HBO: George Carlin- On Pro-Life

George Carlin On Pro-Life - Google Search

Source:HBO– Part of George Carlin’s 1997 HBO special?

Source:The New Democrat 

“George Carlin Back in town”

Source:HBO: George Carlin- On Pro-Life

I’m aware that writing satire about abortion is risky, so before someone feels the need to point that out to me, I just thought that I lay out that I already know that. But with the Alabama antiabortion law this week, I feel the need to mention this and even use humor to do that, because of how hypocritical and frankly dishonest people who say they’re pro-life are on this issue. They’re just asking for a verbal ass kicking on this issue. It’s almost as if they’re walking up to me and begging me to set them straight on this.

Hearing someone who says they’re pro-life on abortion and pro-life in general, even though they don’t seem to give a damn ( to be kind ) about kids being shot in school, or at least not to the point that they’re willing to do a damn thing about it, is like hearing some so-called pro-choice leftist who is really only pro-choice on abortion and perhaps a couple other issues, even though they want big government telling people what they can do on practically every other personal choice issue everything from gambling to what people can eat and drink.

Being pro-choice on abortion, doesn’t make you pro-choice: it just means you’re pro-choice on one issue. And how pro-choice you are in general, depends on what your positions are on a whole host of other issues. And being pro-life on abortion, doesn’t make you pro-life if you believe that mentally handicapped and criminally insane people have a constitutional right to a firearm and easy access to our schools in this country. It just means that you are antiabortion.

When someone claims they’re pro-life because they oppose abortion, try to find out how pro-life they are and ask about a how they feel about a whole host of other life issues and not just firearms, but the lives of low-income children who are stuck in awful schools and everything else: what’s life like for poor children in this country and do they care at all about those kids, or do they stop caring once those kids are born.

If there is anyone or anything that American politics and politicians are good for, it’s the media, including comedians, especially satirists who get to make their living on reporting about dishonest and hypocritical our politicians are and stupid our people are who continue to vote for the same crooks and liars to continue to represent them in government.

I guess it takes an asshole to know another asshole and if you are an asshole, why wouldn’t you have anyone else other than asshole representing you: actually, why would an asshole deserve anyone better than another asshole representing them in government. American politics and government is garbage in and garbage out. And the people who give us our taxpayer funded garbage are the voters themselves. And this Alabama antiabortion story is a perfect example of that.

Posted in George Carlin | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New York Daily News: Nelson Rockefeller- ‘On The Future of The Republican Party: 1964 GOP Convention’

Nelson Rockefeller on The Future of the Republican Party - Google Search

Source:New York Daily News– Governor Nelson Rockefeller: Progressive Republican, New York

Source:The New Democrat 

“Nelson Rockefeller, who died on January 26, 2017 spoke passionately about his concern for the future of Republican Party at 1964 GOP Convention.”

Source:New York Daily News: Nelson Rockefeller- ‘On The Future of The Republican Party: ‘1964 GOP Convention’

Before people try to learn and understand Nelson Rockefeller or any other Republican from that era, they need to know what the GOP was like before Barry Goldwater and his coalition of Conservative-Libertarians, as well as Christian-Conservatives and there where the party was moving and has become ever since. And then know what it meant to be an extremist back then in the GOP and what that means now. Because these terms and labels are a lot different today, from where they were then.

Pre-1961 or so, the Republican Party was essentially a Progressive-Republican party: which I know sounds like jumbo shrimp, or a hot day in Seattle, freezing weather in South Florida, but they were basically a progressive Center-Right party, with a conservative-libertarian faction in it. Pre-1972 or so people who are called Libertarians today, were basically Conservative Republicans. And a lot of people who would be called Progressive Democrats let’s say in the 1970s or so, or Centrist Democrats, were Progressive Republicans before that.

Things like the civil rights movement, Cultural Revolution, the Vietnam War, and other major events from the 1960s basically flipped flopped the two major party’s. Right-wing Dixiecrats in and out of Congress like Senator Strom Thurmond and other members of the Southern Caucus in Congress became Republicans. And lot of Progressive Northeastern Republicans became Democrats.

Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, represented what was then the old guard of the Republican Party: the Dwight Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party that was progressive on civil rights and regulatory state issues, believed in a public safety net issues, public education, pro-Right to Organize, but were hawkish on national security and foreign policy, as well a law enforcement, and didn’t believe government should be running large deficits and debt. So when Governor Rockefeller, warned about extremism taking over the Republican Party, he was talking about Barry Goldwater and his Conservative-Libertarians, replacing the Progressives in the party like himself and he was right.

Posted in Nelson Rockefeller | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dan Mitchell: ‘Augmenting The Collection of Alexandria O. Cortez Humor’: This Should be Fun!

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez - Socialist Humor - Google Search

Source:Funny– “Iphone, Memes, and Starbucks: ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ PROUDLYINTRODUCES THESOCIALIST IPHONE, SOCIALIST”

If Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t exist, I might have to invent her since she helps to make socialism such an easy target for mockery.

Though I actually admire the fact that she doesn’t try to disguise her agenda. Like “Crazy Bernie,” she openly and boldly pushes for an ideological agenda that would put the United States somewhere between Greece and Venezuela in the global rankings for economic liberty.

And while that would be a horrible outcome, it does generate the satire for today’s column.”

Read the rest of Dan Mitchell’s piece at Dan Mitchell: ‘Augmenting The Collection of Alexandria O. Cortez Humor’

“A conservative columnist reported a ‘terrifying’ experience at an event featuring Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, in which horrifying subjects like healthcare and education for children were discussed. Scary!”

I guess I have mixed feelings about Freshman Representative ( or is Freshman now considered to be sexist ) Alexandria O. Cortez from New York City and I guess most of them are negative: but if there are any positive reasons about the start to her career in the House of Representatives and political career in general, is that she’s a great reminder that the Far-Left of the Democratic Party is still the Far-Left: another way of saying not ready for prime-time. It’s not that AOC and company aren’t running the Democratic Party yet, or they’re not running the House Democratic Caucus, it’s that they’re not even ready to run these institutions yet.

Before I get into her socialist politics and economic views, let’s just start with Congress first, especially in the House where Representative Cortez and other Freshman House Democrats back up my point on this: it’s one thing to be a Freshman Representative from gee I don’t know, New York City ( just to pick a city ) where maybe 7-10 New Yorkers believed that President Donald should’ve been impeached on day one after Democrats officially took control of the House: it’s easy to do that when you have no political power other than your vote and voice.

A little different when you’re not just in charge of the House Democratic Caucus which is what Nancy Polosi was doing up until 6 months ago, but now you’re running the entire institution other than the minority party and you have members in your caucus that don’t represent New York or anywhere else in the Northeast, or anywhere on the West Coast, but represent Midwestern districts where President Trump isn’t considered the devil there and maybe they don’t like him, but they know he’s up for reelection in 2020 and they kind of think what’s the point of impeaching the President, when not a single House Republican will vote for it and perhaps not even a single Senate Republican will vote for conviction, when you would need to hold all 47 Senate Democrats and pick up 20 Senate Republicans for conviction. And they also know that you might lose 5 or more Senate Democrats, if the House impeaches.

Monday morning and sideline quarterbacking is one of the oldest games in Washington: easy to say this is what I would do if I were in charge. Another to not just make a real decision knowing what the consequences of that decision might be and then trying to live with them. Alexandria O. Cortez, might be the like totally awesome, OMG rock star in politics ( at least with Hollywood and on the Far-Left ) of whatever they’re calling her, but being the coolest girl or person in the room doesn’t give you political power. You can win elections that way at least at the House level and below that. But as Beto O’Rourke and his presidential campaign is finding out, you need more than that to be successful in politics other than: “vote for me, because I look like a Hollywood actor and I I got a cool speaking voice, talk with my hands a lot, relate well with pop culture, connect with people in coffee houses and trendy bars, etc.”

As far as Representative Cortez’s politics, especially her socialist economics: for someone who says that American capitalism is bad, perhaps even racist, and everything else that she claims to not like about it, she lives very well with it. And it’s not just her, but you can make this criticism about anyone else in her generation who claims to not like American capitalism: I mean which government agency or state-run company produces all of her designer suits, or Starbucks coffee, her I-phone, the car she drives , etc. I mean hearing her or anyone else from her generation or anyone else who says there a Socialist too, is like listening to a so-called animal rights activist talking about the cruelty of eating meat, while they’re wearing a leather jacket: why would anyone who is of sound mind and intelligence take that person seriously. And the same thing with the so-called environmental activist who drives around in an SUV talking about the need to get off of oil and gas, because they’re bad for the environment.

I mean it’s easy to say you’re a Socialist in some Hollywood movie or perhaps in Hollywood in general, because probably no one is going to take you seriously anyway. Similar to Manhattan, Hollywood is the most capitalist and liberal democratic ( liberal democratic in the classic sense, at least ) places in America. Perhaps the last two places in America that would ever want America to become some type of a socialist state, simply because they would no longer want to work and live here and pay the taxes. But it’s another to now hold public office, because now you’ll be held accountable for everything that you say, propose, all your votes, committee appearances. And I believe at least that you have some responsibility to not only live up to your rhetoric, but to live by it as well. You really believe that American capitalism sucks so much, then try living without it.

 

Posted in New Left | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Elizabeth Nolan Brown: ‘Moral Panic Over Sex Work’

Stossel_ Moral Panic Over Sex Work

Source:Reason Magazine– Referring to New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft: who was arrested for prostitution

Source:The New Democrat 

“Police often accuse people of “sex trafficking.” Usually, it’s simply prostitution.

Police often use “sex trafficking” and “prostitution” interchangeably. That’s what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason reporter Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, was caught in a “sex trafficking” sting.

Law enforcement “had all of these big announcements at first saying that…these women were being forced there and they weren’t allowed to leave,” Brown explains to John Stossel.

But now prosecutors in the Kraft case concede that there was no trafficking.

That’s usually the case when it comes to “sex trafficking” busts, says Brown: “I’d say 99% of the headlines are not true.”

Brown covered a similar case in Seattle where the cops claimed to have busted a sex trafficking ring. In a press conference, King County Sheriff John Urquhart said: “These women are true victims.”

But the court documents “actually paint a very, very different story,” Brown points out. “No one has been charged with human trafficking in that case.”

Yet politicians and the media often exaggerate the frequency of trafficking. Congresswoman Ann Wagner claims, “Right now almost 300,000 American children are at risk”.

That 300,000 number is repeated constantly in the media. The number is based on a study that has been disavowed by the lead author, Richard Estes. “Many people debunked the study and say, ‘This is just a total bullcrap number,'” Brown says.

She adds, “When we have these exaggerated numbers, it forces people to go into this crazy emergency moral panic mode that ends up not helping the actual problem that we have.”

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.”

Source:Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Elizabeth Nolan Brown: ‘Moral Panic Over Sex Work’

Just for the record: I’m not in favor of what’s called sex trafficking where you have at least very vulnerable, but perhaps very attractive women who are picked up ( if not kidnapped and enslaved ) with the promise that as long as they perform sex well, they’ll always be taken care of. That kind of thing is dangerous, as well as immoral, and should be illegal. But that’s not what this is about anyway and I only mention that because people who advocate for keeping prostitution illegal both on the Right and Left, say that we can’t have prostitution, because it leads to sex trafficking. Which is simply wrong, but that should be pointed out.

Anyone who argues that people should be in complete control over their own bodies, would be in favor of legalizing prostitution. If you believe in men should be in complete control over their own bodies as well, you should be in favor of legalizing prostitution, with the belief and knowledge that free, educated adults are more than capable of deciding for themselves how their own bodies should be used and what should go into them.

It’s one thing to argue that women should be able to make their own medical decisions whether it comes to abortion or whatever the medical procedure might be and say that women can make these decisions for themselves and we should keep big government out of the hospitals and our bedrooms: but if you really believe big government should be out of the bedroom, then why would you be in favor of sting operations done by law enforcement and breaking into motel rooms to breakup people who are having consensual sex with each other, even if that sex was financially compensated.

I get the belief that prostitution is a dangerous business and it violates a lot of people’s moral and religious values: but should that alone to decide whether people should have to go to jail or not: wouldn’t a better approach and more cost-effective approach to law enforcement that instead of arresting people that for engaging in activities that can have negative consequences, that we instead arrest people for hurting innocent people and not what they do to themselves? Which of course would be a limited government approach, but also a liberal one, because it’s saying that we don’t want or need big government in our bedrooms, or in this case motel rooms.

Prostitution, is not just called the oldest profession in the world, but it actually is with perhaps politics being a close second, but the reason why it is the oldest profession in the world is because people love sex to the point that they won’t allow their loneliness stop them from having sex, or perhaps they don’t believe they’re getting enough from their girlfriend or wife, etc, whatever the reasons. And just because you outlaw something because you don’t like it and it can be dangerous, doesn’t mean it goes away: all you’ve done is make it illegal and are now responsible for enforcing your own laws and in this case that means arresting free adults simply for having consensual, but compensated sex.

And since we know that prostitution has been around as long as humans have been living and it’s never going away, wouldn’t a better approach be to legalize it and then regulate it and treat it like any other adult entertainment business: require anyone who runs or manages a prostitution business to get license. Require all prostitutes and their clients to get licensed and medically cleared on a regular basis. Tax the business, workers, and clients. Instead of locking people up simply for engaging in consensual, but compensated sex.

Posted in John Stossel | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Washington Monthly: Paul Baumann- ‘When Religion is Too Free’

Washington Monthly _ When Religion Is Too Free

Source:Washington Monthly– Freedom of Religion in America

Source:The New Democrat 

“But Waldman is too sanguine about the benefits “Americanizing” will have on the DNA of “ancient” religions. Some real tension should exist between an individualistic, often hedonistic society and traditional religious communities. Liberal democracy must cultivate in its citizens the virtues of loyalty, devotion, and sacrifice. Illiberal institutions such as organized religions, the family, and the military can do that in ways that economic and cosmopolitan liberalism cannot. The competitive marketplace, where ambition and immediate gratification are principally rewarded, is simply not up to the task of protecting the poor, the sick, the vulnerable, and the dying—or possibly even the nation. In this regard then, religious liberty is a necessary but not sufficient means for unifying a country as diverse, heedless, and contentious as ours. If both religion and democracy are to flourish, more than a cacophony of choices is needed; a common language that is not merely a celebration of our differences is required. Religion, like democracy, is threatened when the marketplace becomes the predominant measure of value. ”

Read the rest of Paul Baumann’s piece at source:Washington Monthly: Paul Baumann- ‘When Religion is Too Free’

Freedom of Religion_ Crash Course Government and Politics #24

Source:Crash Course: Craig Benzine- ‘Freedom of Religion’– Part of the First Amendment 

When I first saw the title of Paul Baumann’s piece in The Washington Monthly, I thought this was about making an argument for outlawing Freedom of Religion in America, or at least getting the state involved and regulating it, but it was really a critique about Steven Waldman’s book Sacred Liberty, which argues for Freedom of Religion in America. So I’m glad to see that there is still some support for pluralism and liberal democracy in general with the Far-Left in America ( New-Left, if you prefer ) and that there not all total collectivists and statists looking to outlaw individualism in this country.

As far as Freedom of Religion in religion in general in America: if you’re familiar with this blog you know that a lot about what we write about and advocate for is liberal democracy. The photo of John F. Kennedy and what it means to be a Liberal on the front page of the blog, is a pretty good clue there. So of course we believe in pluralism and liberal democracy in general. We’re not Communists who again are looking to eliminate all forms of individualism and make everyone dependent on the state.

But we’re not Theocrats either who want everyone to follow and believe in the same religion and therefor require everyone to live by some set of religious values either. We’re Liberals, because we believe in liberal democracy which includes and the broader belief in Freedom of Speech, which protects Atheists and even Communists, as well as Theocrats who do want a state religion in this country. And we also believe in the Separation of Church and State which not only protects Freedom of Religion in America, as well as state interference into all religions in this country. And protects everyone’s right not have to follow or live by a particular religion, Or have to follow and live by any religion at all.

In a country like America that’s so vast and so diverse and not just racially and ethnically, but culturally and religiously as well, you to have a liberal democratic federal republic in it for the country to have any shot at not just thriving, but surviving and staying together as part of one union. Which is why all racial, ethnic, and religious groups have to have the same guaranteed rights and responsibilities under law. Otherwise this country would break up with different factions believing that America is not for them and that it’s time to breakup.

Posted in Freedom of Choice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Economist: ‘What if Women Ruled The World?’- The World Would Be a Different Place?

The Economist - What if Women Ruled The World_ - Google Search

Source:The Economist– U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez: Democratic Socialist, New York City 

Source:The New Democrat 

“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.”

Source:The Economist: ‘What If Women Ruled The World?’

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.

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.

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.

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 )

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.

Posted in The Economist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Big Think: Kurt Andersen- ‘Why America Confuses Fantasy For Reality- Celebrity, Hollywood & Disneyland

Why America Confuses Fantasy for Reality_ Celebrity, Hollywood, & Disney

Source:Big Think– “Why America Confuses Fantasy for Reality: Celebrity, Hollywood, & Disneyland | Kurt Andersen”

Source:The New Democrat 

“The start of the 20th century was the birth of a strange new reality in the United States. The advent of the moving image, of Hollywood and sudden celebrity, caused a quantum shift in how Americans thought about the experience of life. Actors were elevated to the status of superheroes and demigods, and those left in the obscurity of the masses began to desire that elusive privilege: fame. But where America really went haywire, author Kurt Andersen explains, is when the cult of celebrity and the cult of capitalism merged: it was the opening of Disneyland in 1955. A bizarre reality where advertising met animation. You could buy real wares, from fake characters, in real stores, with make-believe themes. “What happened in Disneyland… did not stay there,” says Andersen. From Mickey Mouse all the way to the White House, Anderson doesn’t find it at all surprising that Americans might have a hard time telling what’s true from what’s false. He calls it the fantasy-industrial complex, and it might just be America’s beautifully branded nightmare. Kurt Andersen’s new book is Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History.”

Source:Big Think: Kurt Anderson- ‘Why America Confuses Reality For Fantasy- Celebrity, Hollywood, & Disneyland’

Life is hard - quote - Google Search

Source:Brainy Quote– Actress Katherine Hepburn: with a great quote

I guess I have a different take on this even though I agree with most of what Kurt Andersen is saying here and my broader point is about what’s called reality TV ( even though there’s almost nothing that’s actually real about it ) and Hollywood in general. ( Speaking of reality TV )

Kate Hepburn and you can see her quote up here, has a great quote on life: “life is hard. After all, it kills you.” The name of the person who also has a great quote on life escapes me right now, but he said that life is basically hard and most of it is negative, etc, and that we should try to take advantage of it.

And I agree with most of that, but lets we had to live without any entertainment and no escapes from realty whatsoever: how much more difficult would life be then? The reason why America has the largest entertainment industry in the world, ( also known as Hollywood ) is the same reason why we have what’s called reality TV ( which is actually tabloid TV, which is very different ) life is hard and we all need those escapes from reality and to just be able to chill and not think about reality for a few hours during the day.

And for some people they need more than that and for others they can afford that:

Imagine a so-called reality TV show that was actually reality TV and actually showed what everyday life was like for these so-called celebrities: ( and in some cases wannabe celebrities )

What work was like for them, what their family life was like, what breakfast and dinner was like, we got to see them picking up their kids from school or dropping them off, that we got to see all of these things and not just two women swearing at loud at each other and calling eacb other horrible people and having public fights, that we got to see all the mundane in their life that almost every other American goes through in life: how fast would the ratings on the Housewives shows on Bravo plummet if they were actually reality TV and now just all the drama that they want to show us in order to drive ratings? And in many cases preplanned drama where the producers actually encourage these so-called real people to act out.

Life for a lot of people is tough and in many cases boring, at least compared with what life is supposed to be like for these so-called reality TV stars. And as a result you get a lot of people who want to be like their favorite so-called celebrities: who act out like them, talk like them, eat the same food, have the same pet nicknames for their friends, associates, family, etc, shop at the same stores, ( if they can afford it ) eat at the same restaurants, ( if they can afford it ) drink the same coffee, ( if they can afford it ) style their homes the exact same way as their favorite so-called celebrities, ( if they can afford it ) try to live the exact same lives as their favorite so-called celebrities, ( if they can afford it ) and not just follow them on their favorite social media sites.

And Hollywood movies and TV where there are actual professional actors involved like comedies and dramas, people consume these shows and movies for the exact same reasons as tabloid TV and sports for the same reasons, because they want even if it’s just a 2-4 escape for their actual reality, they feel they need that and in many cases might actually need all of this fantasy in their lives if life really sucks that much for them.

If the average American was a celebrity, then they wouldn’t need so-called reality TV in their lives and the rest of Hollywood: but if the average American was famous, then no one would be famous, because we would just be like some small town in the middle of nowhere that’s days trip away from the nearest big city, where everyone knows each other.

Posted in Big Think | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment