improve our lives by analyzing John F. Kennedy's rules<br />
<br />
for success."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBGsruQDEFE&feature=youtu.be">Evan Carmichael</a><br />
<br />
The brilliance of what John F. Kennedy talked about in life either as President of before his presidency, even though a lot of what he talked about had to do with public service and his own government service, can be translated into real life and how Americans live their own lives and should live their own lives. Not so much the decisions that they make in life, but how they go about making their own personal decisions.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wNE_ziO65XY/XVG-CMJo_NI/AAAAAAABlH8/vtFcc7JvCHwqVtFUfCVto6EuaOCiZrOJgCLcBGAs/s1600/John%2BF_%2BKennedy%2527s%2BTop%2B10%2BRules%2BFor%2BSuccess%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="479" data-original-width="640" height="239" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-wNE_ziO65XY/XVG-CMJo_NI/AAAAAAABlH8/vtFcc7JvCHwqVtFUfCVto6EuaOCiZrOJgCLcBGAs/s320/John%2BF_%2BKennedy%2527s%2BTop%2B10%2BRules%2BFor%2BSuccess%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=John+F.+Kennedy%27s+Top+10+Rules+For+Success&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS_Iey6f3jAhVEn-AKHUoPBokQ_AUIEigC&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=RWAIdsYTVKnerM:">The Insider Tales</a>- "The Insider Tales: inspirational quotes by John F. Kennedy</td><td class="tr-caption"><br /></td><td class="tr-caption"></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Move forward<br />
<br />
People should not just appreciate what we have, but if anything be more focused on what we have, instead of what we don't have yet and perhaps will never achieve, but we should always strive to be the best that we can be. To always strive for perfection knowing that we'll never get there on that road of life, not so we chase our tales and just waste a lot of energy, but to be the best people that we can be. To be the best person, parent, uncle/aunt, sibling, friend, what we do professionally, our hobbies, etc. To be the best people that we can be in life that we possibly can.<br />
<br />
Service<br />
<br />
To go to President John F. Kennedy's inauguration: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Don't expect people to do for you, what you can't or are either not willing to do for yourself. You'll accomplish a lot more in life if instead of waiting around for things in life and for people to do give you things, because you're simply doing everything for yourself that you can and being the best and most successful person that you can possibly be. In this sense at least, JFK sounds like Ayn Rand here.<br />
<br />
High standards<br />
<br />
If you want the best out of life, you not only have to work for it, but you have to expect it as well. NFL teams don't win the Super Bowl by believing they're not even good enough to get to the Super Bowl. They know going into the playoffs, or at least late in the regular season that they have a really good team and perhaps even a great one and know they're good enough to win the whole thing. And then set out to do that and execute their goal here. And that's just one example with education being another one, where you can't have great schools, teachers, and students if you don't expect them to be great and hold them accountable when they're not as good as they can be, or even good enough and not even passing the grade.<br />
<br />
Freedom for all<br />
<br />
When race, ethnicity, complexion, gender, sexuality, religion become more important in America than the person themself, you have a real problem. And no, I'm not talking about not seeing the biological characteristics about people, because we would have to be blind to miss them, but instead see people as people first and more importantly as individuals and not as a member of any group. Judge people individually and you'll have a lot more friends, colleagues, mentors in life, then if you took the attitude you don't like that person's race, ethnicity, complexion, religion, etc.<br />
<br />
Resolve differences?<br />
<br />
Not sure I like this rule because not all differences can be resolved; hard to imagine how a Communist becomes a Libertarian and vice-versa. Or how a religious fundamentalist who perhaps even has their own definitions of what their religion is supposed to be that's not written in any religious text, gives all that up and decides that they're wrong and religion is actually garbage ( to keep it clean ) and all the sudden becomes an Atheist. Or how an Atheist who is so hardcore and militant with their Atheism to the point that they see anyone who is religious at all as either crazy or is a moron and perhaps even believes that religion should be outlawed, ( like a Communist ) all the sudden decides that they're not just religious, but a religious fundamentalist. Not all differences can be resolved simply because sometimes the two sides are just too far apart.<br />
<br />
I guess my positive note here would be to learn to agree to disagree: instead of focusing on what divides you with someone or other people, how about focusing on what you do have in common ( if anything ) instead. And similar to judging people as individuals and as nothing else, you might find that you have some things in common with that person or people and pick up new friends. And if you're so far apart with someone or some people that what they stand for offends you, then maybe you should just move on and find new people to associate with. Which would also be better for your blood pressure with fewer intense arguments. Your heart would thank you for that.<br />
<br />
Express your beliefs<br />
<br />
You want people to know what you believe and who you are as a person, then speak up! Let people into your own world and bring them in to see what kind of person you are. You can't drive a car until you start it. And you won't make friends and obtain associates in life, if they don't know who you are and what skills you bring to the table and what kind of person you are, what you believe, and why you believe it.<br />
<br />
Evan Carmichael's video is called John F. Kennedy's Top 10 Rules For Success: I gave you six because a lot of his rules actually overlap. Like moving forward, ask not what your country can do for you, and a couple others. And as I said before a lot what Jack Kennedy talked about in life he was doing as a public servant: first as a member of Congress and then as President, but what he talked about as a public servant can be translated into real life as well. Which is one thing that I believe makes him so popular that he was not only so intelligent, but he was readable and easy to listen to. His brain was like a great book of commonsense.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-68369620111201131972019-08-05T12:10:00.003-07:002022-01-18T11:18:08.401-08:00Foreign Affairs: Sebastian Mallaby- 'How Should a Liberal Be?'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pn8JqBfkBt0/XUh-q0o1M2I/AAAAAAABk5A/7wlrZFFY8BU4aMWGiDZkE1JjP39Q_M3hACLcBGAs/s1600/Thomas%2BJefferson%2B-%2BLiberal%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="496" data-original-width="382" height="320" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Pn8JqBfkBt0/XUh-q0o1M2I/AAAAAAABk5A/7wlrZFFY8BU4aMWGiDZkE1JjP39Q_M3hACLcBGAs/s320/Thomas%2BJefferson%2B-%2BLiberal%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" width="246" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Thomas+Jefferson+-+Liberal&tbm=isch&tbs=rimg:CcGZHdfdxekRIjjaat0Z5e878ca5yc4_1ZRX5JGCZR9XRUUBdHDHxtRYlQFayVfK1Ma8vKAoZ9tMpTUZErFXTCL3sYCoSCdpq3Rnl7zvxEfEjS_1Iana-gKhIJxrnJzj9lFfkRmpvIE3Ve3jMqEgkkYJlH1dFRQBGA5VMVQNQO_1yoSCV0cMfG1FiVAEd5EmJsenGK3KhIJVrJV8rUxry8RlfiZ5HA2tMwqEgkoChn20ylNRhHLk3IftyrjUCoSCUSsVdMIvexgES8RSsfb4o5c&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwib07y9luzjAhWIm-AKHX0xCM4Q9C96BAgBEBs&biw=1440&bih=740&dpr=1#imgrc=KAoZ9tMpTUaukM:">K-Top</a>- Thomas Jefferson: one of the Founding Father's, Founding Liberals, and father's of American liberalism.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/08/foreign-affairs-sebastian-mallaby-how.html#.YecSBljMJQI">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"In James Grant, it sometimes seems, the nineteenth century has been resuscitated. Towering, gaunt, bow-tied, and pinstriped, he writes with a sly wit that recalls the novels of William Thackeray. His signal achievement is a fortnightly cult publication bearing the antique title Grant’s Interest Rate Observer. He is a nostalgic believer in the nineteenth-century gold standard. He eyes modern banking innovations with stern, starch-collared suspicion, as though peering at them through a monocle. Even traditional financial instruments elicit a wry scorn. “To suppose that the value of a common stock is determined purely by a corporation’s earnings,” Grant once wrote, “is to forget that people have burned witches, gone to war on a whim, risen to the defense of Joseph Stalin and believed Orson Welles when he told them over the radio that the Martians had landed.”<br />
<br />
Now, Grant has written a delightful biography of Walter Bagehot, the great nineteenth-century Englishman in whom Grant perhaps recognizes a grander version of himself: the would-be Victorian sage is paying tribute to the authentic one. From 1861 until his death in 1877, Bagehot served as the third and most famous editor of The Economist. He was a confidant of William Gladstone, the dominant liberal politician of the era, and his words exercised such sway over successive governments that he was regarded as an honorary cabinet minister. After Bagehot’s death, a contemporary remarked that he might have been the most fascinating conversationalist in London.<br />
<br />
Like Grant, Bagehot was a vivid wordsmith and a cult figure. Unlike Grant, Bagehot was generally a modernizer, a believer in progress, and therefore an opponent of the gold standard. (Bagehot’s views on certain matters, such as gender and race, were far from enlightened.) In his slim 1873 volume, Lombard Street, Bagehot explained how central banks should quell financial panics by printing currency and lending it liberally—“to merchants, to minor bankers, to ‘this man and that man,’ whenever the security is good.” To Grant’s evident dismay, this formulation."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review-essay/2019-06-11/how-should-liberal-be?utm_medium=newsletters&utm_source=">Foreign Affairs</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKGcFvrM7lAJmd69AEECEsaNs77bKfK8Z_MdthugELIWplmBDctbPNIHKMiqbPjtqU0JszEBBSfavlezd7t5R0xSg_7GWYWzke7rRm_Z_c2obGCgD-cWBHLOeoKzKCyql2GLQPHYpgNvLn/s1600/President+John+F_+Kennedy%2527s+Inaugural+Address.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKGcFvrM7lAJmd69AEECEsaNs77bKfK8Z_MdthugELIWplmBDctbPNIHKMiqbPjtqU0JszEBBSfavlezd7t5R0xSg_7GWYWzke7rRm_Z_c2obGCgD-cWBHLOeoKzKCyql2GLQPHYpgNvLn/s320/President+John+F_+Kennedy%2527s+Inaugural+Address.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEC1C4p0k3E&t=1s">CBS News: 'President John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address'</a>- </td><td class="tr-caption"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">Our last Classical Liberal if not Liberal President</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy was sworn into office and delivered one of the most famous inaugural addresses in U.S. history."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/international/legal-and-political-magazines/liberal-democracy">Encyclopedia</a><br />
<br />
"Liberal democracy is generally understood to be a system of government in which people consent to their rulers, and rulers, in turn, are constitutionally constrained to respect individual rights. However, widely divergent views exist regarding the meaning of consent and individual rights, of the particular forms of government that are best suited to the preservation of popular rule and the protection of rights, and of the types and effectiveness of constitutional constraints within particular forms of government. Nonetheless, liberal democracy is common throughout most of the developed world."<br />
<br />
Before I get into how should a Liberal be, perhaps I should get into what Liberals aren't.<br />
<br />
If you look at what stereotypical Liberals are, they represent almost nothing as far as what Liberals actually are and if anything if you look at what stereotypical Liberals are ( as some people call Modern Liberals ) and what real Liberals ( or Classical Liberals ) are supposed to be, they look almost as different as Communists and Ayn Randian Objectivist-Libertarians: with the so-called Liberals believing that government should try to do practically everything for everybody and that free choice and private ownership should be as limited as possible, if permitted at all. With Randian-Libertarians thinking that government should do practically nothing for people, if anything at all.<br />
<br />
If you look at the so-called Liberals going back to the late 1960s and all through the 1970s, you would think that Liberals are nothing but rebellious leftist-hipsters who believe everything that America represents is immoral and bigoted and that they want to tear down the system ( or as they would say, the man ) and replace it with a socialist state.<br />
<br />
Radical leftist groups from the late 1960s and early 1970s like Students For a Democratic Society and The Weather Underground and other militant socialist groups, didn't even call themselves Liberals. It was the so-called mainstream media that did that. They were people who literally believed that liberal democracy is bad and communism is good. And today you see groups like that on the Far-Left in America that are supposed to be the Liberals of today, but who aren't militant: groups like The Left Forum, Democratic Socialists of America, ( who call themselves Democratic Socialists, not Liberals ) the Occupy Wall Street movement from early in this decade just after the Great Recession, and other left-wing, socially and politically active political organizations in America.<br />
<br />
That if you're a Liberal, you're supposed to be a rebellious hippie ( either from the 1960s or today ) who believes that everything that America stands for and even our form of government is immoral and that it's your job to tear that down ( either through democratic means or otherwise ) and replace it with some type of Scandinavian socialist state. You're supposed to believe that the socialist dictators of the world like in Cuba, Venezuela, Syria, and other places are actually decent moral people and if there's anything wrong with them at all, it's America's fault and that we forced them on those countries. And that it's America who are the real authoritarians and terrorists in the world.<br />
<br />
The so-called Modern Liberal is supposed to believe that capitalism is racist and bigoted, that personal freedom is dangerous, people are stupid and therefor you need big government to babysit people and manage their lives for them. That free speech is supposedly bigoted and therefore has to be regulated so that no one is offended. Well, anyone who isn't a member of some minority group ( except for Jews ) in the country. But free speech for anyone who has something to say about any member of a majority group. And free speech for anyone who has something negative to say about anyone on the Right ( including the Center-Left, who look Right compared with the Far-Left ) or any member of a majority group.<br />
<br />
So-called Liberals are supposed to believe that anyone who sets out to get a good education and become financially independent in life and them accomplishes those objectives, even if they donate part of their wealth to charity, is somehow immoral and bigoted. The so-called Liberals from back in the day and today are people who not just question capitalism and private ownership, but are looking for alternatives to replace those actual liberal values. We're seeing that with young Democratic voters in the Democratic presidential race right now.<br />
<br />
So I just laid out what Liberals aren't, even if the so-called mainstream media is too clueless or brainless to get that. And I'll tell you what it means to be a Liberal, at least to me.<br />
<br />
If you look at the word liberal and liberty, they're very similar because liberal comes from liberty. ( Not big government, socialist, communist, collectivist, welfare state ) If you look at the words liberation, liberalize, liberalized, they're all not just very similar to liberal because they're the same things.<br />
<br />
When countries liberalize their economies, their societies, their government's, they're opening them up and expanding individual freedom. Not expanding the government and taking away free choice and free ownership. We're seeing that in Cuba today with is more liberal today than they were even 15 years ago with Cubans now being able to own and start their own businesses and own their homes. When they were a pure communist state under Fidel Castro, they were less liberal than they are today.<br />
<br />
To put it simply: a Liberal is someone who believes in liberty, not big government. Liberals, believe in liberal democracy and the liberal values that it represents: like individual rights like free speech, personal freedom, property rights, limited government, decentralization of power, ( both governmental and private ) checks and balances, free, fair, and open elections, quality of opportunity, equal rights, equal justice, pluralism, diversity, a race, ethnic, gender, and religious-blind society where individuals are judged exactly as that, not as members of any group. Liberals are not Anarchists or Communists: we want government to defend all of our rights for every one us, not to do nothing, or try to run our lives for us. These are the liberal values of liberalism, not collectivism.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-50639561665404646822019-07-29T12:15:00.001-07:002020-07-19T10:34:36.487-07:00The Onion: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi- 'Concerned Outspoken Leftist Faction of Party Could Harm Democrats Reputation As Ineffectual Cowards'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6vqddVk0HSg/XT9FcO-X_jI/AAAAAAABkkU/hRjwCLuorxsDZWxSI_wDOh-bMAwau0xeQCLcBGAs/s1600/Pelosi%2BConcerned%2BOutspoken%2BProgressive%2BFlank%2BOf%2BParty%2BCould%2BHarm%2BDemocrats%25E2%2580%2599%2BReputation%2BAs%2BIneffectual%2BCowards%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6vqddVk0HSg/XT9FcO-X_jI/AAAAAAABkkU/hRjwCLuorxsDZWxSI_wDOh-bMAwau0xeQCLcBGAs/s320/Pelosi%2BConcerned%2BOutspoken%2BProgressive%2BFlank%2BOf%2BParty%2BCould%2BHarm%2BDemocrats%25E2%2580%2599%2BReputation%2BAs%2BIneffectual%2BCowards%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Pelosi+Concerned+Outspoken+Progressive+Flank+Of+Party+Could+Harm+Democrats%E2%80%99+Reputation+As+Ineffectual+Cowards&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH18Xm0NrjAhVqmuAKHZ7KDQQQ_AUIEigC&biw=1440&bih=740#imgrc=Gg4FGee1nZtkOM:">The Onion</a>- Not a fan of Nancy Pelosi. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-onion-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi.html#.XxSDa_hKhQI">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"Admitting she had worries about the rise of left-leaning activist groups within her party, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed concerns Thursday that outspoken progressives could do permanent damage to Democrats’ reputation as ineffectual cowards.<br />
<br />
“They mean well, but if they continue to aggressively push their agenda like this, they run the risk of fundamentally altering the public’s perception of Democrats as bumbling, feckless chumps,” said Pelosi, adding that this brash brand of politics could be easily manipulated by Republicans to paint the party as something other than a bunch of sniveling wimps who are too weak-willed and complacent to stand up for anything with even remote political risk.<br />
<br />
“I understand where these groups are coming from, but while it might feel good to vent their frustrations about the state of the country, they could undermine what I believe should be our core 2020 argument: We are dithering, incompetent doormats who are infinitesimally less objectionable than our opposition.” Pelosi also noted that her concerns shouldn’t be overstated, as she knew it would take more than a few activists for voters to associate the Democratic party with the vaguest inkling of courage."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://politics.theonion.com/pelosi-concerned-outspoken-progressive-flank-of-party-c-1836707083">The Onion</a><br />
<br />
"While speaking to reporters, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said a decision on impeachment proceedings would happen in a "timely fashion" but would not lay out a specific timeline."<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhafPaE0HQ-uMT7p6lvLGSR0gsgAZ28G7V2ymDI9i7w2bjWR4-3li7qL6LTT1svkWz6ziR64RZkOiLCQjavdtA_zbjGVscqqhLmiNImpjX6o6bSkheYqvCa5K40i7mZ8x1iSqw2XwslBTH7/s1600/House+Speaker+Nancy+Pelosi_+%2527I%2527m+Not+Trying+To+Run+Out+The+Clock%2527+On+Imp.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhafPaE0HQ-uMT7p6lvLGSR0gsgAZ28G7V2ymDI9i7w2bjWR4-3li7qL6LTT1svkWz6ziR64RZkOiLCQjavdtA_zbjGVscqqhLmiNImpjX6o6bSkheYqvCa5K40i7mZ8x1iSqw2XwslBTH7/s320/House+Speaker+Nancy+Pelosi_+%2527I%2527m+Not+Trying+To+Run+Out+The+Clock%2527+On+Imp.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=House+Speaker+Nancy+Pelosi:+%27I%27m+Not+Trying+To+Run+Out+The+Clock%27+On+Impeachment+%7C+MSNBC&sxsrf=ALeKk02EWqAqpshx60jWiqPOpBLeLRo7jA:1595179582982&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1y5WD69nqAhWNhXIEHY7kBEMQ_AUoAnoECAsQBA&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=KEF2miAkSXU2iM">MSNBC</a>- Republicans, could only pray that they could have as strong as a leader as Nancy Pelosi. . </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRV-TUZ4dAY">MSNBC</a><br />
<br />
Whatever if you think of The Onion and I believe they're one of the best ( if not best satirical news organizations anywhere ) you have to understand that they come at politics and current affairs with not just a leftist slant, but a partisan leftist slant. They represent the Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren of the Democratic Party and out of the party in America.<br />
<br />
So of course when you have these partisan leftist House Democrats calling for President Donald Trump's impeachment, they're going to back those Democrats 100%. Especially when you have an establishment, big picture Democrat like Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has to represent and lead the entire House Democratic Caucus and even a lot of the Democratic Party and she stands in their way like on impeachment, they're going to stand with the partisan, leftist Democrats.<br />
<br />
When I think of this partisan debate in the Democratic Party about whether to impeach President Donald Trump, a debate that I actually believe is healthy, because it shows that the Democrats really are the big tent party, especially compared with the Republican Party, which is really nothing more than Donald Trump's party at this point, I think of the captain or head coach of the football team, versus the junior varsity team. ( Or in these House Democrats case: the freshman team )<br />
<br />
Nancy Pelosi is where she is in Congress right now and has been leading the House Democrats since 2003 both as Minority Leader and now as Speaker, because she has the talent, the judgment, and the knowledge.<br />
<br />
She's not the Speaker of the Democratic Socialists of America. She's the Speaker of the House of Representatives and therefor the highest ranking Democrat not just in the House Democratic Caucus, or the House, or in Congress even, but in the United States. She leads and represents Democrats not just in San Francisco ( her hometown ) but in New York, Washington, Boston, but also in places like Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Virginia, Pittsburgh, Florida, etc.<br />
<br />
Speaker Pelosi, represents and leads Democrats all over the country and can't just say: "It's time to impeach President Donald Trump:" just because the partisan Far-Left of the Democratic Party wants it. She has the entire party from people who wants to impeach the President at all costs, ( even if that means losing the House next year ) as well as Center-Left Democrats who of course want to see President Donald Trump out of office, but aren't just more practical in how they're going about doing that, but are just practical period.<br />
<br />
Center-Left House Democrats, understand how Washington works, how the House works, how Congress works and understands how the Senate works and that sure, they could impeach President Trump with 220-225 Democratic votes and perhaps Independent Representative Justin Amash as well, but then it goes to the Republican Senate where you won't even have a majority vote in favor of conviction and you might lose 3-5 Democrats as well.<br />
<br />
And where do these freshman, partisan, Far-Left House Democrats go from there do they say: "We stood up to President Donald Trump. And fought the good fight and even though we got our asses kicked, it felt good doing it!"<br />
<br />
It's easy to say it's time to impeach the President, when you represent a district like in New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, areas of the country where it's not just that President Trump is unpopular, or where his approval rating might be below the freezing level, ( sort of like his IQ ) but where his approval rating is so low, it might not even register and you're not in power, you don't have a leadership position and the only people that you're accountable to is you partisan Democratic base and you complain from the sidelines that the coaching staff ( in this case the House Democratic Leadership ) should do this or that. Sort of like the junior varsity or freshman football team watching the game from the stands at a varsity football game.<br />
<br />
But it's another when you actually have power and are accountable to more people than just your hardcore, partisan Democratic base. Which is the position that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in today. </div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-88703284167478148562019-07-22T11:52:00.004-07:002019-07-22T11:52:52.153-07:00ACLU: Sam Walker- 'Conscientious Objectors'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-leqxfAaz7eY/XTYFrZIS91I/AAAAAAABjvk/SSyI0lfBr3QrGZ9obJW01T3t4w8asKugQCLcBGAs/s1600/ACLU%2BConscientious%2BObjectors%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="440" data-original-width="1000" height="140" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-leqxfAaz7eY/XTYFrZIS91I/AAAAAAABjvk/SSyI0lfBr3QrGZ9obJW01T3t4w8asKugQCLcBGAs/s320/ACLU%2BConscientious%2BObjectors%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=ACLU+Conscientious+Objectors&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt6_Ty_cjjAhXGs1kKHf1ABxYQ_AUIEigC&biw=1440&bih=740#imgrc=clg_F5cDpLd_-M:">ACLU</a>- The ACLU, standing up for free speech rights during World War I </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/07/aclu-sam-walker-conscientious-objectors.html#.XTYDnBntcuD.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"The ACLU was born out of World War I and the repression that resulted when the U.S. joined the fight."<br />
<br />
"On the night of April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson made the trip from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the U.S. Capitol for a special session of Congress that he convened. In one of the most consequential speeches in U.S. history, President Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war that would take the country into the Great War’s killing fields in Europe. During his address that night, President Wilson called Americans to arms with the memorable pledge that “the world must be made safe for democracy.”<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D4w9fBqj9PI/XTYEperHsJI/AAAAAAABjvg/rvPM2IhW884R_w0-XW6ylZVNZJIoyQD9gCEwYBhgL/s1600/The%2BACLU%2Bin%2BAmerican%2BLife.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D4w9fBqj9PI/XTYEperHsJI/AAAAAAABjvg/rvPM2IhW884R_w0-XW6ylZVNZJIoyQD9gCEwYBhgL/s320/The%2BACLU%2Bin%2BAmerican%2BLife.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz24qrkNNnE">Cardozo Law: Professor Norman Dorsen- 'The ACLU in American Life'</a>- NYU Professor Norman Dorsen </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
"The ACLU began by defending conscientious objectors during World War I and went on to oppose Japanese internment, to defend the Civil Rights protests of the 1960s and to represent abortion rights activists. NYU Professor Norman Dorsen, who headed up the ACLU for many years, is featured in this piece."<br />
<br />
In a liberal democracy like America, it's not enough to have a U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights that guarantee all of our individual rights like free speech, right to privacy, property rights, and other rights, you need private organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union there to defend Americans individual rights, simply because you have politicians and other government officials who don't believe in the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights and are more than willing to impose their religious and cultural values on others and do with through government force. You also need judges and courts who believe in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights as well, otherwise organizations like the ACLU and others won't be that powerful.<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall">Evelyn Beatrice Hall</a><br />
<br />
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"<br />
<br />
That's what the ACLU is about which is the right for all Americans from people who are as Far-Left as Communists who hate our liberal democracy and U.S. Constitution, to people as Far-Right and racial and ethnic Nationalists who believe that our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights only apply to European-Americans who are English and Protestant, or other Northern European Protestants.<br />
<br />
Anyone can defend popular speech in America, because who could possibly offend by doing that? Unpopular nerds or radicals who simply don't fit in with the popular political or social class? It's the people who go out on a limb and take a stand even if that stand is radical and even hateful that need the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, a functioning court system, and private individual liberty groups like the ACLU who need individual rights to be protected just as much, if not more than the popular political and social classes in America.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-20186576805529791772019-07-15T13:04:00.002-07:002020-01-03T11:52:33.477-08:00The Onion: Paul Ryan- 'Lauded For Inspiring Millions Of Young Gutless Fucking Cowards To Take On Leadership Roles'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimIjC-y2K3K7KrxnP7TX9L4Nw2Z1GXL53CXIxS5h5899PVb_LrZcy996RkYoK95HZQ6M3hu1Zt8ltyoabWQMW6k-pcZ3k7_5ptRd-GbsP9YRHjq_YeUmDJt9EBCYV-Fhalta_rMXEm7qP2/s1600/Paul+Ryan+Lauded+For+Inspiring+Millions+Of+Young+Gutless+Fucking+Cowards+To+Take+On+Leadership+Roles+-+Google+Search.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimIjC-y2K3K7KrxnP7TX9L4Nw2Z1GXL53CXIxS5h5899PVb_LrZcy996RkYoK95HZQ6M3hu1Zt8ltyoabWQMW6k-pcZ3k7_5ptRd-GbsP9YRHjq_YeUmDJt9EBCYV-Fhalta_rMXEm7qP2/s320/Paul+Ryan+Lauded+For+Inspiring+Millions+Of+Young+Gutless+Fucking+Cowards+To+Take+On+Leadership+Roles+-+Google+Search.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul+Ryan+Lauded+For+Inspiring+Millions+Of+Young+Gutless+Fucking+Cowards+To+Take+On+Leadership+Roles&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7wMbWvbfjAhXJB50JHfSsCc4Q_AUIECgB&biw=1440&bih=740#imgrc=AHy1ma7CThdUMM:">The Onion</a>- Speaker Paul Ryan: the undistinguished gentleman from Wisconsin </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/07/the-onion-paul-ryan-lauded-for.html#.XSzZyqfPXYz.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"WASHINGTON—Noting the former congressman’s deep, unwavering commitment to shying away from every one of his civic responsibilities, the Heritage Foundation lauded Paul Ryan Thursday for inspiring millions of young gutless fucking cowards to take on leadership roles.<br />
<br />
"Thank you, Mr. Ryan, for showing countless milquetoast little weaklings across the United States that if they want a place in politics, they can have it,” said Heritage Foundation spokesperson Katherine Primm, adding that she was grateful so many young candy-ass pushovers had the chance to see someone just like them not just get elected but also become speaker of the House.<br />
<br />
“Before Paul Ryan, you’d never see a spineless coward taking charge, but now, faint-of-heart boys and girls will finally have the determination to become leaders and then cower in front of more powerful people and bend to their will."<br />
<br />
"Before, it was just the brave who led—but thankfully, that era is behind us forever.”At press time, thousands of newly inspired chickenshit Americans had reportedly begun fundraising for congressional runs in 2020."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://politics.theonion.com/paul-ryan-lauded-for-inspiring-millions-of-young-gutles-1836291461">The Onion</a><br />
<br />
"President Donald Trump goes on the offensive against former House Speaker Paul Ryan at a White House departure."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iDuhgE81YI">MSNBC</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uY3oRRjYHiE/XSzakX6SMYI/AAAAAAABjiE/rGFOvqJkno0O-KaqzmDQe2limjC8emwzQCEwYBhgL/s1600/President%2BDonald%2BTrump_%2B%25E2%2580%2598Paul%2BRyan%2BWas%2BNot%2BA%2BTalent%252C%2BHe%2BWasn%25E2%2580%2599t%2BA%2BLeader%25E2%2580%2599.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uY3oRRjYHiE/XSzakX6SMYI/AAAAAAABjiE/rGFOvqJkno0O-KaqzmDQe2limjC8emwzQCEwYBhgL/s320/President%2BDonald%2BTrump_%2B%25E2%2580%2598Paul%2BRyan%2BWas%2BNot%2BA%2BTalent%252C%2BHe%2BWasn%25E2%2580%2599t%2BA%2BLeader%25E2%2580%2599.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=740&tbm=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNRAA1N4bI4gqduQ7DR-xDO8cAWJQw%3A1578080568751&sa=1&ei=OJkPXvnDLdHc5gL4w7DIAw&q=President+Donald+Trump%3A+%E2%80%98Paul+Ryan+Was+Not+A+Talent%2C+He+Wasn%E2%80%99t+A+Leader%E2%80%99+%7C+MSNBC&oq=President+Donald+Trump%3A+%E2%80%98Paul+Ryan+Was+Not+A+Talent%2C+He+Wasn%E2%80%99t+A+Leader%E2%80%99+%7C+MSNBC&gs_l=img.3...379188.382637..383703...1.0..0.157.308.2j1......0....1j2..gws-wiz-img.....10..35i362i39.coPteYe3kTU&ved=0ahUKEwj5v-idmOjmAhVRrlkKHfghDDkQ4dUDCAc&uact=5#imgrc=Lj0EOqSQjRsCjM:">MSNBC</a>- President Donald Trump: finally speaking the truth about someone. </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Paul Ryan is sort of a tough one for me, because he really does represent what's left of Jack Kemp Center-Right-Wing of the Republican Party: Conservatives who believe in economic freedom for everyone including for poor people and using public policy to help low-income Americans become financially independent.<br />
<br />
But if you just look at the undistinguished gentleman from Wisconsin as a leader, it won't take you very long, because there's not much there. I mean if you had a leadership scale for political leaders with people like President Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin L. King being at the top, you wouldn't see Paul Ryan from there. He wouldn't even qualify as a political midget, he would be more like an ant who avoids getting stepped on by people like President Donald Trump, Representative Steve King, and the rest of the Far-Right political heavyweights in the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
Even as former Speaker Paul Ryan and now corporate board member Paul Ryan, he struggles to take on a President that in his gut, ( assuming he has a gut: he's so politically weak, it's hard to tell ) he knows is not just wrong, but irresponsible and even immoral. But even with criticism about President Trump saying that he knows nothing about government, he must have had some suspicion about that going in. And also that statement would've been stronger and had he said that as Speaker and not as a private citizen who know longer has anything left to lose in politics, because he's already lost everything.<br />
<br />
You knew going in to 2017 that Republicans were in for a rough year, even with a Republican President, Republican Congress, ( House and Senate ) because you had an unqualified and immoral President and a unqualified Speaker of the House in Paul Ryan, who was well-suited to a committee chairman, but had no business leading a party in the House that was dominated by the Far-Right, who he never felt comfortable with and was never part of. I don't feel sorry for Speaker Ryan, because he didn't have to run for reelection as Speaker, but just giving you a little background about why this relationship and leadership setup wasn't even built to work, let alone last.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-63700039703068983302019-07-08T12:38:00.001-07:002019-07-08T12:39:58.833-07:00Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Andrew Seidel: 'Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPi2L4s03_EUIFY-KJ_O0Z0PV12rtvJlOSzFlTaFtKer_fzx-lgj7DyWr4q33Oi3XjAGu5Mq9Blir9GYoI8snt9i87OZugMtGHpGtC6Mw5bdUxKeJoeR-yuqzlmi9Owxl8-PKkuQWfIXl_/s1600/Michael+Shermer+with+Andrew+Seidel+%25E2%2580%2594+Why+Christian+Nationalism+is+Un-Ame.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPi2L4s03_EUIFY-KJ_O0Z0PV12rtvJlOSzFlTaFtKer_fzx-lgj7DyWr4q33Oi3XjAGu5Mq9Blir9GYoI8snt9i87OZugMtGHpGtC6Mw5bdUxKeJoeR-yuqzlmi9Owxl8-PKkuQWfIXl_/s320/Michael+Shermer+with+Andrew+Seidel+%25E2%2580%2594+Why+Christian+Nationalism+is+Un-Ame.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Shermer+with+Andrew+Seidel+%E2%80%94+Why+Christian+Nationalism+is+Un-American+(SCIENCE+SALON+%23+73)&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH0aPL7KXjAhVO1lkKHc5IDKMQ_AUIEigD&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=X6lcPqXuLIOL-M:">Skeptic Magazine</a>- Michael Shermer: interviewing author Andrew Seidel </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/07/skeptic-magazine-michael-shermer.html#.XSOZtsNzChL.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"In this important new book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, constitutional attorney and scholar at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), Andrew L. Seidel, begins by explaining what apparently religious language is doing in the Declaration of Independence. Does this prove that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Are the Ten Commandments the basis for American law? What, exactly, was the role of religion in America’s founding? Christian nationalists assert that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and advocate an agenda based on this popular historical claim. But is this belief true? The Founding Myth answers the question once and for all. Seidel builds his case point by point, comparing the Ten Commandments to the Constitution and contrasting biblical doctrine with America’s founding philosophy, showing that the Bible contradicts the Declaration of Independence’s central tenets. Thoroughly researched, this persuasively argued and fascinating book proves that America was not built on the Bible and that Christian nationalism is, in fact, un-American.<br />
<br />
Seidel and Shermer also discuss:<br />
<br />
• the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade and he explains how this could happen in the next 3–5 years<br />
<br />
• new laws being passed in many southern states enacting the teaching of Christianity and the bible in public schools<br />
<br />
• the thousands of letters that the FFRF receives every year from both secularists and members of minority religions who feel and believe that their rights are being threatened and even violated by Christian nationalists<br />
<br />
• the “religious exemption” for vaccinations and why it’s nonsense<br />
<br />
• why Christianity was not responsible for the abolition of slavery<br />
<br />
• how the South justified slavery in the Civil War<br />
<br />
• how Christian nationalists cherry pick biblical passages to fit current secular moral trends<br />
<br />
• the historical treatment of women in Christianity<br />
<br />
• the historical treatment of homosexuals in Christianity, and<br />
<br />
• why moral progress must come from the bottom up from cultural change as well as top down from changing laws.<br />
<br />
This dialogue was recorded on June 19, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California."<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PLFOWIqChyA/XSOaypUnE5I/AAAAAAABi3A/oD-MgxKuDFg8YfUvjVEH1WLqR6b9PXNRQCLcBGAs/s1600/Michael%2BShermer%2Bwith%2BAndrew%2BSeidel%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2BWhy%2BChristian%2BNationalism%2Bis%2BUn-American%2B%2528SCIENCE%2BSALON%2B%2523%2B73%2529%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PLFOWIqChyA/XSOaypUnE5I/AAAAAAABi3A/oD-MgxKuDFg8YfUvjVEH1WLqR6b9PXNRQCLcBGAs/s320/Michael%2BShermer%2Bwith%2BAndrew%2BSeidel%2B%25E2%2580%2594%2BWhy%2BChristian%2BNationalism%2Bis%2BUn-American%2B%2528SCIENCE%2BSALON%2B%2523%2B73%2529%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Michael+Shermer+with+Andrew+Seidel+%E2%80%94+Why+Christian+Nationalism+is+Un-American+(SCIENCE+SALON+%23+73)&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH0aPL7KXjAhVO1lkKHc5IDKMQ_AUIEigD&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=_2BR2WH62ksUCM:">Skeptic Magazine</a>- Author Andrew Seidel </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PIucWyAr-E">Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Andrew Siedel: 'Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American'</a><br />
<br />
If you want me to answer the question that is the title of this piece, I'll answer it for you anyway: Christian-Nationalism is Un-American, because it's Un-Liberal-Democratic, if not Un-Democratic all together. And I'm not talking about the Democratic Party, but the philosophy of liberal democracy and pluralism. Liberal values that the United States was founded on that all Americans are Americans and therefor have the right to be Americans ( which is as themselves ) and don't have to live the lives and live the way that Christian-Nationalists ( Christian-Fundamentalists ) believe they should be and should live. So Christian-Nationalism, is Un-Liberal Democratic, Un-Democratic, and anti-pluralist and therefor Un-American.<br />
<br />
Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have their own fringes: or what I would call the escaped mental patient wings of their party's. The Democrats, have this growing Socialist wing that self-describes themselves as Democratic Socialists or Progressives, even though a lot of what they argue is actually not just illiberal, but regressive with their belief that speech and media that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that personal choices and personal freedom that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that Americans should be forced to subsidize choices that they approve of, like abortion and other things.<br />
<br />
The Republican Party, has a wing of escaped mental patients that is perhaps even more illiberal and regressive, who advertises themselves as Conservatives and in some cases Christian-Conservatives, even though a lot of what they support is actually anti-conservative. They value the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, debt and deficits don't matter to them, morality and character doesn't matter to them, just as long as the person with poor morality and character is doing what they politically approve of. ( Like Donald Trump, just to use as an example )<br />
<br />
Just to further the argument for why Christian-Nationalism is Un-American: could you imagine is these so-called Bible thumpers ( who really sound like people who landed in New Mexico yesterday coming from the Planet Zoltar, or some place ) actually came to power and not just had the presidency, the Congress with super majorities in both the House and Senate, and had the military behind them, what the United States would then become as a result: if you think Saudi Arabia and Iran are bad places for women, gays, and minorities, put the Christian-Nationalists completely in charge of the United States.<br />
<br />
Christian-Nationalists, would create their own national time machine where once again being gay is not just illegal, but punishable by death either through the criminal justice system, or through private citizens. Women, would become second-class citizens and essentially slaves to their men. Minorities, wouldn't have the same rights as Caucasians, ( especially Anglo-Saxon-Protestants ) America, this great and gigantic mecca for freedom and pluralism would become a national hell hole for anyone who isn't an Anglo-Saxon-Protestant male, especially who comes from a rural background.<br />
<br />
I believe anyone who actually is a Christian regardless of what division they're from should either be insulted that they get lumped into the same group as Christian-Nationalists, or be very amused by it and I'm sort of debating which emotion they should feel here. You could argue most if not everything that Christian-Nationalists support is anti-Christian, just like most if not what Islamists support is anti-Islam. But then you could also argue that a lot of what Christian-Nationalists support sounds so crazy as if they're escaped mental patients that only see and believe in things that crazy people could see and support. So I will let actual Christians who actually believe in The Ten Commandments, morality and character make that decision for themselves.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-86248186856184452942019-07-01T12:53:00.002-07:002019-07-01T12:53:42.998-07:00The New Yorker: Opinion- Steven Markow: 'Campaign Slogans For The Centrist Party'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G18acxYBiXU/XRpkKH8KoBI/AAAAAAABieU/ZG2Dx2ljePQz9vLZPcF5qhRq55OnHTE7gCEwYBhgL/s1600/Campaign%2BSlogans%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BCentrist%2BParty%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="519" data-original-width="727" height="228" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-G18acxYBiXU/XRpkKH8KoBI/AAAAAAABieU/ZG2Dx2ljePQz9vLZPcF5qhRq55OnHTE7gCEwYBhgL/s320/Campaign%2BSlogans%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BCentrist%2BParty%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Campaign+Slogans+for+the+Centrist+Party&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw5f3_nJTjAhWG1lkKHYO9B0oQ_AUIESgC&biw=1440&bih=740#imgrc=NlPQ-bRL5GO3gM:">The New Yorker- Vote for Centrists, if you too believe in nothing</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/07/the-new-yorker-opinion-steven-markow.html#.XRpinyarGSv.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"The nation is divided. Loved ones tweeting at loved ones. What the American people need now more than ever is a party that can unite the entire country in disappointment. That’s where we step in: the Centrist Party. In 2020, we want you to skip the red and the blue and vote for the grayish taupe that represents our ideologically meek coalition. We couldn’t decide on a campaign slogan—every time we voted on one, everyone abstained—so we’ll let you read the list and, if any resonate, awesome; if not, no big deal!<br />
<br />
“For the exhausted.”<br />
<br />
“Some ideas. Some beliefs. Some feelings.”<br />
<br />
“Thinking exactly what you think since [day you were born].”<br />
<br />
“Putting the awkward silences back in Thanksgiving.”<br />
<br />
“We can be bought.”<br />
<br />
“Like our symbol, the petrified deer, we’re proudly frozen in the middle of the road.”<br />
<br />
“Make news boring again.”<br />
<br />
“Proudly standing against proudly standing against anything.”<br />
<br />
“The sanest, most reasonable waste of a vote."<br />
<br />
Read more of Steven Markow's piece at <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/campaign-slogans-for-the-centrist-party?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_062719&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d95824c17c6adf40202e&cndid=31545669&esrc=footer-unit&utm_term=TNY_Daily">The New Yorker</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l2Al3Dc80jg/XRpjhWjT78I/AAAAAAABieI/PsHbTkmAKTEUltXrRllPT7qdsevH5qL5ACLcBGAs/s1600/What%2Bdoes%2Ba%2Bmoderate%2Bvoter%2Blook%2Blike_.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-l2Al3Dc80jg/XRpjhWjT78I/AAAAAAABieI/PsHbTkmAKTEUltXrRllPT7qdsevH5qL5ACLcBGAs/s320/What%2Bdoes%2Ba%2Bmoderate%2Bvoter%2Blook%2Blike_.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhkpX9ZYBO4">Newsy: 'What does a moderate voter look like?'</a>- Is Moderate, another label for Nihilist?<br /> </td><td class="tr-caption"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"Moderate voters tend to see both parties as extreme, and they mainly want compromise."<br /><br />
If you look at the current American political system and party system, about 3-10 American voters are Democrats. 3-10 American voters are Republicans. And then roughly 4-10 American voters are neither a Republican or Democrat, are either a member of the third-party or no party at all.<br />
<br />
It's that 40% number that the so-called mainstream media looks at and tends to label them as Centrists and Independents, just because they're simply not Democrats or Republicans. Which gives you an idea about how strong the critical thinking is with these media organizations. Even though that 4-10 number is made up of people who are yes, Centrist-Independents, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) but also Libertarians on the Right, Socialists ( Democratic and otherwise on the Far-Left ) Communists on the Far-Left, people who are called White-Nationalists on the Far-Right, and people who are called Black-Nationalists on the Far-Left.<br />
<br />
My point here is just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, doesn't mean that they're a Centrist. It just might mean that they don't like Democrats and Republicans. ( And who can blame them, especially since we have to pay for them ) So when you're talking about Centrists, you really need to know who you're talking about and don't automatically assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, that they're Centrists.<br />
<br />
Just like you shouldn't assume that because it was warm and sunny today, that it will automatically be warm and sunny tomorrow. That you sort of want to know that in advance, before you decide to head to the beach and get caught in a tropical storm on the way there and wonder where did all of that rain come from. You also shouldn't assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, that they're automatically Centrists.<br />
<br />
Me personally, I really don't believe there is anymore any thing such thing as a Centrist: roughly 60-70% of the country believes in both economic and personal freedom. And according the the geniuses at the mainstream media, those people would be called Centrists, because they're not particularly right or left and certainly not Far-Right or Far-Left. But if that were the case, Libertarians would be Centrists.<br />
<br />
Think about this for a second: Libertarians, who believe that every single government regulation and safety net program, as well as civil rights law, that was created in the 20th Century should be eliminated, who believe that America should drop out of every foreign organization that America is a member of, who believe the Federal income tax should be repealed, and that every narcotic drug that is currently illegal, should be legalized at the Federal level, would be the New-Centrists in American politics. At least according to this mainstream media line of thinking. But anyone with a brain who also happens to use it and is also familiar with American politics, ( which would make you a member of a very small and exclusive club ) knows that can't be true.<br />
<br />
I don't think we have Centrists, because if you poll on the issues and who American voters tend to vote for and against and who they poll based on what politicians propose and are against, we tend to have a pretty good idea. Americans tend to like their personal and economic freedom, their individualism, their independence from government at least, but they also tend to want a regulatory state for predators, as well as law enforcement to protect us from predators. A safety net for people who truly need it. A military strong enough to defend the country. Civil rights laws, so people aren't denied access in America, simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexuality.<br />
<br />
And again to my point about Libertarians, if the definition of a Centrist was someone who was conservative on economic and fiscal policy, but liberal on social issues, who believed in both personal and economic freedom, Libertarians would be the Centrists in America. But who seriously believes that Libertarians are Centrists?<br />
<br />
If you're definition of a Centrist is someone who is right down the middle on the political spectrum and perhaps a member of the Mushy-Middle Voters of America, who only takes a stand on any issue when there's a consensus to do so, whose motto: "I'm willing to compromise on anything, because I believe in nothing: a vote for me is a vote for nothing." If that's your idea of a Centrist, someone who is basically a Nihilist, then those voters might actually exist in American politics.<br />
<br />
Just look at Millennial's who only vote for people that they believe are cool and will support anything that person says, just as long as it's cool and they sound cool. Just look at Beto O'Rourke's base. ( Or what's left of it at this point ) A man who proved at last Wednesday's Democratic debate, that he can not answer questions in multiple languages. Actually, that also happens to be the only thing that Beto accomplished last Wednesday: he's wishy-washy in two languages.<br />
<br />
If you're idea of a Centrist is someone who spilts the difference on the every key issue if not all issues all together, then I would hate to have that person planning my wedding or any other party. Because you would have food, outfits, decorations that are simply out of place.<br />
<br />
I would also hate to have those people in charge of writing the U.S. Constitution some 240 years ago. What would our First Amendment look like if Centrists wrote it: Americans are free to say and believe whatever they want, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees with it? We can have Freedom of Religion, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees to be a member of the same religion or no religion at all. We would have the Right to Privacy, but only on the second floor of our homes. We would have an Equal Protection Clause, but for only half of the country. The campaign symbol for a Centrist Party, would be the dear in the headlights in the middle of the road, because Centrists have a 100% dedication to neutrality and compromise. The life of the Centrist if there is such a thing, must be really hard. I mean just making decisions about what to do order at a restaurant must be painful.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-89810279322651435802019-06-24T13:17:00.005-07:002019-06-24T13:17:57.905-07:00The New Yorker: Opinion- Osita Nevanevu: 'Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Two Paths for the American Left'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Sa6VjRTWUqc/XREvquKmy-I/AAAAAAABiS4/foxBXLgYkp8AeU2EndKtuxlC6Il9l-H9ACLcBGAs/s1600/Elizabeth%2BWarren%252C%2BBernie%2BSanders%252C%2Band%2BTwo%2BPaths%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BLeft%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="727" height="220" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Sa6VjRTWUqc/XREvquKmy-I/AAAAAAABiS4/foxBXLgYkp8AeU2EndKtuxlC6Il9l-H9ACLcBGAs/s320/Elizabeth%2BWarren%252C%2BBernie%2BSanders%252C%2Band%2BTwo%2BPaths%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BLeft%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Elizabeth+Warren,+Bernie+Sanders,+and+Two+Paths+for+the+American+Left&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_s9Dn14LjAhXChOAKHbXSDXEQ_AUIESgC&biw=1440&bih=740#imgrc=nZvtv18YQRZvKM:">The New Yorker</a>- The battle for the Left-Wing in the Democratic Party</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/06/the-new-yorker-opinion-osita-nevanevu.html#.XREuKepq2yT.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"This past week was perhaps one of the most important weeks in one of the most important election seasons in the history of the Democratic Party. Elizabeth Warren is on the rise. Coverage of her array of policy proposals and hard campaigning has put her in second place over Bernie Sanders in at least one national poll and a few state polls. Sanders, meanwhile, delivered a major address this past Wednesday defining “democratic socialism,” a self-applied label that sets him apart from Warren, who has called herself “capitalist to my bones.” Each putatively offers a different tack for the Party’s reinvigorated progressive wing to take against the current front-runner, Joe Biden, and President Trump in the general election.<br />
<br />
But since Sanders entered the race many commentators have expressed the view that the substantive differences between Warren and Sanders don’t extend very far. “Why would Democratic voters choose Sanders when Warren is running?” the writer Moira Donegan asked in the Guardian earlier this year. “The two are not ideologically identical, but the differences between their major policy stances, on regulation of financial services and the need to extend the welfare state, are relatively minor, especially compared to the rest of the field.”<br />
<br />
This is mostly true, particularly on domestic policy. A Sanders Administration may well pursue many of the proposals Elizabeth Warren has put out, from a progressive wealth tax to large new investments in affordable housing. Warren has backed Sanders’s criticisms of Amazon’s labor practices, and both candidates support the Green New Deal. There is a key difference, however, on one of the race’s key issues: Warren is a co-sponsor of Sanders’s Medicare for All bill but has yet to state whether she supports its call to eliminate private health insurance, a provision that other candidates who nominally support the Sanders plan have waffled on or rejected."<br />
<br />
Read the rest of Osita Nevanevu's piece at <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-and-two-paths-for-the-american-left?utm_campaign=aud-dev&utm_source=nl&utm_brand=tny&utm_mailing=TNY_Daily_061819&utm_medium=email&bxid=5be9d95824c17c6adf40202e&cndid=31545669&esrc=footer-unit&utm_content=B&utm_term=TNY_Daily">The New Yorker</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5bCaZtmgX2bKbRWvYzUBWP_U0p7fLUzHO3vtWX9Uv9wzIyjg9WRtDP9djtz2WsgB2Jz3Qkuz-8r-IJKNN4kMnrkyv81OAOcK4HGPgWMjK6RIzo0j5KitrCudGaow_P8xmEYhpF84ieo6W/s1600/How+Bernie+Sanders+and+Elizabeth+Warren+Plan+to+Raise+Trillions+in+Tax+R.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5bCaZtmgX2bKbRWvYzUBWP_U0p7fLUzHO3vtWX9Uv9wzIyjg9WRtDP9djtz2WsgB2Jz3Qkuz-8r-IJKNN4kMnrkyv81OAOcK4HGPgWMjK6RIzo0j5KitrCudGaow_P8xmEYhpF84ieo6W/s320/How+Bernie+Sanders+and+Elizabeth+Warren+Plan+to+Raise+Trillions+in+Tax+R.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN9sLOXzwhs">Now This News: 'How Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Plan to Raise Trillions in Tax Revenue'</a>- Bernie vs. Liz</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders are both introducing tax reform bills that would use wealth tax to make the rich pay their fair share. The Elizabeth Warren wealth tax could raise trillions of dollars in tax revenue. Both Warren and Sanders have thrown their hat into the 2002 presidential election. Elizabeth Warren 2020 is gaining steam daily. Republicans meanwhile are hoping to create more tax cuts for the rich.<br />
<br />
Warren unveiled the Ultra-Millionaire Tax. It could generate almost $3 trillion for Americans over the next decade. It would only affect households with assets over $50 million. It would tax 2% on every dollar of net worth above $50 million and tax 3% on every dollar of net worth above $1 billion.<br />
<br />
Bernie dropped the ‘For the 99.8% Act.' It goes after the 0.2% of Americans who inherit more than $3.5 million by taxing their estates at 77%. This comes after 3 GOP Senators introduced plans to abolish the estate tax, which they deem the ‘death tax.’<br />
<br />
Bernie’s tax plan could raise $2.2 trillion from just 588 billionaires over time. And raise $315 billion in the next decade. Bernie’s tax plan isn’t new — a GOP President once championed the idea. One thing’s for sure: Wall Street is terrified by both Bernie AND Warren’s plans."<br />
<br />
When you're talking about Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren for President in the Democratic primaries, you're not talking about Barry Goldwater vs. Nelson Rockefeller from 1964 in the Republican primaries: Senator Goldwater, was a hard-core, true Conservative-Libertarian Republican and literally one of the founding father's the conservative-libertarian movement not just in the Republican Party, but in America. Governor Rockefeller, was a Right-Progressive Republican ( I know that sounds crazy ) back when right-wing Progressives were a major part of the Republican Party.<br />
<br />
When you're talking about Bernie vs. Liz, ( Or Bernie Sanders vs. Elizabeth Warren ) you're talking about two people who basically believe in the same things. If anything, Liz is to the Left of Bernie on wha the Far-Left calls identity politics and Bernie isn't interested in making race, ethnicity, or gender political issues and just wants to see that people aren't denied access in America simply because of their DNA and biological characteristics. And Bernie, is to the Left of Liz perhaps when it comes to rhetoric about American corporations and believes that private health insurers should be outlawed, where, Liz just wants Medicare to be available for everyone, but not mandated on everyone.<br />
<br />
But Bernie and Liz, both believe that the American private enterprise system should still be intact and not nationalized by the U.S. Government: neither one of them are Marxists, but they're both Democratic Socialists ( or Social Democrats, if you prefer ) who believe in the American private enterprise system, but that it should be highly taxed and regulated to fund a large and generous American welfare state. That worker benefits should be supplied by the Federal Government, not by private employers.<br />
<br />
This idea that the main difference between Bernie and Liz, is that Bernie is a proud and self-described Democratic Socialist and that Liz calls herself a capitalist, doesn't not just fly, but it doesn't get off the ground: sort of like an airplane stuck in Phoenix, Arizona in July because it's too hot and the plane overheats. ( Something that I've experienced personally ) Or a plane in Minneapolis, Minnesota in January, because there's too much snow on the ground.<br />
<br />
For or one, capitalism is not a political ideology, but an economic system: when Senator Warren called herself a capitalist instead of a Socialist, she answered that as if she was saying that she was a capitalist and not a Marxist: that she believed in the private enterprise system and not state-ownership of the entire economy and society. But that was not the question; she was asked that because the reporter was asking about her political philosophy, not whether she believed in capitalism or not.<br />
<br />
The only major differences other than a public option for Medicare, which is was Elizabeth Warren believes in, versus Medicare For All with no private options being available, which is what Bernie Sanders believes in and identity politics which is what Liz believes in and supports and Bernie doesn't, is how they self-describe their politics. Bernie, is an out-of-the-closet Eugene Debs-Henry Wallace- Norman Thomas- David McReynolds- George McGovern Democratic Socialist and proud of all of that. Liz, is a stuck in the closet Democratic Socialist. ( Or Social Democrat, if you prefer )<br />
<br />
Bernie and Liz, both support American private enterprise and American capitalism. But both believe in a highly regulated private economy, with a large welfare state to provide Americans workers with all the benefits that they need, instead of their employers. And they both believe in high taxation across the board and on private employers to fund that welfare state. This is not Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, but more like Henry Wallace vs. Norman Thomas.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-78572348059969245112019-06-17T13:09:00.001-07:002023-12-11T14:44:06.233-08:00The Onion: 'Sarah H. Sanders- Tells Colleagues She’s Taking Temporary Post As Google CEO Before Transitioning Into Full-Time Role As Sultan Of Brunei'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8KRKLw7J1REWCP-lEuzFqBlL19XmnEkYPv1Uz-grGcXKN18nWt39UMHnae5l-tDVtE_5sBnGu-AVODwz38tmsVDJvoDwXKYiyxek1KZwk5sGQd3E8BcOCx01NoCDVRLFQZmLZs4IemmqT/s1600/Huckabee+Sanders+Tells+Colleagues+She%25E2%2580%2599s+Taking+Temporary+Post+As+Google+CEO+Before+Transitioning+Into+Full-Time+Role+As+Sultan+Of+Brunei+-+Google+Search.png" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="800" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8KRKLw7J1REWCP-lEuzFqBlL19XmnEkYPv1Uz-grGcXKN18nWt39UMHnae5l-tDVtE_5sBnGu-AVODwz38tmsVDJvoDwXKYiyxek1KZwk5sGQd3E8BcOCx01NoCDVRLFQZmLZs4IemmqT/s320/Huckabee+Sanders+Tells+Colleagues+She%25E2%2580%2599s+Taking+Temporary+Post+As+Google+CEO+Before+Transitioning+Into+Full-Time+Role+As+Sultan+Of+Brunei+-+Google+Search.png" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Huckabee+Sanders+Tells+Colleagues+She%E2%80%99s+Taking+Temporary+Post+As+Google+CEO+Before+Transitioning+Into+Full-Time+Role+As+Sultan+Of+Brunei&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn_PDojvHiAhVjUN8KHY74C4EQ_AUIECgB&biw=1440&bih=740#imgrc=SqlhZ0iPRhwkXM:">The Onion</a>- Thank God, for only one Sarah Huckabee Sanders.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/06/the-onion-sarah-h-sanders-tells.html#.XQfxsuBxZrn.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"Informing those in her professional life of her career plans, outgoing White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders reportedly told colleagues Friday she would be serving for a time as CEO of Google before gradually taking on a permanent position as the sultan of Brunei. “It’s been the honor of my life to work in the White House, but I’m excited to lead a $750 billion company in Silicon Valley and begin my reign as one of the world’s last absolute monarchs,” said Huckabee Sanders, explaining she had reluctantly turned down offers to direct the next Star Wars film, design the 2024 Olympic stadium, and become the first person to set foot on Mars, in addition to a lucrative position as head of neurosurgery at the Mayo Clinic."<br />
<br />
Sarah H. Sanders: “Saudi Arabia and Monaco were both pursuing me pretty hard with head of state jobs, and Uber’s been trying to recruit me for their top post for 19 years now, but those opportunities just didn’t have the work–life balance I was looking for. Believe me, it was a tough choice. I spent hours talking it over with my husbands George Clooney, Tom Brady, and Jason Aldean."<br />
<br />
Sarah H. Sanders: "While I’m excited to begin my next chapter, I’ll be taking some time off for myself first. So don’t be surprised if you see me this summer relief-pitching for the Dodgers or traversing the Congo Rainforest with my best friend, Cardi B!” Huckabee Sanders went on to state that she was currently busy reviewing designs for the awards display she will build in the Bruneian palace of Istana Nurul Iman to showcase her multiple Emmys, Pulitzers, and Nobel Peace Prizes."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://politics.theonion.com/huckabee-sanders-tells-colleagues-she-s-taking-temporar-1835524222?utm_source=TheOnion_Daily_RSS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_term=">The Onion</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9yAJQ40pId8/XQfyudD40oI/AAAAAAABiJA/q9u_QYv9zlEGN0cpNCRJiZoNolMLc34kwCLcBGAs/s1600/Trump%2527s%2BCollusion%2BConfusion%2B%2526%2BSarah%2BHuckabee%2527s%2BDeparture.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9yAJQ40pId8/XQfyudD40oI/AAAAAAABiJA/q9u_QYv9zlEGN0cpNCRJiZoNolMLc34kwCLcBGAs/s320/Trump%2527s%2BCollusion%2BConfusion%2B%2526%2BSarah%2BHuckabee%2527s%2BDeparture.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPWyPRKkrZY&t=311s">Jimmy Kimmel Live: 'President Trump's Collusion Confusion & Sarah Huckabee's Departure'</a>- Welcome to Donald Trump at The White House: the first reality show ever at The White House, that could only come from Donald J. Trump.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"As Trump gears up for his 73rd birthday, he joined George Stephanopoulos for 30 hours and revealed that he doesn't seem to know what collusion is and unveiled his plans for a new Air Force One. He also tweeted about meeting the 'Prince of Whales,' and announced that Sarah Huckabee Sanders is leaving the White House. So as she gets ready to take her leave we stop to reflect on her two incredible years."<br />
<br />
When I first heard about Sarah Sanders leaving The White House as Press Secretary, my first reaction was that The Onion will no longer be feeding The White House Press Office with news stories. Seriously, a lot of what she and her colleagues report and talk about from The White House, it's like reading The Onion and getting the same stories from them. Since this is a right-wing ( to be kind, Far-Right to be more accurate ) White House, maybe their stories and what they say sounds more like stories that come from The National Enquirer, since TNE is not just in bed with Donald Trump, but they're like his loyal mistress ( unlike Stormy Daniels ) who'll do anything for him. They sleep on The Donald to show how loyal they are to him.<br />
<br />
The reason why Sarah Sanders hasn't had a press conference since March ( even though she's The White Press Secretary and this is a major part of her job ) is that she's only human: there's only so much garbage ( to be too generous ) that any human being even the world champion of compulsive liars ( Donald Trump, being the current world champion ) can manage, handle, and put up with each day. Whatever you think of her and I think she's one of the most dishonest people in American politics today, ( which makes her very dishonest ) she's only human and knows that she's President Trump's chief bullshitter and being that would have to take a toll on anyone, especially if you're thinking about having a career with serious, credible, intelligent, and respectful people in the future.<br />
<br />
I guess I'll wish Sarah Sanders well, but only because that means we'll just have one less bullshitter at taxpayers expense at The White House. But don't get too excited, because she'll be replaced as fast as one of President Trump's political positions and we'll get a new chief bullshitter at The White House who'll be just as effective if not more at bullshitting the American people at taxpayers expense.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-53011252638781181852019-06-10T13:22:00.004-07:002019-06-10T13:22:56.072-07:00The Washington Post: Opinion- Karen Tumulty: 'Joe Biden Learned The Hard Way There is No Middle Ground On Abortion': Joe Biden's Flip Flop Over The Hyde Amendment<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gx11_DiOmSk/XP67epnjmQI/AAAAAAABh_o/86er4nRNLcAa48U5ISNkPMEB17dzzBfJACLcBGAs/s1600/joe%2Bbiden%2Bkickoff%2Brally%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="490" data-original-width="735" height="213" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gx11_DiOmSk/XP67epnjmQI/AAAAAAABh_o/86er4nRNLcAa48U5ISNkPMEB17dzzBfJACLcBGAs/s320/joe%2Bbiden%2Bkickoff%2Brally%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=740&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=b6H-XPXcEKml_QaXppGYAg&q=joe+biden+learned+the+hard+way+there+is+no+middle+ground+on+abortion&oq=Joe&gs_l=img.1.0.35i39l2j0i67l3j0l5.2537415.2541937..2543751...2.0..0.67.305.6......0....1..gws-wiz-img.....0.nDaCvxF75nE#imgrc=WlQkUGH-UxFN6M:">The Washington Post</a>- Joe Biden: flip-flopping on the Hyde Amendment</td><td class="tr-caption"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/06/the-washington-post-opinion-karen.html#.XP6vONNKhHT">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"There has long been a relatively safe space for a Democratic politician, particularly a Catholic one, to inhabit on the morally fraught issue of abortion.<br />
<br />
It was the stance that then-Vice President Joe Biden took during a 2012 debate: “Life begins at conception. That’s the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life,” Biden said. “But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews. . . . I do not believe we have a right to tell other people — women — that they can’t control their body.”<br />
<br />
At the time, that blanket declaration was enough to satisfy most Democrats. It is not anymore — as Biden learned this week, when the man who leads all the polls for the Democratic Party’s 2020 presidential nomination was thrown off balance on the question of government funding for abortion."<br />
<br />
Read the rest of Karen Tumulty's piece at <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-biden-learned-the-hard-way-there-is-no-middle-ground-on-abortion/2019/06/07/d6c3a528-8937-11e9-98c1-e945ae5db8fb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e80dfa11b7fa&wpisrc=nl_opinions&wpmm=1">The Washington Post</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o49ipw98LUg/XP67HWVWldI/AAAAAAABh_g/UT-G0-vqenkjm2KgYL_wV06nhgQ9BCtWQCLcBGAs/s1600/Biden%2Bflips%2Bon%2BHyde%2BAmendment.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o49ipw98LUg/XP67HWVWldI/AAAAAAABh_g/UT-G0-vqenkjm2KgYL_wV06nhgQ9BCtWQCLcBGAs/s320/Biden%2Bflips%2Bon%2BHyde%2BAmendment.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znUB2ii-uTE">ABC News: Joe Biden- 'Flips On Hyde Amendment'</a>- Joe Biden; doing his Mitt Romney, over the Hyde Amendment </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"2020 Democratic candidate Joe Biden reversed his stance on a measure that prevents using federal funding for abortions.When former Vice President Joe Biden announced that he was running for President last month, his message and appeal was basically that he wasn't President Donald Trump and that he was different."<br />
<br />
If you look at Donald Trump before Barack Obama before he became President and then after he became President, the so-called Donald was basically a mainstream Democrat. A wealthy, New York City businessman who backed Democrats for most of his career. And then a guy named Barack Obama becomes President the first African-American in American history, with the bogus ( to be kind ) and racist birther movement around him and The Donald decides that he wants to be in politics too and becomes the champion of the Far-Right with the birther movement back in 2011.<br />
<br />
And then in 2015 The Donald decides he wants to be President after 6 years of a Progressive, African-American President running the country and gets behind the Far-Right on everything in launching his own Nationalist movement in the country and basically other than perhaps tariffs and immigration, reverses course on almost every single political position that he had before. Making Mitt Romney look like the most principled politician that this country has ever seen.<br />
<br />
Joe Biden, is running not just as the anti-Trump, but as someone who will change the character of the presidency and get it out of Donald Trump's morality toilet and return honor and decency to the country.<br />
<br />
Kind of hard to make that case when on Wednesday of last week you're saying that your support for the Hyde Amendment, ( that was proposed by Representative Henry Hyde in 1976 ) that was passed by Congress in 1976 that then Senator Joe Biden voted for and continued to support during his entire career in the Senate, was a deeply heartfelt view that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for someone else's abortions, ( except in the cases of life and health of the mother, or rape or incest ) and then on Thursday announce you can no longer support an amendment that denies abortion rights to low-income women, even though on Wednesday that you already knew that low-income women couldn't get taxpayer assistance to pay for their abortions.<br />
<br />
The Hyde Amendment to me at least is not about whether abortion should be legal in this country: I'm pro-choice on practically everything short of people hurting innocent people with what they're doing, including abortion because I don't believe life starts at conception, but at the last stages of the woman's pregnancy. It's not a question of whether abortion should be legal in America or not, but who should pay for it.<br />
<br />
We all make our own choices and we all have our own personal freedom in this country. We also all have our own personal responsibility in this country and are held accountable for our own personal decisions. Why should abortion be any different? I'm not talking about forcing women who are raped including by their own male relatives to be forced to carry that pregnancy to its end. Or denying women abortion even though they need it to protect their health and even life. The Hyde Amendment, has all of these exceptions in it. I'm just saying that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize the abortions of others other than the exceptions that I just laid out. And until last Thursday, Joe Biden shared this exact same position and held that exact same position since 1976 when he voted for the Hyde Amendment when it was passed in that Congress.<br />
<br />
People who oppose the Hyde Amendment from the Left, argue that Hyde Amendment denies low-income women the same reproductive rights as women with means in this country who aren't poor and who can afford to get an abortion either from their private health insurance or out of their own pockets. And they're completely right about that, but that's not the issue. This shouldn't be a newsflash for anyone: low-income women simply don't have the same freedom as middle or high income women in this country. And low-income Americans regardless of gender, or race or ethnicity don't have the same freedom in America as middle or high-income Americans either. But that's not unfair, that's just life. You want to have a lot of freedom in America, you need to have the income to finance that freedom. That's just how America has always worked and how it should always be.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-15403812536429704272019-06-03T12:56:00.003-07:002019-06-03T12:58:46.350-07:00Critical Past: Wendell Willkie- 'Arrives in His Hometown And Formally Accepts The Republican Presidential Nomination'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WFUA18OEsnE/XPV7L65fq_I/AAAAAAABfzk/zyrWI6TtIHMfgTenPjCEuWm6cSRmFLWKwCEwYBhgL/s1600/Wendell%2BWillkie%2Barrives%2Bin%2Bhis%2Bhome%2Btown%2Band%2Bformally%2Baccepts%2Bthe%2BRepubl.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WFUA18OEsnE/XPV7L65fq_I/AAAAAAABfzk/zyrWI6TtIHMfgTenPjCEuWm6cSRmFLWKwCEwYBhgL/s320/Wendell%2BWillkie%2Barrives%2Bin%2Bhis%2Bhome%2Btown%2Band%2Bformally%2Baccepts%2Bthe%2BRepubl.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Wendell+Willkie+arrives+in+his+hometown+and+formally+accepts+the+Republican+Pres...HD+Stock+Footage&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjqs6y8s3iAhVJnFkKHR4OASQQ_AUIESgC&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=DAoAckQFsNz5oM:">Critical Past</a>- Liberal Republican Wendell Willie: accepting the 1940 GOP presidential nomination</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.frsfreestate.me/2019/06/critical-past-wendell-willkie-arrives.html#.XPV6LJBLPBP.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"Historic Stock Footage Archival and Vintage Video Clips in HD.<br />
<br />
Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town and formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd.<br />
<br />
Wendell Willkie arrives in his home town after being nominated as the Presidential candidate. Wendell Willkie in a car. A large crowd gathers to greet him. Crowd cheering and applauding. He stands on the podium and addresses the crowd. He formally accepts the Republican Presidential nomination before the crowd. Addressing the crowd, he states that the domestic and foreign policies of the New Deal is leading the nation into war. He endorses the draft for US defense and dares President Roosevelt to meet him for a public debate on questions vital to all Americans. Location: Elwood Indiana. Date: August 19, 1940."<br />
<br />
Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsUkmXaNJB4&feature=youtu.be">Critical Past: Wendell Willkie- 'Arrives in His Hometown And Formally Accepts The Republican Presidential Nomination'</a><br />
<br />
By 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt had his New Deal passed through Congress and the Great Depression was over, but the devastating affects of it were still there and the people were still feeling it. Business investment and economic growth were still low and unemployment was still high. It wasn't the New Deal that saved the American economy: it helped in alleviating pain of the Great Depression, but the economy still wasn't back to anything near to what it was in 1928 before the stock market crash.<br />
<br />
President Roosevelt, was a popular President, but there was a real case to be made against him and real room to run against him for President and offer a new direction for the country, which is what businessman Wendell Willkie who was a Liberal Republican offered in 1940. Liberal in the classical and real sense, not made up or stereotypical, big government, socialist sense. FDR, wasn't a Socialist either, but his big, central, government approach government approach with his New Deal, was very different from Wendell was offering which was about more individualism private business investment, as apposed to FDR's Federal Government investment approach.<br />
<br />
The 1940 presidential election was an interesting election for multiple reasons: you had a popular President against a popular opponent. FDR, was a popular President, but Wendell Willkie managed about 45% of the popular vote which is more than Barry Goldwater in 1964 and President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Wendell with his 10 states won more than President Carter in 1980. It was also an an election where you had a Progressive Democrat versus a Liberal Republican. Willkie, was to the Left of FDR on civil rights and civil liberties. FDR, was to the Left of Wendell on economic policy. And they were similar on foreign policy and national security with both men being strong liberal internationalists and somewhat hawkish.<br />
<br />
1940, represents a time in American politics where the country wasn't so divided politically. When Liberals, were Liberals. Conservatives, were Conservatives. Progressives, were Progressives. Socialists, weren't afraid to be Socialists. ( Unless they were in Hollywood ) Where Americans regardless of their political labels didn't hate each other simply because of their politics which is how you can get a presidential election between a Franklin Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie, because their differences were about politics and policy. Not race, ethnicity, religion, or culture.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-75371331025813985872019-05-20T13:06:00.003-07:002022-02-06T11:57:20.252-08:00Classic Film and TV Cafe: Rick 29- 'Murder One: The Sensational First Season'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Izg3eT7wy7A/XOMIgX4dU0I/AAAAAAABfdY/44LlnP52xEo4s2oCTzL2MDevOV1rWtBiACLcBGAs/s1600/murder%2Bone_%2Bthe%2Bsensational%2Bfirst%2Bseason%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch%2B%25281%2529.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="424" data-original-width="370" height="320" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Izg3eT7wy7A/XOMIgX4dU0I/AAAAAAABfdY/44LlnP52xEo4s2oCTzL2MDevOV1rWtBiACLcBGAs/s320/murder%2Bone_%2Bthe%2Bsensational%2Bfirst%2Bseason%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch%2B%25281%2529.png" width="279" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=murder+one:+the+sensational+first+season&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVmeyW1ariAhVjRN8KHe35CI8Q_AUIECgD&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=OFD3Y2X3Unj5vM:">Classic Film & TV Cafe</a>- Actor Daniel Benzali: as attorney Ted Hoffman.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/05/classic-film-and-tv-cafe-rick-29-murder.html#.X0Vg2NNKhQI">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"When wealthy philanthropist Richard Cross is arrested for the murder of his mistress's 15-year-old sister, he secures the services of defense attorney Ted Hoffman. Within days, though, a mysterious woman comes forward to provide Cross (Stanley Tucci) with an alibi. He is released and the police quickly charge actor Neil Avedon with the homicide. When Cross pleads with Ted (Daniel Benzali) to defend Neil, the attorney accepts the case."<br />
<br />
Read the rest of this piece at <a href="https://www.classicfilmtvcafe.com/2019/04/murder-one-tv-review.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClassicFilmAndTvCafe+%28Classic+Film+and+TV+Cafe%29">Classic Film & TV Cafe</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OhXcU3wxX2g/XOMHbZ4NoqI/AAAAAAABfdI/Hg8lDdhMKG0YDsV7IC6LtAKfjSotK4JbgCEwYBhgL/s1600/Murder%2BOne%2BCase%2B1%2BOpening%2BCredits.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-OhXcU3wxX2g/XOMHbZ4NoqI/AAAAAAABfdI/Hg8lDdhMKG0YDsV7IC6LtAKfjSotK4JbgCEwYBhgL/s320/Murder%2BOne%2BCase%2B1%2BOpening%2BCredits.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeg6qO3BaLw">Apathy Monger</a>- J.C. MacKenize: was part of the cast from season one of ABC's Murder One</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
"Murder One Season One Opening Credits"<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaE0cue1UWpGy49j8-bsMpzLQlpBu1TLlp-kv_d7ean1GBaTiDlWvQYjIs1TnlUHPeYCpJ9sh7voY3XIyfLdkpvp8anwlic6lqBQVp4UXYOn2lZamzcvIpse8bsrcB3exTsp7AoCihQeWM/s1600/murder+one_+the+sensational+first+season+-+Google+Search.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="484" data-original-width="372" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaE0cue1UWpGy49j8-bsMpzLQlpBu1TLlp-kv_d7ean1GBaTiDlWvQYjIs1TnlUHPeYCpJ9sh7voY3XIyfLdkpvp8anwlic6lqBQVp4UXYOn2lZamzcvIpse8bsrcB3exTsp7AoCihQeWM/s320/murder+one_+the+sensational+first+season+-+Google+Search.png" width="245" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=murder+one:+the+sensational+first+season&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVmeyW1ariAhVjRN8KHe35CI8Q_AUIECgD&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=hm_u1431XBO4XM:">Classic Film & TV Cafe</a>- Actor Stanley Tucci: as businessman Richard Cross </td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Just to give you little background about Murder One and the genre in Hollywood that it represented: in the late 1970s with superstar shows like Dallas, soap operas went prime time. Dallas with CBS, that ABC got into the prime time soap opera game with Dynasty. CBS, launched another prime time soap with Falcon Crest. NBC, with St. Elsewhere. ABC, in the mid and late 1980s with Thirty Something. Because of Generation X, shows like Beverly Hills 90210 and Melrose Place in the early 90s. And then prime time soaps just even bigger in the mid 90s with shows like NYPD Blue ( from ABC ) and then ER. ( From NBC )<br />
<br />
Murder One, ( from ABC ) was different at least in the sense that it was a prime time soap opera dealing with the criminal justice system and that the show was almost exclusively from the point of the view of the defense team. When you saw the prosecutors, they were either in court, giving a press conference, or in communication with the defense team. And the first season of Murder One did have several other legal and criminal cases that Hoffman & Associates dealt with, but their biggest cases was the Neal Avdeon who was a Hollywood actor who was accused of killing his girlfriend.<br />
<br />
By the midpoint of season one, Murder One was practically all about the Avedon case where the general partner of Hoffman & Associates Ted Hoffman, is completely tied up and basically has his life taken over by this one murder case and getting his client acquitted of the murder charge.<br />
<br />
There are shows and series that seem to go on forever that I wish I had never heard of, but because they're so popular, even though they're so stupid where the main characters on the show are really only famous for getting into tense, heated, public arguments and fights. Where these people are basically just losers who can't stay out of trouble. And of course I'm thinking of what's called reality TV.<br />
<br />
And then there are what I at least call cookie-cutter sitcoms where it's hard to tell one of these shows from another, because they're all basically about the same things: young to early middle age people, who aren't married, no kids, live in lofts that are probably in New York and spend most of their time hanging out at coffee houses and places like that. And those shows go on forever, even though there's really not much if any difference from one cookie-cutter sitcom to another other than the cast members are different, because that's what young people are into.<br />
<br />
Murder One, falls into a different category as a show that had a great cast, had great writers, that wasn't like the other shows that it was competing with, but instead almost completely different; maybe only LA Law could you compare with Murder One and yet Murder One despite everything that it had going for it with the great background and depth to that show, it doesn't make and is gone after season 2.<br />
<br />
ABC and Steven Bochco made some fatal mistakes with Murder One: going up against ER on the same night and time slot during season one, which just killed the ratings of Murder One right off the bat. And then replacing Daniel Benzali who was perfect for the role of Ted Hoffman, with Anthony LaPaglia, who is a fine actor, but not someone you want as your lead actor in a big show like this. But Murder One, didn't fail because it had cheesy writing, or a weak cast, weak directing, or anything like that, but of how it was managed with the tools that they had. It should've had its own time slot from episode one and let the show ride on its own.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-14407482323125409522019-05-13T11:53:00.003-07:002021-06-09T11:07:04.656-07:00The Economist: 'What if Women Ruled The World?'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-egk74qg-Q34/XNm8v0xAkTI/AAAAAAABfSg/KtVjOffG3nUWNwzdMQb9s0l5dMVCqrPewCLcBGAs/s1600/The%2BEconomist%2B-%2BWhat%2Bif%2BWomen%2BRuled%2BThe%2BWorld_%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.jpeg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-egk74qg-Q34/XNm8v0xAkTI/AAAAAAABfSg/KtVjOffG3nUWNwzdMQb9s0l5dMVCqrPewCLcBGAs/s320/The%2BEconomist%2B-%2BWhat%2Bif%2BWomen%2BRuled%2BThe%2BWorld_%2B-%2BGoogle%2BSearch.jpeg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?biw=1440&bih=740&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=sqPZXIn7Dse3ggfroKuQBg&q=The+Economist+-+What+if+Women+Ruled+The+World%3F&oq=The+Economist+-+What+if+Women+Ruled+The+World%3F&gs_l=img.3...9424.13733..14897...0.0..0.86.990.16......1....1..gws-wiz-img.EKxUNQ__TJ8#imgrc=NTLSAW6zRlHO0M:">The Economist</a>- U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez (Democratic Socialist, New York City)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-economist-what-if-women-ruled-world.html#.YMEDGTZKhQJ">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"Only 6.3% of all international leaders are women. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, former Liberian president and Africa's first elected female head of state, suggests ways to redress the balance."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS9hlNhyRZY&feature=em-uploademail">The Economist</a><br />
<br />
To sort of have fun with President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf's comment about the world would be a better place if women ruled the world: if you're a regular of the so-called reality TV series Housewives, you might not think the world would be a safer place if women ruled the world. Most of the time they're either arguing, swearing at each other, even physically fighting and throwing things at each other. Which might be the only reason why those shows are so popular with all the catfighting. A good so-called reality TV show makes the WWE look like a golf match: way too quiet and peaceful.<br />
<br />
As far as women ruling the world and to take a more serious look at this: ( for a change ) the only way to achieve power in America or anywhere else in the world, is to achieve power. Which I know sort of sounds like Captain Obvious on his best day, but anything that's worth doing is worth working for. You don't achieve power in America or anywhere else by sitting at home or at some coffee house staring at your phone and hoping someone else does it for you. But instead you have to enter the free market of ideas ( also known as liberal democracy ) and put yourself out there and make to case to anyone who will hear you why you're the most qualified candidate out there and should hold that office, instead of the man you are running against or perhaps another woman that you might be running against.<br />
<br />
Some might argue ( like radical feminists ) that it's hard for women to run office because of sexism and all the negative stereotypes women especially female candidates get about being tough and not seeming feminine enough and all of that: try making that case to Dr. Martin L. King and his civil rights movement of the 1960s: what if Dr. King believed that his civil rights movement wasn't worth it because of all the violence and racism that he and his movement would face from those racist, Neo-Confederate state government's in the South and decided: "the hell with it, this is not worth it." You think America and the world would be different if women were in charge: imagine how different America would be if the African-American community was satisfied with living as second-class citizens and in some cases not even treated like citizens at all.<br />
<br />
I realize the women's movement ( whatever that is supposed to be today ) is not an exact parallel to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, but there are similarities in as far as what both movements were up against from the outset. And in the civil rights case and to a large extent with a lot of female candidates and female politicians today, a lot of these people knew that from the outset as well and decided that it was worth it and that just because they're female that doesn't make them any less qualified to hold public office than their male counterparts. Which is how 70 or more women get elected to Congress last year with most of those women getting elected to the House. ( You want more female Senators, they have to run for office first )<br />
<br />
And I just get back to my first serious point to close this: anything in life regardless of which country it is that's worth achieving in life is worth working for. Even if there are a lot of obstacles that are thrown at you and even unfair obstacles: like people being judged simply by their race, ethnicity, gender, etc. And a lot of times you need those thoroughbreds from the outset who don't completely throw caution to the wind, but knows exactly what's in front of them and takes it on anyway with a game plan to accomplish their goals. You don't win games by sitting on the sidelines. And you don't win elections and get elected by sitting at home.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-228328775238759262019-05-06T13:20:00.005-07:002022-02-06T12:00:13.383-08:00The Thinking Atheist: Andrew Torrez- 'Donald Trump, The Courts, and The Evangelical Right'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D6psKYznjew/XNCWxqgg0PI/AAAAAAABfHM/3ABe-4zg7uwnzZ2-d9YxsFFZM5TLw3XqACLcBGAs/s1600/Image%2Bresult%2Bfor%2BAndrew%2BTorrez_%2BTrump%252C%2BThe%2BCourts%252C%2Band%2BThe%2BEvangelical%2BRight.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-D6psKYznjew/XNCWxqgg0PI/AAAAAAABfHM/3ABe-4zg7uwnzZ2-d9YxsFFZM5TLw3XqACLcBGAs/s320/Image%2Bresult%2Bfor%2BAndrew%2BTorrez_%2BTrump%252C%2BThe%2BCourts%252C%2Band%2BThe%2BEvangelical%2BRight.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&biw=1440&bih=837&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=mXnQXKTPHeKMgge8yJrAAg&q=andrew+torrez%3A+trump%2C+the+courts%2C+and+the+evangelical+right&oq=An&gs_l=img.1.0.35i39j0i67l9.3622885.3625340..3627428...0.0..0.87.154.2......2....1..gws-wiz-img.....0..0.n_n1FZ9bF24#imgrc=Xmqsc9JFAScgeM:">The Thinking Atheist</a>- <span style="font-size: small; text-align: start;">Andrew Torrez: on The Thinking Atheist.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-thinking-atheist-andrew-torrez.html#.YgAoru7MJQI">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"Andrew Torrez is an attorney and co-host of the Opening Arguments podcast. In this short profile, Andrew talks Trump, the law, impeachment(?), and the Supreme Court."<br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNwzS5x1UOo&feature=em-uploademail">The Thinking Atheist</a><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IYMc1sSWevY/XNCWEN0UH6I/AAAAAAABfHE/IK6fr3XBmrQMNDtbgi21HrsThRkqYFbHwCLcBGAs/s1600/Image%2Bresult%2Bfor%2BTen%2BCommandments%2B-%2BThou%2BShalt%2BNot%2BSpeak%2BIll%2Bof%2BThe%2BDead.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IYMc1sSWevY/XNCWEN0UH6I/AAAAAAABfHE/IK6fr3XBmrQMNDtbgi21HrsThRkqYFbHwCLcBGAs/s320/Image%2Bresult%2Bfor%2BTen%2BCommandments%2B-%2BThou%2BShalt%2BNot%2BSpeak%2BIll%2Bof%2BThe%2BDead.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&biw=1440&bih=837&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=OnnQXILNJ6ea_QaW9Lz4Cw&q=Ten+Commandments+-+Thou+Shalt+Not+Speak+Ill+of+The+Dead&oq=Ten+Commandments+-+Thou+Shalt+Not+Speak+Ill+of+The+Dead&gs_l=img.3...80870.93572..93936...4.0..0.135.2832.41j2......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i67j0i30j0i5i30j0i8i30.Ma90tFzHzT8#imgrc=WTK8NWo36PdmxM:">United Church of God</a>- </td><td class="tr-caption"><span style="font-size: 12.8px;">"Ten Commandments List: Where in the Bible does it talk about the Ten ..."</span></td><td class="tr-caption"><br /></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
I guess that I have a different take from Andrew Torrez on this, even though I agree with most of what he's saying here. My point here is about Donald Trump and what's called the Christian-Right and when we talk about these two movements ( which is exactly what they are ) we need to be careful when doing this and not put every Christian-Conservative in the same camp or say that everyone on the Christian-Right is a Christian-Conservative. And instead separate the people who truly are Christian-Fundamentalists and live by those values and if anything think Donald Trump and a lot of what he stands for in many ways is anti-Christian and an insult to Christianity, separate those people from the Christian-Nationalists and the hyper-partisan people on the Christian-Right in America.<br />
<br />
I think it's also dangerous to try to get into someone's mind and try to label say this is exactly what they think and believe in. We shouldn't do that when it comes to politics or religion, but what we can do is go by people's actions and talk about how they act and their politics and believes based on what they say and what they do. And then see if their actions match up with what they claim to believe in. So I'm not going to try to argue that Donald Trump is not a Christian. He might truly believe he is ( even if his personal lifestyle and character makes it clear that he isn't ) but what I am going to do is make the case that Trump doesn't act like a Christian and a lot of what he believes in and how he presents himself, his lack of morality and character is very anti-Christian and I'm going to use The Ten Commandments and his personal behavior as my reference for that.<br />
<br />
Let's start with the third commandment thou shalt not take God's name in vain: do you know of another President or American politician at any level that swears more in public more than Donald Trump? Within his first days as President he gives a speech at a church in Washington and of course he was joking here, but he was talking about Senate Chaplin and he said that he knows he can't appoint the Chaplin for life and then he says: "the hell with it, I'm appointing the Chaplin for life." And it got a big laugh, but the President of the United States literally not just swearing in public, but doing it at a church. And I realize the hell with anything is very mild when it comes to swearing in America today, but we're talking about a President who can't even keep his dirty mouth shut at a church.<br />
<br />
How about though shalt not speak ill of the dead: I realize this might not be an official member of The Ten Commandments, but what's Christian and moral about speaking ill of people who can't defend themself and in Senator John McCain's case who was a POW and war hero in Vietnam, because he wouldn't rat on his fellow Naval officers: where'e the morality and Christianity about speaking ill of man like Senator John McCain who is dead?<br />
<br />
Though shalt not commit adultery: Donald Trump, has been married three times and is a three-time adulterer. His personal life is exactly that and I'm not ready to says he's a bad man because he's a three-time adulterer, ( God knows there's so much more and better evidence to lay out that he's bad man without his adultery ) but it's not just that he's a serial adulterer, but take up to the points where he's cheating on his wife while she's carrying his third son with two porn actresses. And then pays off both women so his family never knows about that and it doesn't hurt him during the 2016 presidential election.<br />
<br />
Here's a good one: though shalt not bear false witness: again, do you know of an American politician at nay level that lies more than Donald Trump? I wrote a piece a few weeks ago talking about liars and bullshitters ( and no, I'm not Christian myself ) and differentiating between the two: Donald Trump, qualifies both as a liar and a bullshitter. Which is a remarkable accomplishment in itself and its not that he just lies or lies so much is really bad by itself, because you're talking about a President where maybe 3-5 Americans simply don't believe the man every time he speaks. Whoever said that credibility and character is everything, knows what they're talking about.<br />
<br />
But it's not just the lying and bullshit that comes out of Donald Trump's mouth or that he's President when he does that. The real problem here is that he simply doesn't give a damn ( to put it mildly ) and doesn't seem to care if others knows when he's lying and bullshitting and does it anyway. And that he's so bad as a liar that a 10 year old kid could think to themself and say: "wait, that's not true and does he even believe what he's saying here." I mean the man even lies about his own height: his official New York drivers license has him at 6'2 while he tells everyone else that he's 6'3 and everyone already knows that he's a big tall man and yet he has to give himself and extra inch. He even lies about his own father and ancestry saying that his father Fred Trump was from Germany, when the fact was his father was born in America to German-American parents who were from Germany.<br />
<br />
Why the so-called Christian-Right thinks it's Christian to loyally back a man who isn't even aware of The Ten Commandments, let alone follows them or believes in them you'll have to bring that up with them if you want to know the answer to that. And while you're at it you might want to ask them if it is worth sacrificing their own character, morality, and credibility to get fewer abortions performed in America. But again its important not to put every member of the Christian-Right in the same box and instead separate the political partisans from the true Christians who actually live up to the values that they say they believe in.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-73815339343580674042019-04-29T13:29:00.003-07:002019-04-29T13:29:53.421-07:00The Washington Post: Opinion- Karen Tumulty: ‘Joe Biden’s Biggest 2020 Competitor May Be Joe Biden’<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1l3iRCgx1Pk/XMdeaJn-6_I/AAAAAAABe3I/-d-bD3jdFz8DIsXd-MsYiEmSDtZfmYCGgCLcBGAs/s1600/Image%2Bresult%2Bfor%2BOpinion%2B%257C%2BJoe%2BBiden%2527s%2Bbiggest%2B2020%2Bcompetitor%2Bmay%2Bbe%2BJoe%2BBiden.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="735" height="179" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1l3iRCgx1Pk/XMdeaJn-6_I/AAAAAAABe3I/-d-bD3jdFz8DIsXd-MsYiEmSDtZfmYCGgCLcBGAs/s320/Image%2Bresult%2Bfor%2BOpinion%2B%257C%2BJoe%2BBiden%2527s%2Bbiggest%2B2020%2Bcompetitor%2Bmay%2Bbe%2BJoe%2BBiden.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=Opinion+%7C+Joe+Biden%27s+biggest+2020+competitor+may+be+Joe+Biden&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVyt-y8_XhAhUjpFkKHW5jDv4Q_AUIDygC&biw=1440&bih=837#imgrc=s0s6ut-Eg6HU1M:">The Washington Post</a>- Joe Biden:”being Vice President, is just not good enough?”</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.com/2019/04/29/the-washington-post-opinion-karen-tumulty-joe-bidens-biggest-2020-competitor-may-be-joe-biden/">The New Democrat Plus</a><br />
<br />
“Former vice president Joe Biden has finally entered the 2020 presidential campaign. Columnist Karen Tumulty argues that he must prove that he isn’t a politician of a different era.”<br />
<br />
Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mtmhZA2QFc">The Washington Post: Opinion- Karen Tumulty: 'Joe Biden's Bigget 2020 Challenge May Be Joe Biden'</a><br />
<br />
I mostly agree with what Karen Tumulty said about Joe Biden here, but I guess I would put it differently and add a few things.<br />
<br />
If Joe Biden really wants to be President of the United States ( and I believe it’s a safe assumption that he does ) he should’ve ran for President in 2000. Looking back at least, a strong primary run against then Vice President Al Gore would’ve been good for Vice President Gore and the Democratic Party as well. Gore, only had one opponent at all in 2000 that being former Senator Bill Bradley, who didn’t even win a primary against Gore. Then Governor George W. Bush, had a very strong primary challenger in Senator John McCain, which I believe only made the Bush Campaign better because it served as a strong playoff for Bush which of course was the 2020 general election against Gore. Gore didn’t have that, because Democrats by 1999 had already decided that they wanted Vice President Gore and didn’t make any room for anyone else to run against him.<br />
<br />
Then Senator Biden, should’ve run for President in 2004: as we know now before the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry as their presidential nominee, Senator Kerry wasn’t even the frontrunner before he won the nomination. He had to fight like hell just to try to raise some money and stay alive in late 2003 and wasn’t raising any money until he won the Iowa caucus. Senator Biden, would’ve been a strong contender that year because there were no frontrunners in that election on the Democratic side, but you had a Democratic Party that wanted to win and was prepared to get behind the nominee to defeat President Bush.<br />
<br />
Then Vice President Biden, could’ve run for President for 2016: Hillary Clinton, was a strong frontrunner going in, but if you remember anything from 2007-08 she was not just the strong frontrunner going in to not just win the Democratic nomination then, but to beat Senator John McCain or whoever the Republican Party would nominate for the general election that year. But by the time super Tuesday was over in February 2008, her campaign was all but over, because then Senator Barack Obama won practically every major state on that election night.<br />
<br />
It could’ve occurred to Vice President Biden and someone on his team that maybe Hillary isn’t as strong a frontrunner that she may seem to be and probably needs a strong challenger, which is exactly what she got, except it came from the Far-Left in the party from Socialist Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Not from the Vice President of the United States who has 100% name id not just in the party, but in the country. And was a loyal and great Vice President to a popular President in Barack Obama who the Democratic Party absolutely loves.<br />
<br />
It’s that old cliche that you only get one chance to make a first impression, which of course is not only true but in politics you have to seize on the moments that you get and then take advantage of them. Which is what John F. Kennedy did in 1960, what Jimmy Carter did in 1980, what Bill Clinton did in 1992, what Barack Obama did in 2008. You can’t just assume that they’ll come back simply because you don’t you’re ready or you simply don’t want to run.<br />
<br />
Would Barack Obama really had been the great Democratic contender that he was in 2008 had he waited until 2016 let’s say when he had already been in the Senate for 12 years before he decided to run for President, because he wanted more foreign policy experience? We’ll never know that of course, but probably not because 12 years later he would’ve already had a fairly long Congressional record and probably a lot of controversial votes and caught in Congressional speak and sound like a politician going a speech on the floor of the Senate, instead of this young vibrant man who spoke off the cuff and from his heart using beautiful language which is how he won the Democratic nomination in 08 and then the presidency, because he was so fresh, new, and likable, came off as a human being and not just as someone who was running for office.<br />
<br />
And with Joe Biden, forget about being in the Senate for 12 years and instead triple that where he was one of the most powerful, influential, and respected not just Senator’s who has ever served, but members of Congress that has ever served in either the House or Senate and don’t fantasize for a moment that the other Democratic contenders don’t know exactly how long Biden’s Congressional record is and is going through every possible controversial vote ( at least in today’s Democratic Party ) that he has ever made and will try to pull anything out that they can get their hands on that could hurt the former Senator and Vice President.<br />
<br />
It’s not Vice President Biden’s experience that I have issues with: experience is generally a good thing in life especially if you learn from it and then apply correctly and make good judgments, it’s the fact that and to paraphrase Joe Biden himself: this is your father’s Democratic Party anymore. Even 10 years ago Joe Biden would’ve been seen as a strong Center-Left Progressive Democrat who fights for the middle class and for civil rights, who wants an America where everyone can succeed, who will also defend and protect the country from foreign and domestic predators. This is what progressivism at least use to be and what it was about and what I believe it still is and what it means to be a Progressive.<br />
<br />
The problem that Biden has is that the party is so far to the left now to the point that people who would be viewed as Progressives just 10-20 years ago like Joe Biden and Barack Obama, are now seen as Centrists or even as Conservative Democrats, because you have this large and growing faction of Socialists in the party that view anyone to the Right of them as either Centrists or Conservatives, even if they’re Democrats with solid Center-Left credentials. Like a Joe Biden or Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton even who is one of the strongest and most famous Feminists anywhere in the world, but in today’s Democratic Party she looks Conservative. Or even Nancy Pelosi who is the Speaker of the House with a long Progressive record in Congress.<br />
<br />
But then there’s the issue of Senator Biden’s Congressional record, so let’s talk about this so-called apology tour that he night have to go on to win the Democratic nomination:<br />
<br />
It’s not that voting for the 2003 Iraq War will be a problem at least in the sense that it was the wrong decision and wrong war and we should’ve never been involved in and we knew that by the summer of 2003 when we learned that Saddam Hussein not only didn’t have nuclear weapons program, but he didn’t even had weapons of mass destruction. And then the chaos in the country after the Hussein Regime was toppled without even putting up a fight. Biden, should have to explain that and admit he made a bad call there.<br />
<br />
It’s the other votes that he had in Congress that 25-30 years later still look like very solid votes at least as far as how the policies turned out, whether the Far-Left of the party likes them or not:<br />
<br />
like 1994 Crime Bill where we saw record low crimes rates in America during the 1990s, including in big cities with large minority populations like Chicago, New York, and Washington.<br />
<br />
Or how about the 1996 Welfare to Work Law where we saw record lows for poverty in America, because you had all of these people in poverty who were going back to school and getting the skills that they need to become economically self-sufficient and were finally able to get good jobs for themselves. Senator Biden’s support for deficit reduction and free trade, you could add to his possible apology tour and explain why he no longer supports these successful policies.<br />
<br />
I could be wrong here ( and of course that wouldn’t be the first time ) and perhaps the Democratic Party even the Far-Left is so tired of losing and seeing Donald J. Trump ( the king of real reality TV ) as President and want to take his American Nationalism Show off the air for good and will support any popular national Democrat including Joe Biden in order to defeat President Trump. We saw that in 1992 when the entire Democratic Party united behind then Governor Bill Clinton and in 1976 under then Governor Jimmy Carter. But those are just two elections and as Will Rogers once said he’s not a member of any organized party: he’s a Democrat.<br />
<br />
The Democratic Party tends to put ideological purity with the current Far-Left base of the party over electability, at least as the presidential level. And we’ll see which course they take in 2020 and how they treat Joe Biden. Will they get behind Joe, or stay home, go third-party with someone like Jill Stein and back a Socialist instead.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-89633687964759468312019-04-22T12:34:00.002-07:002020-02-29T11:25:52.225-08:00The Economist: Daniel Franklin- 'What's The Point of NATO?'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNbRQLfLSJYy1pzzmv490PX_P6uSlCMYXslt1v3KJhnLw9jEDoa9dMRXGawfo_prUW21ot_5DRj7ehtSBism8Q7KpxpaoOxOhVm8TsS-gyz-k7u_6tm4HXSK_moAkhl_XbIUuHC65x6-0A/s1600/4edb2b652cbdb495744da218d84aaa64.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNbRQLfLSJYy1pzzmv490PX_P6uSlCMYXslt1v3KJhnLw9jEDoa9dMRXGawfo_prUW21ot_5DRj7ehtSBism8Q7KpxpaoOxOhVm8TsS-gyz-k7u_6tm4HXSK_moAkhl_XbIUuHC65x6-0A/s320/4edb2b652cbdb495744da218d84aaa64.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Economist+-+What%27s+The+Point+of+Nato%3F&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXv5qRpeThAhWMg-AKHebsBVUQ_AUIDygC&biw=1440&bih=837#imgrc=TGaPnWpkUwf7mM:">The Economist</a>- Uploaded by The Economist.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-economist-daniel-franklin-whats.html#.XL4WKAZaVPm.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"NATO was set up in 1949 to counter the Soviet threat. Its North American and European members must continue to change the alliance if it is to remain relevant in the 21st century."<br />
<br />
Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0zofS_rM&feature=em-uploademail">The Economist</a><br />
<br />
If there is anything that I actually agree with President Donald Trump on and if there is one thing that he's gotten right in his two years as President, it's NATO and the fact that the United States is essentially responsible for the national defense of the entire West, or at least the northern part of the west. With Britain, France, a certain extent Germany playing major but much smaller roles in the defense of Europe. And this is as someone who is in favor of the concept of NATO and view is as the most successful international organization not just in the world today, but in world history.<br />
<br />
Just as an American who comes from a country that values individualism and that everyone should at least try to take care of themselves if not support themselves, why should American taxpayers be forced to subsidize the national defense of other developed countries: it would be one thing if Germany was poor, but they're a country of 80 plus million people, with an economy of over 4 trillion dollars, with 4th largest economy of the world. Their gross national domestic product is about as large as Japan's and they have 50 million fewer people than Japan, without nearly as much territory as Japan and without the natural resources of Japan.<br />
<br />
Germany, has roughly the same per-capita income as America without the national debt and budget deficits that we have and yet we as Americans are forced by international law to subsidize the national defense of another entire large developed country. Why is that? If there is anything that Americans dislike more than crooks, liars, and hypocrites, its freeloaders. The reason why we do this is because Germany sees itself as a great social democracy that doesn't believe in national defense, at least not as a large priority and more than willing to let someone else especially a superpower that has a great relationship with ( at least pre-Donald Trump ) to take care of their national defense for them. But as an American that's not a good enough reason for me.<br />
<br />
With the rise of nationalism both in America, Britain, and Europe now is the perfect time for Europe ( especially Germany ) to step up to the plate ( or step up to the ball, to use a soccer phrase ) and knock one out of the ballpark ( or kick one in the net ) and handle their own national defense. Which would be great for Europe's security, as well as economy. They would no longer have to worry about whether American taxpayers will continue to subsidize their national defense. And they would create millions of good jobs in their countries in their defense industries, because their militaries will now be first world, with first world defense resources and money to secure their own countries.<br />
<br />
A new European defense alliance that could either replace NATO or go along with it with the Euro states now responsible for their own national defense and be partnered with Britain, America, and Canada in the West would make Europe a world power and keep them relevant especially with the rise of Vladimir Putin's Russia who are looking to bring back the Russian empire, as well as China in the Far East that wants to be the next superpower in the world.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4156491002154529812.post-26920415571236092472019-04-15T12:50:00.004-07:002020-12-31T11:18:55.355-08:00The Economist: Lane Greene- 'The Truth About Lies'<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5huUb7uK7_U/XLTgFAWPPGI/AAAAAAABcRc/PQ4QjylJqp0cHO6WeXsX_VV_-kwyeSnpwCLcBGAs/s1600/788bd3f0624dafbc00c08d7c58c0681b.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="480" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5huUb7uK7_U/XLTgFAWPPGI/AAAAAAABcRc/PQ4QjylJqp0cHO6WeXsX_VV_-kwyeSnpwCLcBGAs/s320/788bd3f0624dafbc00c08d7c58c0681b.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source:<a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Economist+-+The+Truth+About+Lies&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPiNPu39LhAhWks1kKHVXLBXIQ_AUIDygC&biw=1440&bih=837#imgrc=HsDZFSO0LJHJ8M:">The Economist</a>- <span face="Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgb(51, 51, 51); color: #333333; font-size: 11.88px;">President Barack Obama: 44th POTUS and no more dishonest than any other politician or vote.</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Source:<a href="https://thenewdemocrat1975.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-economist-lane-greene-truth-about.html#.XLTe6iOoCpe.blogger">The New Democrat</a><br />
<br />
"From little fibs to big fat whoppers, lying is part of human nature. Lane Greene, our language guru, examines the difference between lies, falsehoods and plain nonsense."<br />
<br />
Source:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JePq8Zz28HE&feature=em-uploademail">The Economist</a><br />
<br />
From <a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie">Dictionary</a><br />
<br />
A lie is a: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood."<br />
<br />
Similar to terms like racist or bigot, Islamophobe, antisemite ( and unfortunately I could go on ) liar is a real word with real meaning and shouldn't be misused especially by people who are simply trying to score partisan points for their team and make the other side look as bad as they can get away with by spinning convenient facts to make their arguments. So if you're going to call someone a liar, you better know that they're deliberating making false statements with the intent to deceive and you better know that they tell lies, otherwise you're just falsely libeling that person.<br />
<br />
If I told someone that I was 7'0 tall, I would obviously lying there, but only because I'm a half foot short. ( Or more ) But if I told someone I was 6'5 when I'm 6'4 3/4, I wouldn't be lying there especially if I believed I was 6'5, or just rounded it up. People make false statements all the time, doesn't mean they're lying all the time. Most if not all of us lie anyway, but tell real lies or flatter people because we want them to feel good. The only difference between the average Joe or Mary on the street compared with famous people on the street like politicians, is most of the country doesn't know when we're lying, because most of the country hasn't heard of us.<br />
<br />
What makes politicians different is that they're public people and have to be public people to accomplish anything in their current job, or to get elected to higher office. And of course politicians lie, the question is do they lie more than the average Joe or Mary or any other average non-famous American. And I would argue that they don't simply because politicians are no more or less American and human as anyone else other than they're famous and are very ambitious people.<br />
<br />
And politicians tend to represent people who say they want honest people and yet they elect and reelect people who in many cases are dishonest and see lying as a way to avoid taking tough stances on positions and to coverup their less than honest behavior. ( Let's say ) So in that sense at least voters are liars as well because when polled they say they want honest, moral people representing them while they elect and reelect dishonest and crooked people. So who do voters have to blame for that other than the person that they see in the mirror?<br />
<br />
To paraphrase Lane Greene: there are liars and bullshitters and I would add idiots.<br />
<br />
The liar consistently says things that they know aren't true to deceive who they're talking to.<br />
<br />
The bullshitter is even worse because that person simply makes things up and could probably care less if people who they're talking to knows that they are bullshitting them.<br />
<br />
The idiot, is the biggest asshole of the group, but not internally because they continually speak out of their ass about things that they know almost nothing about and believe that they're a lot smarter than they actually are. And aren't even smart enough to know what they're saying is simply bullshit. (Nonsense or garbage, if you prefer ) Stay away from the idiot, because that person is probably the most dangerous of the group. Sort of like a drunk gunslinger with a loaded gun.<br />
<br />
But not everyone who makes false statement are liars. And as we've learned from the Russia investigation the last two years, you don't have to be lying to get in trouble with law enforcement officials. You can be arrested and prosecuted for simply making false statements to those officials even if you believe what you're saying is the truth. Which is another reason why we shouldn't call ever false statement a lie and every asshole a liar, because they might simply not know what they't saying and what they're talking about. And be no more dishonest than you're average politician.</div>
Erik Schneiderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07279535306863002730noreply@blogger.com0