Saturday, January 29, 2022

Real Time With Bill Maher: 'New Rule, How The Left Was Lost'

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- telling the Far-Left in America to grow up.

Source:The New Democrat

"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." 

Because of America's crazy and outdated two-party system, you have two, large, political parties in America, that have two crazy factions in it.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. 

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. 

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. 

Monday, August 9, 2021

Associated Press: 'Today in History for August 9th'

Source:Associated Press- Today in History.

"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." 

From the Associated Press 

I'll take a few of these stories one at a time and go from there.

President Harry Truman dropping the bomb on Japan in 1945: 

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.

Sharon Tate is murdered in 1969: 

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. 

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.

Whitney Houston born August 9th, 1964: 

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. 

Monday, July 27, 2020

Danny White: Dallas Cowboys (1980-88)

Source:Getty Images- Dallas Cowboys QB Danny White, against the Redskins in 1983.
Source:The New Democrat

"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)"

From Getty Images

"Danny White career highlights. I do not own any of the audio or footage shown in this video."

Source:DC 4 Life- Dallas Cowboys QB Danny White, playing against the Los Angeles Rams.
From DC 4 Life

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Gene Sperling: Economic Dignity

Source:WBUR- with a look at Democratic economist Gene Sperling's book.

"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.

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." 

From Good Reads 

"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." 

Source:Democracy Journal- "Construction workers march toward the Washington, DC Metro headquarters, Nov. 11, 1974... From The Democracy Journal. 

From Democracy Journal

"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. 

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 an​d 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." 

Source:Politics & Prose- Samantha Power interviewing Democratic economist Gene Sperling, for Politics & Prose Bookstore in Washington.

From Politics & Prose 

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. 

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. 

Monday, September 16, 2019

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Anthony Kronman: 'The Assault on American Excellence'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Michael Shermer: interviewing Anthony Kronman about his book.
Source:The New Democrat

"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:

• free speech vs. hate speech

• how language affects how we think about other people

• diversity of characteristics (race, gender) vs. diversity of viewpoints

• the search for universal truths vs. understanding other’s perspectives

• affirmative action in the academy: from the University of California to Harvard

• taking down statues of Hitler and Stalin vs. taking down statues of Confederate Generals

• the problem of applying current moral values to the past, and

• how to reform the academy to refocus on excellence.

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.

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."

From Skeptic

Source:Skeptic Magazine- "Science Salon - Science Salon Archives"
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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

Monday, September 9, 2019

Classic Film & TV Cafe: The Notorious Landlady (1962) 'Scene With Jack Lemmon & Kim Novak'

Source:Classic Film & TV Cafe- Hollywood Goddess Kim Novak, in The Notorious Landlady, from 1962.
Source:The New Democrat

"Diplomat Jack Lemmon has just returned to England and doesn't know that everyone else suspects Kim Novak's character of murdering her husband!"

From Classic Film & TV Cafe

Source:Alamy Stock Photo- Kim Novak and Jack Lemmon, in The Notorious Landlady from 1962.
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.

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.

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.

Monday, August 26, 2019

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.
Source:The New Democrat

"MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2019

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Dr. Donald Hoffman: 'The Case Against Reality'

Source:Skeptic Magazine- Talking about Donald Hoffman's "Case Against Reality." Reality and reason.

"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.

In this conversation, Hoffman and Shermer get deep into the weeds of:

• the nature of reality (ontology)

• how we know anything about reality (epistemology)

• the possibility that we’re living in a simulation

• the possibility that we’re just a brain in a vat

• the problem of other minds (that I’m the only sentient conscious being while everyone else is a zombie)

• the hard problem of consciousness

• what it means to ask “what’s it like to be a bat?”

• does the moon exist if there are no conscious sentient beings anywhere in the universe?

• is spacetime doomed?

• quantum physics and consciousness

• the microtubule theory of consciousness

• the global workspace theory of consciousness, and

• 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).

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."

From Skeptic Magazine

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy