Michael Shermer: Why I’m No Longer Woke

Posted on December 10, 2024 by Erik Schneider

Michael Shermer: Why I Am No Longer WokeSource:Skeptic publisher & blogger Michael Shermer.

Source:The New Democrat

“Before the transmogrification of the word woke into the pejorative slur against far-left politics it represents today, I would have called myself woke—and even a social justice warrior—inasmuch as I believe in civil liberties, civil rights, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, animal rights, and the continued expansion of the moral sphere to include all sentient beings. As the author of a book-length defense of the principles behind these social justice movements for which previous generations were woke to—The Moral Arc1—I think I have earned the moniker, and yet because of how the word and concept has devolved, along with the ever-leftward shift into lunacy of woke social justice activists—I must distance myself from the label, ultimately because of its flawed theory of human nature as a blank slate…

This metamorphosis of “woke” from awareness of societal inequalities of opportunities to insistence on equality of outcomes was elevated to national prominence during the 2024 Presidential election campaign when Kamala Harris released an animated video story of two alpinists ascending a mountain in which one of them had a head-start over the other:

Not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. … So there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.

Underlying the political policy of equal outcomes is the blank slate model of human nature, which holds that since people are inherently equal any inequalities in education, health, wealth, income, housing, home ownership, employment, crime, imprisonment, and the like, can only be the result of societal, political, and economic discrimination, rather than inequalities in intelligence, creativity, drive and ambition, personal responsibility, history, and of course luck, good and bad. Once such discriminatory policies are eliminated, blank slaters believe, such outcome inequalities should disappear.”

From Michael Shermer

I guess my response to Michael Shermer article would be: “I guess it depends on what you mean by WOKE”.

Similar to there’s positive freedom and then there’s negative freedom:

Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to privacy, freedom of choice, meaning that people have personal autonomy over their own personal and economic affairs, those would be positive freedoms.

But if murder, rape, defamation, fraud, perjury, all somehow became legal, (perhaps America was on a national sugar, caffeine, and marijuana high, perhaps all at the same time) those would be negative freedoms. Because it’s no longer about having the freedom to create a good life for yourself based on your own decisions. But now we would also have the freedom to hurt innocent people with our own choices.

And similar with individual freedom where there’s both negative and positive freedoms, there’s positive WOKE and there’s negative WOKE.

I would argue that the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was a WOKE movement. Even the African-American Black Nationalist and Black Power movements of the 1960s was a WOKE movement. But those were about recognizing the injustices that happened to African people since the start when they’re kidnapped from Africa and sent to North America to serve the Anglo-Saxons as their slaves.

And what these movements were about were addressing the injustices that had happened to the Africans since they were brought to North America, simple because of their race and trying to right them. These movements weren’t about (with some exceptions) tearing down the American system and form of government with something else, that’s (lets say) WOKE militants would see as more just in America. So I would argue, at least, that the civil rights movement, even the Black Power movements of the 1960s, were positive WOKE movements.

And then I would argue that the affirmative action laws of the 1970s, were negative WOKE. Because those laws simply punished and denied access for millions of Americans, simply for already being successful, like European, including Spanish-Latinos, and Asian-Americans. And trying to transfer those opportunities over to African-Americans, even if they were already off to a good start in life and didn’t need those AA opportunities. Especially at someone else’s expense.

The Kamala Harris quote or paraphrase talking about two people climbing a mountain, is important here:

“This metamorphosis of “woke” from awareness of societal inequalities of opportunities to insistence on equality of outcomes was elevated to national prominence during the 2024 Presidential election campaign when Kamala Harris released an animated video story of two alpinists ascending a mountain in which one of them had a head-start over the other:

Not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. … So there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equitable treatment means we all end up in the same place.”

I think what the basic message here is that we’re basically all born equal as human beings. Meaning none of us are better than anyone else, simply because of our race, ethnicity, or gender. But we don’t all start off life equally.

If life is a steep mountain, then very few of us are close to the top of the mountain when they are just starting off life as adults. Most of us are born in the middle of that mountain. And too many of us are born close the bottom of that mountain.

And of course life is not about how you start off, but how you finish. But the point is how can we help people who start off their lives as adults who are struggling. Maybe they just start adulthood buried in college debt. Which is bad enough, but at least they have a college degree. But then you have other people who simply couldn’t get into college either financially, or didn’t have the grades. And now are stuck working minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives, unless they’re given a real opportunity to improve themselves.

Again positive WOKE versus negative woke:

The positive work solution (which I think is what Vice President Harris was talking about here) is about empowering people who are struggling in life to free themselves so they can get a good job, make a good living for themselves and their families.

The negative WOKE solution here would be something like to blame the American system and argue that: “It’s our racist and materialistic system that are holding people of color and others down. And you won’t fix this problem, until you tear down the American system and replace it with something that’s just.”

I’m with Michael Shermer on this in the sense I don’t define myself as WOKE. I much rather find ways to solve problems, than to look at the political calculations of them and try to blame the other side for the problem itself. Which is basically what WOKE has become. The WOKE militants seem to be more interested in exploiting the problems of America and finding ways to blame people they disagree with, including Democrats, then to actually solve the problems that they claim to care about.

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

Posted in Skeptic, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Christina Randall: Should Killers Erik & Lyle Menendez Be Released From Prison?

Posted on December 9, 2024 by FredSchneiderUS

Christina Randall_ Should Killers Erik & Lyle Menendez Be Released From Prison_! My Unpopular OpinioSource:Christina Randall talking about the Menendez Brothers.

Source:The New Democrat

“Erik and Lyle Menendez captured national attention in 1989 and beyond after the siblings killed their parents, but the two gained new widespread interest thanks to a Netflix special. In the months following the premiere of “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” relatives of the brothers came forward in support of a reduced sentence. Following an initial mistrial, the Menendez brothers were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1996 without possibility of parole.” article by News Nation News

CA v. MENENDEZ (1993): Erik Menendez Takes the Stand Court TV: • CA v. MENENDEZ (1993): Erik Menendez …
CA v. MENENDEZ (1993): Lyle Menendez Takes the Stand (Part 1): • CA v. MENENDEZ (1993): Lyle Menendez …

From Christina Randall

With all due respect: Christina Randall sounds like an example of someone who spends way too much time at coffee houses and at the very least drinks way too much coffee from coffee houses. This is what happens to you, when you are addicted coffee and caffeine. She shows a lack discipline and can come off as a rambling politician, perhaps in fear that she might offend someone. Perhaps that’s part of her appeal in today’s social media culture. She seems to want to talk about a lot of things at once and almost sounds like she’s yelling into her computer.

But having said all that, I’m going to give you my thoughts about the Menendez Brothers and what I think should be done in their case from here.

Just to put it all put there: both Lyle and Erik Menendez are guilty of murdering their parents Jose and Kitty. End of statement, case closed as far as their guilt of murder here. Even if you believe the sexual abuse by their father, (and I do) that doesn’t justify murdering your parents. Especially doing that after the sexual abuse happened, not during it. So they should’ve been convicted of murder and been given a long prison sentence because of that.

Now the question here for me, at least, has never been whether they’re guilty or not. They even know they’re guilty. The question was what their sentence should be.

Under 1st degree murder in California, you either get life without parole, or get sentenced to death.

Under 2nd degree murder in California, you get a minimum of 15 years to life in prison.

The definition of 1st degree murder is:

“First-degree murder is the intentional killing of a person with premeditation and malice, or in the commission of a felony. The exact definition of first-degree murder varies by state, but generally involves premeditation and deliberation.”

The definition of 2nd degree murder is:

“Second-degree murder is the unlawful killing of a person without premeditation, but with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm:
Intent to kill
The offender intentionally kills someone, or causes the death of an unborn child
Intent to cause serious bodily harm
The offender intends to cause serious bodily harm, but doesn’t intend to kill.”

So if you hate your spouse and decide that you are going murder your spouse on Thursday evening when your spouse gets home from work, to collect the life insurance policy that you have on your spouse and keep your joint investments for yourself, that would be 1st degree murder.

But if you get into a fight at nightclub or bar and get the upper hand and the other person is no longer a threat to you, but you keep hitting that person anyway and break a few beer bottles over the person’s head, that would be 2nd degree murder. You didn’t set out to murder the person. But you took the altercation too far and killed that person as a result.

I see 2nd degree murder in the Menendez Brothers case and believe that they should’ve gotten 30 to life, because they murdered two people each. And I think this case is a 2nd degree murder case, because you could easily argue, if you believe the sexual abuse testimony that their father did that to them and that their mother knew about it and covered it up, (and I do) that this experience with their parents, especially their father, sent them over the edge (so to speak) and they murdered their parents because of that.

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

Posted in The New Democrat, True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

George Carlin: The American Public: Dennis Miller Live (2001)

Posted on December 9, 2024 by kireschneider

Official George Carlin_ The American Public _ Dennis Miller Live (2001)Source:Official George Carlin on Dennis Miller Live in 2001.

Source:The New Democrat

“In 2001, comedian and author George Carlin sat down with Dennis Miller to discuss observations and topics from his NY Times Bestselling book “Napalm and Silly Putty,” including how easily the American public can be manipulated, who they trust and how he copes.

George Carlin described his comedy as focusing on 3 things: love of language and how we use it; the small things, moments we all share as humans; and the big topics of our culture—war, death, children, religion, etc. A social commentator, he challenged conventional wisdom and brought us face-to-face with our ingrained hypocrisies. There was no topic off limits to his keen observation, wordplay, goofy jabs and rants, whether it was drugs, war, politics, the accumulation of stuff or the way in which we use words.”

From Official George Carlin

I take George Carlin’s basic point that Americans are easily manipulated. How else does 80-90% of the U.S. House of Representatives get reelected every two years? And of course gerrymandering is part of that as well. But you can’t complain about bad politicians when you keep reelecting the same people every two years.

Complaining about your own faults, would be like going to the same restaurant for lunch everyday, ordering the same thing to eat everyday, and then complaining that you are bored with the food. The manager might say something like:”

Well, sir, maybe you should read the menu before you made your order? How about ordering something else to eat and mixing up your orders?” With your response to that being something like: “I don’t like to read”. Who’s fault is that?

I’m not sure it’s that Americans are so much stupid, as much as a lot of them tend to be lazy and believe that thinking and acting for themselves is risky. How else to you explain electronics stores being staked out by people who think it would be some life accomplishment for them if they can be 1 of the 1st 5 people to buy the latest I-phone and be able to post that on Facebook, or Instagram. Whatever their favorite social network is.

When people are fearful to think and act for themselves, they become easily manipulated. And when life is tough and has been tough for a while, they become even easier to be manipulated. That explains how people fall into cults, because you have someone claiming to be a spiritual guru, like a hipster spiritual guru, someone like a Charlie Manson or Jim Jones from the 1960s and 70s, claiming they’re basically acting on behalf of God and they have all the answers to their problems. I don’t want to sound partisan here, but we’re seeing that in our politics today. I think you can figure out the rest for yourself exactly who I’m talking about what and movement I’m talking about.

Ayn Rand was a big individualist and so was George Carlin. The cures for mental laziness and social collectivism, are intelligence, self-awareness, individualism, and personal freedom. The more intelligent people think and act for themselves, even if someone else who they think is cool doesn’t agree with what they’re doing and think they’re being uncool, (to sound like a teenager) the more free they’ll be and a lot more difficult they’ll be to manipulate.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Posted in George Carlin, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Neil Simon: The Prisoner of 2nd Avenue (1975)

Posted on December 6, 2024 by Ederik Schneider

IMDB: The Prisoner of 2nd Avenue (1975)Source:IMDB– Anne Bancroft & Jack Lemmon are Prisoners of 2nd Avenue.

Source:The New Democrat

“The Prisoner Of Second Avenue (1975) Jack Lemmon, Anne Bancroft Comedy Movie HD”

From IMDB

“A suddenly unemployed ex-executive suffers a nervous breakdown.”

Rotten Tomatoes Classic Trailers: The Prisoner Of Second Avenue (1975) Jack Lemmon, Anne Bancroft Comedy Movie HDSource:Rotten Tomatoes Classic Trailers– Jack Lemmon & Anne Bancroft are Prisoners of 2nd Avenue.

From Rotten Tomatoes Classic Trailers

I’m going to give you a little background about the state of New York City (perhaps Manhattan more specifically) in the summer of 1974, when the movie was filed and in 1975, when the film came out, so I you think you can better understand this film:

It wasn’t just America that was in recession and dealing with high budget deficits and debt, as well as high inflation and interest rates, but New York City (perhaps especially Manhattan) looked like it was falling apart:

To give you one example: the summer of 74 and 75, back-to-back, bad heatwaves, is the mist of an energy crisis, where energy was too expensive for most people and there power outages as a result because of the lack of affordable energy.

Another example, you got the recession, on top of a deflation, on top of high crime rates that plagued New York City for most of the 1970s and 70s, and the City Government was facing bankruptcy and needed a Federal bailout, to avoid defaulting.

So that’s the backdrop of how The Prisoner of 2nd Avenue is filmed, where Jack Lemmon plays Mel Edison, to just a few weeks ago, plays a successful Manhattan advertising man. But his company is also going though rough times and being forced to cut back. And Mel is 1 of those cutbacks and is now unemployed, to go on top all the other issues that most New Yorkers, including Manhattanites, we’re facing. And if that’s not bad enough, Mel and his wife Edna (played by Anne Bancroft) get robbed the night that he loses his job. And they lose almost everything that they owned in their apartment.

Imagine your life being an endless nightmare, where every time that you think it can’t get worst, it does. So as a result Mel just completely loses it and goes through a middle age, nervous breakdown. And that’s where you see Jack Lemmon at his best. Or at least at his funniest, which I believe is Jack at his best, where not just the great comedic actor that he was, (and he’s in the top 1% of comedic actors ever) or even the great comedian. that he was, (and he’s 1 of the best comedians ever) but you see the great standup comedian that he was on this film and why he would’ve been a great standup comedian, if he wanted to do that part-time, or full-time, or a great late, talk show host. And here is his monologue from this film:

Mel Edison: l don’t know. lt’s everything. lt’s this apartment.

This building. lt’s this city.

lt’s this– Now, listen.

Come listen to this. Two in the morning.

One car’s driving around|in Jackson Heights. We can hear it.

Fourteen stories up, subway’s louder|than in the subway.

We’re like some kind of an antenna.|Sounds come up here, then out to the city.

-For six years, it never bothered you. lt’s worse now. l don’t know why.

l’m getting older, more sensitive|to sounds and–

Two in the morning. You believe it’s still going on next door?

-What’s going on? You trying to be funny?

-You don’t hear that? You must be deaf. l must be deaf. l don’t hear a thing.

”The beat, beat, beat of the tom-tom|as the jungle shadows fall”?

Or, ”the tick-tick-tock of the stately clock|against the wall”?

-You don’t hear that?|-Not when you’re talking or singing…

-…l don’t.|- lt’s those two German airline hostesses.

Every night they got somebody else. Hockey players, basketball–

Whatever team’s in town.

Win or lose, nobody loses|when they wind up there.

Every goddamn– Somewhere there’s a 747 flying around.

Everybody’s serving themselves.|Those broads never leave the apartment.

Holy shit! Come here. Come here.

-Tell me you can’t hear that.|-Yes. Now l hear it.

ls it any wonder l can’t sleep?

Don’t sleep next to the wall. Sleep in the bedroom.

Will you knock it off in there!| lt is 2-damn-o’clock in the morning!

l cracked the wall!|l barely touched it and l cracked the wall.

Lucky l wasn’t hanging a picture.|We could’ve been killed.

lt was starting to crack before.|They’re fixing it Monday.

Not Monday. No.|l want that fixed tomorrow.

-Understand?| l’ll tell them.

Mention the air conditioner. And the window that only opens if it rains.

Then it won’t shut till there’s a flood.

-And the toilet that’s constantly flushing.| lt stops flushing if you jiggle it.

Why should l have to jiggle it? With the money l’m paying here…

…do l have to jiggle every time|l go to the bathroom?

When you’re through, tell me. |l’ll jiggle it.

You go to bed. l don’t want to talk|about jiggling anymore.

Do you hear me? Please go to sleep.

l can’t when l know you’re walking around|having an anxiety attack!

From Scripts

It’s not just Jack Lemmon and Anne Bancroft who are both incredible and very funny in it. But if you listen to the narrator in the film doing the radio reports, you might think you reading the The Onion, or watching Weekend Update from Saturday Night Live, perhaps The Daily Show:

Radio Announcer: In sports today, the Nassau Coliseum opened its doors and its heart when it announced it will house a charity basketball game between the Harlem Globetrotters and a team made up of members of the Gay Liberation movement.
Radio Announcer: The gay libbers in a prepared statement said they did not expect to win, since their team is young and have only been playing with each other since December.

Radio Announcer: A member of the Albanian diplomatic corps was mugged and robbed today in Central Park, despite the fact that two mounted patrolmen were only a hundred yards away. The Albanian claimed he screamed loudly for two minutes, but unfortunately did not know the English word for “Help”.

From IMDB

The thing about comedy is that I don’t believe healthy, intelligent people, could get through life without it. Otherwise life would be just too hard and bad because we just lose so much the longer we live. And I don’t think there’s a better example of what I’m talking about here, then Manhattan, New York City, in the 1970s. Especially in the mid 1970s.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Posted in Classic Movies, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Twilight Zone: Stopover in a Quiet Town (1964)

Posted on December 6, 2024 by Derik Schneider

IMDB: The Twilight Zone: Stopover in a Quiet Town (1964)Source:IMDB– Barry Nelson & Nancy Malone appearing on Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone. And waking up with 1 “whale of a headache”.

Source:The New Democrat

“The morning after a wild night of partying, a hungover married couple awaken in an unfamiliar and artificial place.”

From IMDB

“Stopover in a Quiet Town” is a simpler episode yet it entertains all the same. Join Walter as he continues to journey deeper into The Twilight Zone.”

Channel Awesome_ Stopover in a Quiet Town - Twilight-Tober ZoneSource:Channel Awesome witb a look at Stopover in a Quiet Town.

From Channel Awesome

I’m just going to start this by giving you a little background about why I’m so into this episode and then I’ll give you some what I believe are perfectly placed, perfectly timed, comedic lines from it and then hopefully that will give you an idea why I’m talking about it today.

Alfred Hitchcock’s North By Northwest (1959) is my favorite movie of all-time. That movie is 65 years old and came out even 15 years before I was born. And I’m 50 today. But I’ve probably seen this Twilight Zone episode more times than North By Northwest. It’s a lot shorter, obviously. 22 minutes (not including commercials) versus NBN which is around 140 minutes without commercials. So time wise it’s a lot easier to watch. But that’s definitely not the only reason why I’ve seen This Twilight Zone episode so many times. Or why I personally recorded on a DVD with what I believe are other great Twilight Zone episodes.

I saw Stopover in a Quiet Town again this week, for at least the 20th time. Saw it Monday night thinking I might be writing about it late this week, but also because I wanted to see it again. This episode similar to my favorite Alfred Hitchcock Hour episodes, is dramatic comedy at its best. You take a serious issue like drinking and driving and perhaps alcoholism as well and you don’t make fun of it. But you make fun of the characters in it to give show the audience that this is not what you want to be. You don’t want this to happen to you. And that’s what you see in this episode with all the great comedic exchanges that you see between Bob and Millie Frazier, that were played by Barry Nelson and Nancy Malone, two excellent comedic actors.

I disagree with 1 thing that the guy from “Channel Awesome” said and even contradicted himself in his own video. He said there was no moral to this story. But Rod Serling ends this episode with:

“The moral of what you’ve just seen is clear. If you drink, don’t drive. And if your wife has had a couple, she shouldn’t drive. You might both just wake up with a whale of a headache in a deserted village in the twilight zone”.

Just to give you an idea of some of the great comedic moments in this Stopover in a Quiet Town:

Bob and Millie not just wake up in a strange, unfamiliar house, bedroom, and bed, at the beginning of the episode. But they’re both completely dressed. Bob (played by Barry Nelson) is still wearing the same suit from last night from the party in New York. He still has not just his jacket and tie on, but is still wearing his shoes. And they’re both in bed together under the covers. He gets up and sitting on the bed and his wife notices that he’s still completely dressed. And Millie (played by Nancy Malone) says:

“Well, I knew you were swacked, but really”.

And then Millie gets up, but she’s still completely dressed as well and still has her shoes on from last night as well.

So they’re out of this strange, artificial house, perhaps 1 of those places you might see in a sitcom episode, but even more artificial, where all the objects in it, are nothing but props. And they’re walking on the sidewalk going to try to find someone who can help them and tell them where they are:

Millie: “Boy, I wish I could remember how we got here. Reminds me of the coney island spook house.”

Bob: “Does it strike you that, um, it’s just as spooky out here? There’s not even a bird singing”.

Millie: “Maybe they’re just being considerate of your hangover, darling”.

Bob: “Stop needling me”.

Millie: “I’m not needling. But if you’d been sober enough to drive maybe we’d be home now instead of wherever this is!”

So after they go to and then leave the empty white church, they’re back outside and trying to figure out where to go from there. And Bob sees what looks like a car with a guy in it. So he runs to this supposed car, with his wife following him. And he says:

“Hey! Hey, hey! Boy, am I glad to see you! We’ve been wandering around here all morning. You’re the first person…

The thing that Bob sees in this supposed car, is not a man. It’s just another plastic drop, a really big doll, that you might see on a fictional TV show. But Bob notices that there’s a key in the ignition of the car and tells his wife to get in, thinking this is how they get out of this artificial ghost town and tells his wife to get in with a great funny exchange coming:

Bob: “Come on, baby, come on, let’s go.”

Millie: “Bob, stop, you’re going to flood the motor stomping on it that way.”

Bob: “What, yeah, you want to drive? You’re the one who drove us into this nuthouse in the first place.

All these quotes are from Forward Dreaming

When I was a kid in the 1980s, I had a toy Matchbox city, that I would run my Matchbox cars through. That’s what Centerville from Stopover in a Quiet Town looks like to me. Bob and Millie Frazier were essentially toy action figures in this episode, which was a nightmare, that was induced by a hangover for them, but they didn’t know that. The guy that Bob found, was basically an action figure, in a car that could’ve been a toy, Matchbox car, in this toy city.

I think Rod Serling closed out Bob and Millie Frazier’s nightmare perfectly when he said:

“The moral of what you’ve just seen is clear. If you drink, don’t drive. And if your wife has had a couple, she shouldn’t drive. You might both just wake up with a whale of a headache in a deserted village in the twilight zone”.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Posted in Life, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dan Mitchell: Paul Krugman is Right

Posted on December 5, 2024 by Rik Schneider

The New York Times: Paul KrugmanSource:New York Times left-wing columnist Paul Krugman.

“I like profits.

But let me qualify that statement. I like profits that are the result of businesses providing goods and services that consumers value.

Those profits are earned.

By contrast, I don’t like it when businesses get in bed with government and get money via cronyism, bailouts, subsidies, protectionism, or industrial policy.

Those profits are unearned.

Interestingly, there are some folks on the left who (sort of) agree.

In his column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman warns that cronyism is bad and that we can expect more of it under Trump…

From Dan Mitchell

“It’s late 2025, and Donald Trump has done what he said he would do: impose high tariffs — taxes on imports — on goods coming from abroad, with extremely high tariffs on imports from China. These tariffs have had exactly the effect many economists predicted, although Trump insisted otherwise: higher prices for American buyers.

Let’s say you have a business that relies on imported parts — maybe from China, maybe from Mexico, maybe from somewhere else. What do you do?

Well, U.S. trade law gives the executive branch broad discretion in tariff-setting, including the ability to grant exemptions in special cases. So you apply for one of those exemptions. Will your request be granted?

In principle, the answer should depend on whether having to pay those tariffs imposes real hardship and threatens American jobs. In practice, you can safely guess that other criteria will play a role. How much money have you contributed to Republicans? When you hold business retreats, are they at Trump golf courses and resorts?”

From Paul Krugman at The New York Times.

A good definition of capitalism from Dictionary:

“Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals and organizations own and control the means of production, and prices and goods are determined by a free market. Some key characteristics of capitalism include:
Private ownership: Individuals and organizations privately own and control the means of production.
Free market: Prices and goods are determined by competition in a free market.
Limited government role: The government protects the rights of citizens and maintains an orderly environment for markets to function.
Profit motive: The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.
Supply and demand: The market mechanism relies on supply and demand as the overriding economic principle.”

A good definition of crony capitalism from Dictionary:

“Crony capitalism is an economic system where businesses succeed based on their relationships with government officials, rather than free enterprise. It can involve:
Favoritism in the distribution of government grants, tax breaks, and legal permits
Businesses gaining undue influence over how the government deploys public goods
Businesses profiting from an anti-competitive regulatory environment
Crony capitalism can be harmful to the economy, creating market power and price distortions. However, it can also counteract inefficient programs.”

I feel crazy saying this, but I agree with both Dan Mitchell and Paul Krugman on the same subject. Imagine that, a Libertarian, getting together with let us say a hardcore Democratic Socialist (or Social Democrat, if you prefer) putting their heads together (even from a distance) and getting out of that experience without 2 migraine headaches.

As a Liberal (or Classical Liberal, for you pansy closeted leftists) I’m in favor of what I at least call liberal capitalism. Which is basically what all the big countries in the developed world operate under. That every person should have the opportunity to earn as much money as they can for themselves. But in a private, fair market, where individuals are protected by predators, and where everyone has to pay taxes on their income. Now what’s a fair level of taxation and how much everyone should pay, is really a different discussion. But to the point to fund a limited and responsible government, that doesn’t have to run high deficits and debt to fund itself and where taxes are at a point to encourage individuals to be successful on their own. Not encourage people to be dependent on government for their economic well-being.

Now crony capitalism is the opposite. Russia has essentially operated under crony capitalism, since the fall of the Soviet Union and became the Russian Federation. In Russia, your economic future, especially if you have knowledge and skills, as well as intelligence, in many ways is tied to how friendly you are with their Federal Government there. Which is essentially a nationalist oligarchy today. Which is what a lot people in Donald Trump’s MAGA orbit, perhaps including President Trump himself, as well as Elon Musk and his other billionaire investors, want to see in America.

I think the point of Paul Krugman’s column here is that he doesn’t want to see that Russian style of crony capitalism come to America. But he’s obviously worried that it is.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on Blogger.

Posted in Dan Mitchell, Originals | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Source With Kaitlan Collins: Maggie Haberman On What She’s Hearing From Donald Trump’s Orbit About Pete Hegseth

Posted on December 5, 2024 by FredSchneiderUS

CNN_ Maggie Haberman On What She’s Hearing From Donald Trump’s Orbit About Pete HegsethSource:CNN talking to New York Times national political reporter Maggie Haberman.

Source:The New Democrat

“CNN political analyst Maggie Haberman weighs in on the latest developments surrounding Pete Hegseth’s battle to win confirmation to serve as the next defense secretary and how President-elect Donald Trump’s orbit is handling it.”

From CNN

Molly Jong-Fast: You deserve senators that take their article two section two responsibility seriously

Aaron Rupar: Tommy Tuberville tells CNN that he doesn’t think Republican senators should really vet Trump’s nominees at all because Trump did it for them

Fred Schneider: I guess there’s no reason left to wonder why Bill Kristol considers Tommy Tuberville to be the stupidest member of Congress. Apparently he’s not even aware that the executive and legislative branches are actually separate from each other.

From Molly Jong-Fast

I put the Molly Jong-Fast and Aaron Rupar posts up about Senator Tommy Tuberville (Republican, Alabama) because there are some Republican senators who simply believe that Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, simply doesn’t apply to President Donald J. Trump. That Congress, including the Senate, should be nothing but be a stamp of approval for President Trump.

But, as we’re seeing with Donald Trump’s most controversial cabinet appointments, the 119th Congress, won’t be a rubber stamp for the Trump Administration, at least early on.

Matt Gaetz had to drop of consideration for Attorney General, because he was struggling just to get to 40-42 votes in the Senate. You need 51, including the Vice President of the United States, to be confirmed by the Senate.

Assuming Pete Hegseth doesn’t get in as the next Secretary of Defense, (and I would make that bet) Tulsi Gabbard I believe would be the next Trump appointee to drop out. And she’s currently up for Director of National Intelligence.

Kash Patel was lawyer in the U.S. Department of Justice at 1 point. But most of his career, especially late career, has been as a MAGA, political, reality TV star. who has said in the past that the U.S. Department of Justice should be used to go after people he doesn’t believe are loyal to America. Which translates to anyone who has ever opposed or criticized Donald J. Trump about anything, at anytime.

Our Founding Fathers (our Founding Liberals) were brilliant when they designed American form of government, with all its checks and balances. We not only have a White House and a Congress. But a Congress that has two different chambers, that can and do hold each other accountable.

And just because 1 party controls both The White House and both chambers of Congress, doesn’t mean the President always gets what he wants. And when he sends bad nominees to the Senate for conformation, he not just gets pushback, because most of the senators, a solid majority of them, believe in their Article 1 Congressional duty and hold each of the nominees accountable and do their homework.

You can follow me on Threads and Blue Sky.

Posted in CNN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

C-SPAN: Senator Mitt Romney Final Floor Speech

Posted on December 4, 2024 by kireschneider

C-SPAN_ Senator Mitt Romney Final Floor SpeechSource:C-SPAN showing U.S. Senator Mitt Romney’s (Republican, Utah) farewell to Congress speech.

Source:The New Democrat

“Utah Republican Senator Mitt Romney delivers farewell remarks on the Senate floor. Romney, who served just one term in the Senate and chose not to seek reelection, reflects on his time in the legislative body and some of his accomplishments, including working across the aisle on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill and the Electoral Count Act, as well as his work on protecting religious freedoms. He says that while he may not miss the Senate, he will miss his colleagues and that he hopes to be a voice of unity after he leaves office.”

From C-SPAN

“WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) today delivered his farewell address from the floor of the United States Senate. In his remarks, he reflected upon his bipartisan legislative achievements—like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and emergency COVID relief—and encouraged his colleagues to put politics aside to tackle the major challenges facing our country. Yesterday, the Office of Senator Romney released a report detailing the policy and constituent service accomplishments of Romney’s Senate term, which can be found here.

The full text of Senator Romney’s speech is below and video can be found here.

During my life, I have rarely been truly alone—maybe taking tests at school, or running cross country, or on my uncle’s tractor cultivating corn. But I am impressed with people who have achieved great things largely on their own—Washington commanding the continental army, Lincoln guiding the Civil War, Edison in his laboratory.

Not me. I have consistently been surrounded by others, usually smarter, often more experienced, always becoming friends.

In business, I chose partners with skills that exceeded mine, proof of which has been their stunning success after I left. As governor, my team helped craft the health plan that insured nearly every citizen in Massachusetts. My wing man, Bob White, counseled me in business, the Olympics, and politics. My counselor, Beth Myers, advised and managed multiple campaigns and administrations. Spencer Zwick financed and helped guide almost every one of my endeavors. My Senate chiefs of staff, Matt Waldrip and Liz Johnson, built and brilliantly led an exceptional team and with our policy directors, Chris Barkley and Stephen Newton, crafted and negotiated more legislation—that became law—than could possibly have been expected for a freshman senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of my excellent current and former staff members be included in the record, as submitted…

From the Senate.GOV

I don’t mean to sound partisan here, but I guess in this day and political age that’s sometimes is just unavoidable. But Senator Romney’s speech is 1 of the most anti-Donald Trump speeches that I’ve ever heard. Even though it’s just a little more than 8 minutes.

The Senator starts off the speech praising people that he believe have achieved great things on their own. That’s not the anti-Trump part. But then the Senator goes into talking about what he’s done in his life, what he’s achieved and talking about all the people who helped him and the people he’s relied on and thanking them for their service. Whereas Donald Trump is always talking about how great he believes he is and claiming that he’s never made a single mistake in his life.

If you are familiar with The New Democrat, you know which approach we prefer and that we’re completely anti-Donald Trump. So I don’t need to endorse or criticize either the Romney or Trump approach here for you to figure out where I am on this.

As far as Senator Romney’s speech, I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Romney Goes To Washington wasn’t a pleasant experience for him. Safe to say that he’s probably 1 of the 9-10 American voters who don’t approve of the job that Congress is doing. Even though he’s a current member of Congress, until January 3rd, 2025.

Senator Romney came to Washington to get good things done for Utah and work with his colleagues to do that. And laid out some of his successes. But the U.S. Congress right now, is just another spinoff and part of Donald Trump’s political reality show. It’s not about serving the people on this show. It’s about advancing your own career and serving Donald Trump, if you want a long, successful, career, as a Republican politician.

The days of Howard Baker, Bob Michael, Tip, O’Neal, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, George Mitchell, and Tom Foley… (two former President’s and the rest being former Congressional leaders) all these folks getting together and hammering out deals to move the country forward and to serve their country together, are over.

This is not the 1970s or 80s anymore. This is not even the 1990s when Bill Clinton could cut deals in private with Newt Gingrich, after a lot of partisan bickering (and perhaps alcohol) first. We’re now about to enter Season 9 of Donald Trump’s Political Reality TV Show in Washington. And this is just not the political show for the Mitt Romney’s of the world anymore.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Posted in C-SPAN, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Peacock: Face to Face With Scott Peterson

Posted on December 4, 2024 by Ederik Schneider

Peacock: Face To Face With Scott Peterson: Official TrailerSource:Peacock Face To Face With Scott Peterson.

Source:The New Democrat

“Synopsis: It was a case that captivated the country. At 8 months pregnant, Laci Peterson went missing on Christmas Eve, 2002. As the investigation unfolded, her husband Scott was revealed to be a liar, a cheater, and ultimately a murderer. The world’s media hung on every moment of the trial, and Scott was convicted and sentenced to death. Case closed. Or is it? For the first time since before his arrest in 2003, Scott speaks on camera in a series of intimate conversations revealing his side of the story with Director and Executive Producer Shareen Anderson, who has been investigating this case for over a decade. While many still believe the jury got it right, Scott’s family and experts close to the case have spent over 20 years committed to uncovering inconsistencies in the evidence as well as finding new information around alternative theories surrounding Laci’s murder. And in a shocking twist on a murder the world thought was solved, the Los Angeles Innocence Project takes over Scott’s case in 2024.”

From Peacock

When the case first broke in 2003-04, or it became famous at that point, I thought Scott Peterson was probably guilty of murdering his wife. But I wasn’t following the case that closely. Mostly getting updates and seeing occasional news reports about it. But then A&E produces a documentary about it in 2017 and I watched that very closely. And now based on just the original evidence of this case, it looks like Scott Peterson is guilty of nothing other than being an adulterer. Other than the adultery, he was an excellent husband. He made good money, he loved his wife, his in-laws loved him.

The Peacock documentary that I saw the first time on Sunday, just reenforces what I already know and believe about this case. To get a guilty conviction when it comes to 1st degree murder, it has to be beyond any reasonable doubt. And juries have gotten that wrong before. You can’t believe that the defendant is probably guilty. You have to know that. And it’s the job of the prosecution to make you know that based on the evidence that they present to you. Otherwise you have reasonable doubt.

Dave Harris who was 1 of the 2 courtroom prosecutors in the Stanislaus County DA case against Scott Peterson, when he was arguing in the court with opening statement essentially said:

“Based on the evidence in this case, Scott Peterson has to be the murderer. He was the only 1 who could’ve done it”. That’s not beyond a reasonable doubt. If anything, if proves reasonable doubt, because it suggests that not even the prosecutors know that Scott murdered his wife Laci. They just believe that, perhaps strongly believe that.

Modesto PD Detective Al Brocchini who was 1 of the lead detectives on this case, thought Scott Peterson was basically guilty because of what he saw as evidence which was cleaning materials and things that you use on a boat, all over the Peterson home when they got to that place to start their investigation. Well, if you just murdered your wife, you wanted to get away with it, and you are not a moron, why would you leave all that stuff there, after you just murdered your wife? You don’t have to be a professional hitman to know that leaving solid evidence behind after you just illegally killed someone, is not smart.

I’m not saying that Scott Peterson is innocent here. The fact is he could’ve committed this crime. He had motive, opportunity, ability, access, no alibi. I’m just saying that the prosecutors on this case didn’t prove that he did. And from looking at that jury and listening to them about what they said about this case, I think they actually just convicted him of cheating on his wife, who was pregnant with his baby. And since adultery is not illegal anywhere in America, (thank God) they convicted him of 1st degree murderer because they think he’s a bad guy.

You can also see this post on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Posted in The New Democrat, True Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robert Reich: Pardon Me

Posted on December 3, 2024 by Derik Schneider

Robert Reich: Pardon MeSource:Robert Reich talking about Joe & Hunter Biden.

Source:The New Democrat

“My first reaction to the Sunday news that President Biden was pardoning his son Hunter was sadness.

Biden has a constitutional right to pardon his son, and I can understand his concern that Trump’s overt aim to use the Justice Department and FBI to pursue “retribution” against political enemies might subject Hunter to further charges and harassment.

House Republicans have claimed Hunter is guilty of more than the felonies he was charged with: lying on a firearms application form about his drug addiction and failing to pay taxes that he later did pay.

My sadness comes from President Biden’s suggestion that the charges against his son were influenced by Republican politicians. “It is clear that Hunter was treated differently,” he wrote. “The charges in his cases came about only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.” Biden continued: “There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

I can understand President Biden’s frustration, but his claim that Republican politicians were responsible for Hunter’s legal problems lends credence to Trump’s long-term claim that the justice system was “weaponized” against him and that he was the victim of selective prosecution, as Biden says his son was.

Biden’s claim also makes it more difficult for Democrats to stand against Trump’s plans to use the Justice Department for political purposes as Trump seeks to install as director of the FBI the cringeworthy sycophant Kash Patel, who has vowed to “come after” Trump’s enemies…

But in suggesting that the charges against his son were politically motivated, President Biden has handed Trump something of a Trump card for arguing that of course the Justice Department is used for political ends, so watch me do the same.

Biden’s pardon also makes it more difficult for Democrats to criticize Trump for his use of the pardoning power to immunize friends and allies, at least one of whom he’s now appointing to an important diplomatic role.

Almost immediately after the news broke of President Biden’s pardon for Hunter, Trump used it to justify his planned pardon of the January 6 rioters. “Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” he wrote on social media. “Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!”

Among the people Trump pardoned in his final weeks in office was Charles Kushner, the father of Mr. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who spent two years in prison on tax evasion and other charges. Over the weekend, Trump announced he would nominate the pardoned Kushner to be ambassador to France.” 

From Robert Reich

“As a father, I get why Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter. But, as president, you don’t get to make purely personal decisions. This one will reverberate backward and forward in disastrous ways for Biden and Democrats.”

Chris Cillizza_ Why it's a DISASTER That Joe Biden Pardoned Hunter BidenSource:Chris Cillizza talking about Joe & Hunter Biden.

From Chris Cillizza

From a post that I replied to David Pakman about this on Blue Sky yesterday.

David Pakman: No one is above the law (except for some people who are) 

Derik Schneider: Damn, right! No one is above the law. Except the people who are. 

From David Pakman

Former U.S. Representative and 1 of the chief Never-Trumper’s in America, Adam Kinzinger on President Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter:

“[Pres. Biden] was very clear that he wasn’t going to [pardon Hunter Biden] then he turns around and does it,” former Congressman Adam Kinzinger tells #TheView.

From The View

Whatever you think of Representative Kinzinger’s (a man who I have a lot of respect for) point about this, he misses the point almost completely. (With all due respect)

Imagine someone robbing a bank and then his case is dismissed, because the detectives on the case didn’t bother to read the defendant his rights. And then someone else comes along and decides to rob a convenient store and gets caught almost immediately. And his defense is: “What about the guy who robbed the bank? If he can rob a bank, I can rob a store”. How do you think that would play in a courtroom?

I agree with Robert Reich as often as Seattle sees the sun and runs out of coffee on the same day. Or as often as people get stuck in traffic in Antartica. As often as Miami Dolphins home games are cancelled due to snow. But when Little Bob is right, he’s damn right. And Chris Cilliza who I agree a lot more often (than Robert Reich, even) and who I have more in common with politically and generationally, is completely right here as well.

I’m not a father, (knock on wood) never wanted to be, especially now as I push 50 years old, and I completely understand President Biden wanting to do everything that he can to protect his last, remaining son, especially as he’s about to leave The White House in about 6 weeks. But as Chris Cilliza said, he’s not just a father. And I would add, he’s not the President of the Biden Family, or even Delaware. He’s the President of the United States. And therefor is constitutionally required to faithfully execute laws of the United States, equally, for every American.

You are not supposed to get special legal treatment in America, because your father is governor of your state, or President of the United States, especially by your governor or president. Both cases against Hunter are solid, which is why he was convicted. He even wanted to plea both of them out.

So those are bad legal, constitutional, consequences, as as well as the bad precedent that it sets. But the political consequence might just be as worst. Very likely that the first day that Donald Trump is sworn in again as President of the United States, which will be January 20, 2025, he’ll pardon all the January 6, 2021 rioters. And perhaps other political allies who were involved in that case from the outside, people like Steve Bannon.

And Democrats will have nothing credible to say about that. Unless they were against President Biden’s pardon of his son. So for example, I will be able to credibility criticize President Trump’s corrupt pardons, as well as rest of The New Democrat. But any Democrat or Republican, or former Republican, who defended President Biden on this, will not be able to do that credibility. Because Donald Trump will be able to say: “Hey, if Joe Biden can pardon his son, how come I can’t pardon my political allies?”

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Posted in Robert Reich, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment