The Art of Sarcastic Humor

Posted on July 9, 2019 by Derik Schneider
life is comedy quotes - Google Search

Source:Picture Quotes– Would life even be worth living without trouble, tragedy, and comedy?

Source:The New Democrat 

“Mickey : You don’t know what you’re saying. You don’t.

Eddie : I do.

Mickey : No. I know you think you know what you’re saying, but you’re not saying it.

Eddie : No, I know what I’m saying. I don’t know what I mean, but I know what I’m saying. Is that what you mean?

Mickey : Yeah.

Eddie : Right. But it’s not like anybody knows what anything means, right? It’s not like anybody knows that. So at least I know I don’t know what I mean, which is better than most people. They probably think they know what they mean, not just what they think they mean.

Mickey : What kind of tone is that?

Eddie : What kind of tone is that? That’s my tone.

Mickey : Yeah, but what does it mean?

Eddie : My tone? What does my tone mean? I don’t have to interpret my fucking tone for you, Mickey. I don’t know what it means.

Eddie : Flip is sarcastic.

Mickey : No, it’s not. That’s crazy. Sarcastic is mean, it’s heavy – it’s funny, sure, but it’s mean. I do both, but this was flip.”

HurlyBurly 1998 - Mickey and Eddie - Google Search

Source:Alamy– Sean Penn and Kevin Spacey: in HurlyBurly

Source:IMDB: HurlyBurly 1998- Sean Penn & Kevin Spacey

“Using comedy to address serious social issues and educate people in a light manner. Will also perform a small sketch.

Junaid Akram is a powerhouse of wit, humor, sarcasm and satire. A stand-up comedian and now a popular social media figure, Junaid Akram has an opinion about almost everything. It really doesn’t matter if you agree with him or not, but he sure knows how to make you laugh.”

The Eddie and Mickey conversation was part of a scene from the movie HurlyBurly from 1998. If you’re not familiar with that movie, I don’t blame you for it, but it’s basically a dark comedy about life in Hollywood and people who work in the Hollywood industry deal with that life and that lifestyle. Eddie ( played by Sean Penn ) and Mickey ( played by Kevin Spacey ) are both professionals in Hollywood and they’re talking about life in a very entertaining and I would add humorous way.

Especially Kevin Spacey, who is a master at comedic dialogue with a late night talk show host or standup comedian sense of humor and comedic mind. A good late night talk show host and standup comedian sense of humor and mind. Not some guy who sounds like he’s delivering a speech to the Congress, that’s supposed to be a monologue, where there are nothing but straight faces in the room and people who look like they’re about to fall asleep, who are supposed to listen to this monologue.

If you listen to the Eddie-Mickey conversation in this movie, Spacey is very quick and to the point and very funny in the conversation and just not taking the Eddie character at all to the point that he’s being very flip about it. And Eddie accuses Mickey of being sarcastic, with Mickey and I’m paraphrasing: “no, I’m not sarcastic, I’m flip and there’s a big difference. Sarcasm is mean, funny sure, but mean. I’m sarcastic.”

This is not a Webster’s definition, but when I think of sarcasm, I think humor that’s intended to make a point and even used to be critical. Critical humor is how I look at sarcasm.

Instead of calling someone fat or stupid, or lazy, or saying no shit, Sherlock when they state the obvious, you instead tell a fat person: “you don’t need to eat so much. Why don’t save some food for the rest of us, or the rest of the world even. A little exercise never killed anyone, but the way you’re going standing up might become too big of s strain for you. ”

Instead of calling someone and idiot, you say something like: “when God was handing out brains, you missed that meeting because you overslept. And God didn’t feeling like sending you a brain.” Or something like: “your IQ is so low, that it doesn’t even register. No wonder the National Society For Morons keeps reelecting you as President and no one ever even runs against you.”

Instead of saying no shit, Sherlock to someone when they state the obvious, you can say: “you don’t say, you figure that out all by yourself, or did you have to conduct an investigation.” Any child you can use one word insults and the bully might be the master at those ( and an idiot when it comes to everything else ) but the quick-witted sarcastic person can use humor to not just make people laugh, but to show them where they come up short and even make them laugh at themself at he same time.

Some people say that life is a comedy and some other people say life is a tragedy: I’m in the camp that says life is a highway or rollercoaster with a lot of ups and downs and what doesn’t kill you or puts you into a permanent coma can only make you stronger and better, if you not just learn from your experiences, but use them to your advantage. Like being able to not just laugh at the people and what’s going on around you, but most importantly laugh at yourself. The only people who can’t laugh at themselves are narcissistic bullies who believe the world evolves around them and therefor are indestructible. The rest of us should look at life and as ourselves as great comedians who can always get a good laugh especially when we need one.

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

Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Andrew Seidel: ‘Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American’

Posted on July 8, 2019 by Erik Schneider
Michael Shermer with Andrew Seidel — Why Christian Nationalism is Un-Ame

Source:Skeptic Magazine– Michael Shermer: interviewing author Andrew Seidel

Source:The New Democrat

“In this important new book, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American, constitutional attorney and scholar at the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), Andrew L. Seidel, begins by explaining what apparently religious language is doing in the Declaration of Independence. Does this prove that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles? Are the Ten Commandments the basis for American law? What, exactly, was the role of religion in America’s founding? Christian nationalists assert that our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and advocate an agenda based on this popular historical claim. But is this belief true? The Founding Myth answers the question once and for all. Seidel builds his case point by point, comparing the Ten Commandments to the Constitution and contrasting biblical doctrine with America’s founding philosophy, showing that the Bible contradicts the Declaration of Independence’s central tenets. Thoroughly researched, this persuasively argued and fascinating book proves that America was not built on the Bible and that Christian nationalism is, in fact, un-American.

Seidel and Shermer also discuss:

• the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade and he explains how this could happen in the next 3–5 years
• new laws being passed in many southern states enacting the teaching of Christianity and the bible in public schools
• the thousands of letters that the FFRF receives every year from both secularists and members of minority religions who feel and believe that their rights are being threatened and even violated by Christian nationalists
• the “religious exemption” for vaccinations and why it’s nonsense
• why Christianity was not responsible for the abolition of slavery
• how the South justified slavery in the Civil War
• how Christian nationalists cherry pick biblical passages to fit current secular moral trends
• the historical treatment of women in Christianity
• the historical treatment of homosexuals in Christianity, and
• why moral progress must come from the bottom up from cultural change as well as top down from changing laws.

This dialogue was recorded on June 19, 2019 as part of the Science Salon Podcast series hosted by Michael Shermer and presented by The Skeptics Society, in California.”

Michael Shermer with Andrew Seidel — Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American (SCIENCE SALON # 73) - Google Search

Source:Skeptic Magazine– Author Andrew Seidel

Source:Source:Skeptic Magazine: Michael Shermer- Interviewing Andrew Siedel: ‘Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American’

If you want me to answer the question that is the title of this piece, I’ll answer it for you anyway: Christian-Nationalism is Un-American, because it’s Un-Liberal-Democratic, if not Un-Democratic all together. And I’m not talking about the Democratic Party, but the philosophy of liberal democracy and pluralism. Liberal values that the United States was founded on that all Americans are Americans and therefor have the right to be Americans ( which is as themselves ) and don’t have to live the lives and live the way that Christian-Nationalists ( Christian-Fundamentalists ) believe they should be and should live. So Christian-Nationalism, is Un-Liberal Democratic, Un-Democratic, and anti-pluralist and therefor Un-American.

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have their own fringes: or what I would call the escaped mental patient wings of their party’s. The Democrats, have this growing Socialist wing that self-describes themselves as Democratic Socialists or Progressives, even though a lot of what they argue is actually not just illiberal, but regressive with their belief that speech and media that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that personal choices and personal freedom that they disapprove of should be outlawed, that Americans should be forced to subsidize choices that they approve of, like abortion and other things.

The Republican Party, has a wing of escaped mental patients that is perhaps even more illiberal and regressive, who advertises themselves as Conservatives and in some cases Christian-Conservatives, even though a lot of what they support is actually anti-conservative. They value the Bible over the U.S. Constitution, debt and deficits don’t matter to them, morality and character doesn’t matter to them, just as long as the person with poor morality and character is doing what they politically approve of. ( Like Donald Trump, just to use as an example )

Just to further the argument for why Christian-Nationalism is Un-American: could you imagine is these so-called Bible thumpers ( who really sound like people who landed in New Mexico yesterday coming from the Planet Zoltar, or some place ) actually came to power and not just had the presidency, the Congress with super majorities in both the House and Senate, and had the military behind them, what the United States would then become as a result: if you think Saudi Arabia and Iran are bad places for women, gays, and minorities, put the Christian-Nationalists completely in charge of the United States.

Christian-Nationalists, would create their own national time machine where once again being gay is not just illegal, but punishable by death either through the criminal justice system, or through private citizens. Women, would become second-class citizens and essentially slaves to their men. Minorities, wouldn’t have the same rights as Caucasians, ( especially Anglo-Saxon-Protestants ) America, this great and gigantic mecca for freedom and pluralism would become a national hell hole for anyone who isn’t an Anglo-Saxon-Protestant male, especially who comes from a rural background.

I believe anyone who actually is a Christian regardless of what division they’re from should either be insulted that they get lumped into the same group as Christian-Nationalists, or be very amused by it and I’m sort of debating which emotion they should feel here. You could argue most if not everything that Christian-Nationalists support is anti-Christian, just like most if not what Islamists support is anti-Islam. But then you could also argue that a lot of what Christian-Nationalists support sounds so crazy as if they’re escaped mental patients that only see and believe in things that crazy people could see and support. So I will let actual Christians who actually believe in The Ten Commandments, morality and character make that decision for themselves.

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

George Carlin: Assholes

Posted on July 3, 2019 by kireschneider
George Carlin Assholes

Source:George Carlin– George Carlin, talking about a distinguish group of Americans.

Source:The New Democrat 

“Different degrees of which a person is an a$$hole!”

Source:George Carlin

George Carlin - Assholes - Google Search

Source:George Carlin– Sounds like the people who can’t handle the truth and honesty, ( to paraphrase Jack Nicholson ) are the real assholes.

This was covered on this blog yesterday, but since this is about George Carlin, we’re going to cover assholes again, not that Carlin was ever an asshole, but just because he was an expert on this particular, distinguishing group of people. Congratulations, George!

There assholes who don’t respect anyone else’s feelings ( except for perhaps themselves and are the biggest candyasses known to man when people are honest with them ) and then there are people who are so stupid, that they don’t even know how stupid that they are. One thing to not know what you actually know, or should know, it’s another to believe you know a helluva lot more than you actually are. It’s the moron wing of the asshole club ( one of the largest clubs known to man ) that I’m going to focus on when it comes to assholes.

It’s one thing to have a high respect for yourself if you deserve it and then brag about how awesome ( or whatever word you want to use ) you think you are and then deliver on all of your talk. Larry Bird, one of the best trash talkers in the history of the NBA, but he always backed up what he said. And it’s another to think that you’re so smart, so knowledgeable, that you should be the President of the Ivy Leaguers of America, when the actual truth is you overslept or were drunk on the day that God handed out brains and you missed your opportunity in life to even be an intelligent person, let alone a genius.

Those are the people that you need to look out for, because they’re really dangerous because they have a bad habit about making decisions about things they know nothing about, that affect the lives of others and are the people who can’t handle the real truth about themselves, because it sounds like the opposite of what they are in real life. People who make real decisions not just their real lives, but about the lives of others, ( like career politicians ) are the most dangerous of the assholes. And would all be in contention for President of Assholes of America.

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

Dan Mitchell: ‘The Dangerous Seduction of Free Stuff’

Posted on July 3, 2019 by Rik Schneider
Milton Friedman - No Free Lunch - Google Search

Source:QuoteFancy– When Socialists come back down to Planet Earth, then maybe they’ll listen to Professor Milton Friedman.

“By offering all sorts of freebies to various constituencies, Bernie Sanders has positioned himself as the true-believing socialist in the Democratic race (even though he’s actually a member of the “top-1 percent”).

But he has plenty of competition. Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren are strong competitors in the free-lunch Olympics, and most of the rest of the candidates are saying “me, too” as well.

Assuming these candidates get a warm reception, this is a worrisome development.”

Read more of Dan Mitchell’s piece

Milton Friedman Replies to a socialist about the cost of free stuff

Source:Simply Explained: ‘Milton Friedman Replies to a socialist about the cost of free stuff’– Dear Socialists: please listen to Professor Friedman

This was part of Professor Milton Friedman’s 1979-80 PBS documentary Free To Choose.

I disagree with Dan Mitchell one one thing here: he’s right that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren ( the dynamic duo of American Socialists ) are promising all sorts of new government services, with at least Bernie now admitting that these new programs wouldn’t be free that middle class taxes would of course go up to pay for them, but he’s wrong about Senator Kamala Harris.

The reason why Senator Harris’s poll numbers were down around 5% for most of this race in the Democratic Party so far  before last Thursday night’s debate, is because Democrats didn’t know where she was on most of these economic policy issues and they still don’t know. Medicare For All, is just one example of that where one day she’s for eliminating private health insurance and the next day she isn’t. The only real proposal that she’s really offered so far other than marijuana legalization and further reform of the criminal justice system, is a huge middle class tax cut, perhaps the biggest in American history. Which no Socialist that is sane, sober, and intelligent would ever support, because they see all tax cuts as sacrilege. At least the 1 or 2 Socialists that are religious at all. ( Ha, ha )

But as far as so-called government free stuff, I have to yield to Professor Milton Friedman on this: “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” And I would add especially it’s a government service. Anyone who pays taxes in America already knows this, even if they are a Socialist, because they see their pay checks every week and pay taxes every spring. Socialists, just tend to be in a much better mood on tax day than everyone else, but they know that they’re paying for their government services as well as the person who struggles just to pay their current taxes, as well as their bills and if anything is looking for some relief from Uncle Sam, so they can pay their bills and even put some of their hard earned money away.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, can say all she wants that it will just be the rich that will pay for every plan that she has for everything, but even if somehow as President she was able to get all of her new programs through the next Congress, as well as her new wealth taxes and they somehow all stand up to constitutional scrutiny, there’s still the matter of the IRS actually being able to collect all of that new revenue. Morons, don’t become rich even if they inherit trust funds, because even if a moron is rich one day because his or father gave them a trust fund, that money will be gone the next day, because they don’t know how to manage their money.

The rich are rich because they know how to earn a lot of money, manage their wealth, and also know the tax code so well that they know how to avoid paying taxes legally. ( Just ask Donald Trump ) And because of this even if President Warren’s wealth taxes hold up, the IRS will never see that money, because the rich will get that money out of the county faster than food is eaten at an all you can eat meat lovers buffet at a fat farm. Which means those taxes will either get passed down to the middle class, either through new taxes, or higher interest rates on the national debt.

 

 

 

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

Tom Woods: ‘What I Told College Kids About Communism’

Posted on July 2, 2019 by Ederik Schneider
Communists USA - Google Search

Source:Communist Party USA– “Trump sparks communist growth surge”

Source:The New Democrat 

“These days communism has become chic again, particularly on college campuses (but not only there).

Not to say that people always come out and endorse it, but it’s considered all right — or at least not career-destroying — to employ communist symbolism or to imply that communism wasn’t really so bad.

This can’t be smashed hard enough.

Not too long ago I spoke at the University of California at Santa Barbara on precisely this topic. In particular I sought to answer: were the crimes of communism a mere aberration? Did they result from the perversion of an otherwise noble idea?

Or were they the entirely predictable result of a perverse idea?

Here’s my overview of what I told the students; it’s an oldie but a goodie:”

From Tom Woods

What I Told College Students About Communism

Source:Tom Woods: ‘What I Told College Students About Communism’– This just in: Libertarian Tom Woods: is not a fan of communism. LOL

“Here’s an overview of what I said about communism to an audience of students at the University of California at Santa Barbara last night. Were the crimes of communism mere aberrations? Were they perversions of an otherwise noble ideal? Or were they the natural, expected outcomes of awful ideas?”

I’m not saying that there aren’t any real Communists in America, which you would have to at least consider would be like the Death Valley for Communists, since Americans tend to like making their own decisions and living their own lives, sort of like Libertarians in Scandinavia or China, but to me communism is more of a social movement, instead of a political movement, with democratic socialism being the real political movement in America for the Far-Left.

Communism to me in America is more like a social movement: sort of how young adults in and post-college like to get drunk and party as much as they possibly can, until they get a good job, make a romantic commitment, have kids, whatever new responsibility that they now have in their lives that forces them to be sober. ( At least for the most part ) Communism to me with young people, is like heavy alcohol drinking and partying for young people: they get it out of their system while they’re young, until they’re forced to live more responsibly. Perhaps their parents finally kick them out of their homes, whatever the case might be.

To me at least, once Americans grow up ( or sober up ) and start having any real responsibilities in their lives, like a good job, a committed romance, marriage, kids, whatever it might be and have to start making real decisions not just with their real lives, but other people’s real lives that come with real consequences not just for them, but for people around them that count on them for their well-being. And learn that communism isn’t so cool anymore and even if young people believe Communists are cool, they’re probably too young and stupid to know any better anyway. ( Sort of like an asshole ) That having the freedom over their own lives and being able to make a good living in life and the freedom to socialize and enjoy life, are actually really good things, even if they’re considered to be corny, materialistic, or even racist with so-called young Communists.

But until young people ( or so-called young Communists ) do grow up ( or sober up ) there like college frat boy and girl jackasses, who are addicted to their smartphones and laptops, wearing their American capitalist designer outfits at their favorite coffee houses, who can’t seem to get off of social media, who believe that Communists and communism will save the world from liberal democracy, capitalism, and materialism. They’re simply young assholes, ( instead of young Communists ) who simply don’t know any better.

Posted in The New Democrat, Tom Woods | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

New York Magazine: Heather Havrilesky: ‘How Do I Stop Being An Asshole?’

Posted on July 2, 2019 by Derik Schneider
Ask Polly_ How Do I Stop Being An Asshole_ - Google Search

Source:The Cut– Come on: since when are raccoons, assholes? LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

“Hey Polly.

How do I stop being an asshole?

Last night, I went out with my husband to enjoy a big festival in town. We both noticed a sign from a distance, but as we approached, another reveler stood directly in front of the sign to read it. “Wow, I hope no one else wants to read that sign, maybe from another angle,” I commented to my husband loud enough for the reader to hear. My husband quietly chuckled and hugged me, saying “Oh, you.”

Later, a woman with a pram cut across our path, not looking where she was going. “We get it! You’ve spawned! You’re more important than us!” I said to her. Another quiet chuckle from my husband.”

Read the rest of Heather Havrilesky piece at New York Magazine

Why Being an Asshole Can Be a Valuable Life Skill

Source:Mark Manson– An alternative view in support of assholes.

“We typically don’t think of being an asshole as a good thing, but there’s a difference between “good” assholes and “bad” assholes.

HOW TO KNOW WHO YOU REALLY ARE

We all think we know ourselves well, but psychological studies show otherwise. In fact, most of us are somewhat deluded about ourselves. I put together a 22-page ebook explaining how we can come to know ourselves better.”

From Mark Manson

From Urban Dictionary

“An inconsiderate, arrogant, uncaring, selfish, borderline sadistic, apathetic, mean, spiteful, dishonorable, bastard of a man who could tempt the Pope into a fight.”

I guess my definition of assholes is more inline with Urban Dictionary than what the two women over at Ask Polly were talking about.

I have two definition for what it means to be an asshole: someone who has a bad habit of speaking about things that they just aren’t qualified to talk about and aren’t unaware of that. People who consistently speak out of ignorance: who speak out of their ass, to be blunt about it.

My other definition of what it means to be an asshole is inline with The Urban Dictionary’s definition: “An inconsiderate, arrogant, uncaring, selfish, borderline sadistic, apathetic, mean, spiteful, dishonorable, bastard of a man who could tempt the Pope into a fight.” Someone is had no feeling for others feelings. A person who gets pleasure out of someone else’s pain and discomfort. Someone who consistently puts other people down for the pure pleasure of it.

What the two women are at Ask Polly were talking about sounds more like a prickly, oversensitive person who feels the need to weigh in on everything that she disapproves of. Someone who is overly judgmental, a prick to be completely blunt about it. Which is different from someone who doesn’t give a damn ( to be too kind ) about someone else’s feelings. There are pricks who are actually highly intelligent and then there are assholes who aren’t and are so stupid that they don’t even realize that they’re assholes. So in that sense at least, score one for the pricks, while the assholes do what they do best and lose again, this time to the pricks. With the pricks saying: “Hey, at least we’re not assholes. At least we contribute to society.”

So I guess what I should do here is to explain why good people shouldn’t be either assholes or pricks.

Seriously, people should at least be smart enough to know who they are, what they know, and where they come up short. And to use a pop culture political phrase: people should stay in their lanes in life ( not just on the road ) and if there’s something that you want to know more about, actually bother to learn about what you want to learn about, before talking about an issue or profession let’s say, as if you’re some college professor ( Ivy League, not Alabama ) lecturing others about that subject. Don’t speak out of your ass and you won’t be an ignorant asshole in life. People should always be smart enough to know what they know and then take it from there.

As far as the other asshole, the person who is let’s say a jerk and who is constantly putting people down for the pleasure of it: do you want to be a good person or not is where this comes down. I’m not talking about critiquing people who deserve to be criticized or even being wrong about your own criticism, but people who are simply mean to be mean and enjoy being mean.

The extreme version of assholes would be serial killers who murder innocent people for the pleasure of that. Ted Bundy, comes to mind and many others like Richard Ramirez. A more mainstream version of an asshole would be a high school bully who perhaps doesn’t even know any better. So in that sense at least the high school bully meets both of my definitions of asshole. Which might be their first accomplishment in life.

I’m not defending pricks here, but compared with assholes there like the tough cop who perhaps bends the rules to bring down the assholes so the assholes can’t hurt any more innocent people: you rather have the prick on your team, than be associated with any asshole. I guess you could be both a prick and an asshole, but for the sake of this piece let’s say they’re different people.

Another word for prick would be snob: someone who looks down at other people and thinks that they’re better than everyone else, or at least the people that they don’t associate with. And the only reason why they don’t associate with people outside of their circles, is because they believe that they’re better than those people. And pricks generally look down at other people for superficial reasons like money and employment status. A prick would be a person with not just a college education, but a degree from a Northeast or West Coast school, who looks down at people who work hard for a living just to support themselves and their families. Who go home tired and even sweaty from work everyday and perhaps every night.

The way to not be a prick:

Don’t judge people simply because of how much money that they make, or what they do for a living especially if they’re contributing to society and aren’t criminals. We need cops, teachers, plumbers, construction workers, military personal, and just because these people don’t make as much money as new-tech workers, bankers, accountants, lawyers, doctors, etc, doesn’t mean that they’re inferior: it just means that they don’t make as much money.

Don’t judge people by their social media status and have this idea that you’re too good to be associated with someone simply because they don’t have that many followers. But instead judge those people based on whether you personally like them or not and are interested in them or not.

Don’t judge people based on how much they know about pop culture and celebrity culture, reality TV, new-tech, etc: just because there are junkies and faddists who feel the need to have whatever the latest gadget is and have this lifelong need be one of the first 5 people to buy whatever the latest smartphone is to the point that they’re camp outside the store the nigh before to guarantee that they’re one of the first 100 people ( let’s say ) to buy whatever the latest gadget is. Some people buy gadgets because they’re status symbols to them and feel this desire to always be up to date with those devices. And then there are people who buy those things based on need and what they’re interested in.

Instead of looking at people based on how much money they make, what they do for a living, how informed they are on new technology, what their favorite coffee drink and coffee house is, whether they go to coffee houses or not, are they into reality TV and celebrity culture or not, how about you bother to do the non-asshole thing here and get to know people and judge people as people. Instead of judging them based on their race, ethnicity, religion, culture, sexuality, etc.

And you might actually learn something in life and meet new, good friends that will also like you for who you are, not because of their social status. And you’ll never have to worry about being either an asshole or a prick. Or you can always just be who you are and deal with that, because life is always about choices and consequences. So always make the best choices for yourself, instead of for others.

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

CNBC: ‘Kamala Harris & Joe Biden- Spar Over Record On Race’

Posted on July 1, 2019 by FredSchneiderUS
IMG-0081

Source:CNBC– In this photo, some might get the impression that Bernie Sanders is the Centrist. LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

“Democratic candidates take the stage together for the first time Wednesday night as they jockey for position in the race to take on President Donald Trump in 2020.

For more political coverage from CNBC subscribe to our newsletters here.”

Source:CNBC

As far as my expectations for the Democratic presidential primaries and debates going in, I don’t have any one particular candidate that I’m ready to say this is the one.

I don’t see a Centrist winning the Democratic nomination and I don’t want one as someone who is not a Centrist and has real strong beliefs, principles, and policies.

A Socialist, can’t win the general election ( newsflash, for all you Bernie and Liz lovers ) and I’m not a Socialist either, because I don’t even want government ( big or small ) to try to do everything for me or anyone else, especially if I have to pay for these so-called services, which might seem more like a prison sentence for the lack of individual choice and freedom that could come about if a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is actually ever elected President of the United States.

A Democratic Centrist, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) would put most American voters ( especially Millennial’s ) into a national coma because of how boring they are and no one would ever want to vote again, because they see politics as so boring. And Americans are just crazy this way in the sense that they tend to actually want to know what political candidates actually think, before they decide to support them or not. And as much as they might actually like sleeping, they don’t want to be put asleep by politician all the time, just when they’re having trouble sleeping.

And Americans primarily don’t want Uncle Sam coming in and taking over and trying to manage their economic affairs ( and if the nanny statists come in as well ) not their personal affairs for them either and make Americans believe that they’re now living in national boot camp, prison, or boarding school.

So just both as a Democrat and a voter, I believe the Democrats best shot at winning the election in 2020, is to not nominate a Socialist who doesn’t even know how to pay for all their government spending, but don’t nominate a Centrist either who doesn’t even know what the hell they believe about anything, or at the very least doesn’t know how to communicate their message and politics. But someone who can appeal to both Independents and Democrats. Win the nomination and even unite the party behind him or her, but win the Independents who even voted for Donald Trump, but now want someone else since they now know what kind of President Mr. Trump is. Like nominating an actual Progressive or Liberal, not closeted Socialist, but the real things.

Which finally after years of planning and practicing finally leads into what the video in this piece is actually about: I had three candidates going into the Democratic debates last week and all three of them did fairly well, especially Senator Kamala Harris who at least right now is the real Center-Left Progressive challenger to former Vice President Joe Biden. ( Especially if she ever figures out or takes a position for more than a day on Medicare For All ) Senator Cory Booker, had a real good night last Wednesday and Senator Amy Klobuchar, had a good night as well.

Going into last Wednesday and Thursday night debates, I believed that Senator Kamala Harris and Senator Cory Booker have the best opportunities to represent the Progressive Center-Left against the Socialists and dead and buried center in and outside of the Democratic Party. And watching her go up against Vice President Joe Biden was like watching two boxers in the ring with neither one of them having any real advantage, but with one boxer setting up their big punches and moves, before they just land their big shot and then land several big punches after that to take their opponent down. Kamala, at the very least knocked the frontrunner off of his feet last Thursday. And we”ll see if Joe can get back up.

Posted in NBC News, The New Democrat | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Yorker: Steven Markow: ‘Campaign Slogans For The Centrist Party’

Posted on July 1, 2019 by Erik Schneider
Campaign Slogans for the Centrist Party - Google Search

Source:The New Yorker– Vote for Centrists, if you too believe in nothing

Source:The New Democrat 

“The nation is divided. Loved ones tweeting at loved ones. What the American people need now more than ever is a party that can unite the entire country in disappointment. That’s where we step in: the Centrist Party. In 2020, we want you to skip the red and the blue and vote for the grayish taupe that represents our ideologically meek coalition. We couldn’t decide on a campaign slogan—every time we voted on one, everyone abstained—so we’ll let you read the list and, if any resonate, awesome; if not, no big deal!

“For the exhausted.”

“Some ideas. Some beliefs. Some feelings.”

“Thinking exactly what you think since [day you were born].”

“Putting the awkward silences back in Thanksgiving.”

“We can be bought.”

“Like our symbol, the petrified deer, we’re proudly frozen in the middle of the road.”

“Make news boring again.”

“Proudly standing against proudly standing against anything.”

“The sanest, most reasonable waste of a vote.”

Read more of Steven Markow’s piece at The New Yorker

What does a moderate voter look like_

Source:Newsy: ‘What does a moderate voter look like?’– Is Moderate, another label for Nihilist?

“Moderate voters tend to see both parties as extreme, and they mainly want compromise.”

If you look at the current American political system and party system, about 3-10 American voters are Democrats. 3-10 American voters are Republicans. And then roughly 4-10 American voters are neither a Republican or Democrat, are either a member of the third-party or no party at all.

It’s that 40% number that the so-called mainstream media looks at and tends to label them as Centrists and Independents, just because they’re simply not Democrats or Republicans. Which gives you an idea about how strong the critical thinking is with these media organizations. Even though that 4-10 number is made up of people who are yes, Centrist-Independents, ( if there is such a thing anymore ) but also Libertarians on the Right, Socialists ( Democratic and otherwise on the Far-Left ) Communists on the Far-Left, people who are called White-Nationalists on the Far-Right, and people who are called Black-Nationalists on the Far-Left.

My point here is just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, doesn’t mean that they’re a Centrist. It just might mean that they don’t like Democrats and Republicans. ( And who can blame them, especially since we have to pay for them ) So when you’re talking about Centrists, you really need to know who you’re talking about and don’t automatically assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, that they’re Centrists.

Just like you shouldn’t assume that because it was warm and sunny today, that it will automatically be warm and sunny tomorrow. That you sort of want to know that in advance, before you decide to head to the beach and get caught in a tropical storm on the way there and wonder where did all of that rain come from. You also shouldn’t assume that just because someone is not a Democrat or Republican, or is an Independent, that they’re automatically Centrists.

Me personally, I really don’t believe there is anymore any thing such thing as a Centrist: roughly 60-70% of the country believes in both economic and personal freedom. And according the the geniuses at the mainstream media, those people would be called Centrists, because they’re not particularly right or left and certainly not Far-Right or Far-Left. But if that were the case, Libertarians would be Centrists.

Think about this for a second: Libertarians, who believe that every single government regulation and safety net program, as well as civil rights law, that was created in the 20th Century should be eliminated, who believe that America should drop out of every foreign organization that America is a member of, who believe the Federal income tax should be repealed, and that every narcotic drug that is currently illegal, should be legalized at the Federal level, would be the New-Centrists in American politics. At least according to this mainstream media line of thinking. But anyone with a brain who also happens to use it and is also familiar with American politics, ( which would make you a member of a very small and exclusive club ) knows that can’t be true.

I don’t think we have Centrists, because if you poll on the issues and who American voters tend to vote for and against and who they poll based on what politicians propose and are against, we tend to have a pretty good idea. Americans tend to like their personal and economic freedom, their individualism, their independence from government at least, but they also tend to want a regulatory state for predators, as well as law enforcement to protect us from predators. A safety net for people who truly need it. A military strong enough to defend the country. Civil rights laws, so people aren’t denied access in America, simply because of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, or sexuality.

And again to my point about Libertarians, if the definition of a Centrist was someone who was conservative on economic and fiscal policy, but liberal on social issues, who believed in both personal and economic freedom, Libertarians would be the Centrists in America. But who seriously believes that Libertarians are Centrists?

If you’re definition of a Centrist is someone who is right down the middle on the political spectrum and perhaps a member of the Mushy-Middle Voters of America, who only takes a stand on any issue when there’s a consensus to do so, whose motto: “I’m willing to compromise on anything, because I believe in nothing: a vote for me is a vote for nothing.” If that’s your idea of a Centrist, someone who is basically a Nihilist, then those voters might actually exist in American politics.

Just look at Millennial’s who only vote for people that they believe are cool and will support anything that person says, just as long as it’s cool and they sound cool. Just look at Beto O’Rourke’s base. ( Or what’s left of it at this point ) A man who proved at last Wednesday’s Democratic debate, that he can not answer questions in multiple languages. Actually, that also happens to be the only thing that Beto accomplished last Wednesday: he’s wishy-washy in two languages.

If you’re idea of a Centrist is someone who spilts the difference on the every key issue if not all issues all together, then I would hate to have that person planning my wedding or any other party. Because you would have food, outfits, decorations that are simply out of place.

I would also hate to have those people in charge of writing the U.S. Constitution some 240 years ago. What would our First Amendment look like if Centrists wrote it: Americans are free to say and believe whatever they want, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees with it? We can have Freedom of Religion, just as long as at least 50% of the country agrees to be a member of the same religion or no religion at all. We would have the Right to Privacy, but only on the second floor of our homes. We would have an Equal Protection Clause, but for only half of the country. The campaign symbol for a Centrist Party, would be the dear in the headlights in the middle of the road, because Centrists have a 100% dedication to neutrality and compromise. The life of the Centrist if there is such a thing, must be really hard. I mean just making decisions about what to do order at a restaurant must be painful.

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

George Carlin: ‘Would Love To See A Completely Anarchistic Human Race’

Posted on June 28, 2019 by kireschneider
George Carlin Would Love To See A Completely Anarchistic Human Race

Source:George Carlin– George Carlin: The Socialist-Anarchist

Source:The New Democrat 

“Radio interview with Art Bell”

Source:George Carlin

George Carlin - Socialist Anarchism - Google Search

Source:Fnord University– “Libertarians and Anarchists LOVE this meme!”

From Wikipedia

“Social anarchism (sometimes referred to as socialist anarchism or anarcho-socialism) is a non-state form of socialism and is considered to be the branch of anarchism that sees individual freedom as being interdependent with mutual aid. Social anarchist thought generally emphasizes community and social equality, while respecting the individual and individual thought. The term emerged in the late 19th century as a distinction from individualist anarchism.”

So, from reading up on what’s called socialist anarchism, it looks like there would be a socialist society ( if they got their way ) but with no government. Just a large community of individuals living together, but without any topdown authority not just telling people what they can and can’t do, but not doing anything for them either. Where everyone there would be there to share what they have with each other, because they want to, but not because they’re being forced too.

Imagine the largest hippie compound somewhere out in the middle of nowhere California or some state with a lot of rural territory. Or Jonestown ( if you’re familiar with the Socialist Reverend Jim Jones ) but without the crazy, murderous dictator. Or imagine The Manson Family compound ( if you’re familiar with Charles Manson ) but without the crazy, murderous, spiritualist cult leader.

This might sound crazy, but I could see how Libertarians would like this philosophy, because of the voluntarist aspects to it, instead of the state mandating it. And I could see how Socialists would hate it, even though socialist anarchism ( which is not an Oxymoron ) would hate this and I’ll explain that.

The Libertarian positives about this are obvious: a community of people coming together, that polices themselves and voluntarily shares their property. Not Uncle Sam or Uncle Fidel, or Uncle Adolf, Uncle Joseph, or any other big government uncle coming by, not knocking on someone’s door, but knocking to down and confiscating someone’s property. And saying that these people have too much and these people have too little and big government is going to come in and equal the score. ( So to speak ) I’m guessing that there’s no such thing as Robin Hood in a socialist anarchist society.

It’s also easy to see why Socialists would hate socialist anarchism, even though it’s a form of socialism. Socialist anarchism, is left-wing anarchism, just like anarcho-libertarianism is right-wing anarchism. The reason why Socialists would and I’m sure do hate socialist anarchism, is because it’s voluntary. With the Socialist thinking: “wait, you’re actually going give people the freedom to manage their own lives and affairs. That’s the job of big government, not individuals.”

Socialists tend to believe that the world is too complicated of a place for individuals to successfully manage their own personal and economic affairs. And in George Carlin’s case especially, Socialists tend to see America specifically as too complicated a place for individuals to manage their own affairs. And Americans specifically as too stupid to manage their own personal affairs.

If you’re familiar with my recents posts about George Carlin, you might think that I see him as some type of Libertarian or Classical Liberal, ( Classical Liberals, are the real Liberals ) but he wasn’t. Yes, he was a hardcore individualist when it came to personal freedom, freedom of speech, and individuality. But when it came to economic policy, what’s called identity politics, cultural issues, American life and America in general, how he felt about Americans, he was right inline with the New-Left Socialist thinking and philosophy of the late 1960s and 1970s.

Which meant George Carlin sounded like Ayn Rand on social issues and on individuality, but he was right inline with Professor Angela Davis, political activist Tom Hayden, and other New-Left Socialist activists from that period. When you think about George Carlin’s politics, think about peanut butter on a hot dog; might sound like a crazy and nasty combo, but it worked for him because that’s who he was.

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

Dennis Prager: ‘Clarity About Nationalism’

Posted on June 27, 2019 by Rik Schneider
Clarity About Nationalism - Google Search

Source:Townhall– An American Patriot?

Source:The New Democrat

“In order to make arguments for nationalism, we have to define it.

The first definition in Merriam-Webster is “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But in a second paragraph, it adds, “especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”

Let’s be clear: If the second paragraph is the only definition of nationalism, nationalism is always a bad thing. Furthermore, I acknowledge that this definition is what some people have in mind when they call themselves nationalists.

At the same time, even anti-nationalists would have to acknowledge that if the first paragraph is the definition of “nationalism,” nationalism can often be a beautiful thing.

So, if we are to be honest, the answer to the question of whether nationalism is good or bad is “How do you define it?”

Read more from Dennis Prager

“In which John Green teaches you about Nationalism. Nationalism was everywhere in the 19th century, as people all over the world carved new nation-states out of old empires. Nationalist leaders changed the way people thought of themselves and the places they lived by reinventing education, military service, and the relationship between government and governed. In Japan, the traditional feudal society underwent a long transformation over the course of about 300 years to become a modern nation-state. John follows the course of Japanese history from the emergence of the Tokugawa Shogunate to the Meiji Restoration, and covers Nationalism in many other countries along the way. All this, plus a special guest appearance, plus the return of an old friend on a extra-special episode of Crash Course.”

From Wikipedia

“Nationalism is an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation,[1] especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity,[2] and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).[1][3] It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity—based on shared social characteristics such as culture, language, religion, politics, and belief in a shared singular history[4][5][page needed]—and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism, therefore, seeks to preserve and foster a nation’s traditional culture, and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements, and is closely linked to patriotism.[7][page needed] Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies, such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (socialist nationalism) for example.[2]

Nationalism as an ideology is modern. Throughout history, people have had an attachment to their kin group and traditions, to territorial authorities and to their homeland, but nationalism did not become a widely-recognized concept until the 18th century.[8] There are three paradigms for understanding the origins and basis of nationalism. Primordialism (perennialism) proposes that there have always been nations and that nationalism is a natural phenomenon. Ethnosymbolism explains nationalism as a dynamic, evolutionary phenomenon and stresses the importance of symbols, myths and traditions in the development of nations and nationalism. Modernism proposes that nationalism is a recent social phenomenon that needs the socio-economic structures of modern society to exist.[9]

There are various definitions of a “nation”, however, which leads to different strands of nationalism. Ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared ethnicity, heritage and culture, while civic nationalism defines the nation in terms of shared citizenship, values and institutions, and is linked to constitutional patriotism. The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development has often been a response by influential groups unsatisfied with traditional identities due to mismatch between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in an anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[10] This anomie results in a society reinterpreting identity, retaining elements deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, to create a unified community.[10] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are (or are deemed to be) controlling them.[10] National symbols and flags, national anthems, national languages, national myths and other symbols of national identity are highly important in nationalism.”

Even right-wing commentator Dennis Prager, ( who is currently a board member of the President Donald J. Trump For Life Fan club. Ha, ha. ) acknowledges in his own column about nationalism that there’s bad nationalism and good nationalism. And in his pro-nationalism definition, that sounds more like patriotism.

Patriotism according to Wikipedia

“Patriotism or national pride is the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment. This attachment can be a combination of many different feelings relating to one’s own homeland, including ethnic, cultural, political or historical aspects. It encompasses a set of concepts closely related to nationalism.”

I’m a Liberal, a Democrat, and a Patriot and no, none of those things contradict each other. I’m an American Patriot, because I love America, period. America, is a country that isn’t dominated by one ethnic or religious group and perhaps within 30 years we’ll no longer have a racial majority either. I love Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, race, religion or gender. Patriots, love their country because of what their country represents: not the people that they associate with, the town, state, region, ethnic, racial, or religious group that they come from.

If there’s a mainstream and positive faction within nationalism regardless of the country, it’s that a mainstream Nationalist is a Patriot who loves their country, not just the people that associate with and community that they come from. And believes in putting their country’s interests above every other country’s interests at all times. And believes that their country has no interest and right to be involved in another country’s affairs, even if that country is doing horrible things to their own people or another country.

The problem even with my own definition of what it means to be let’s say a good Nationalist, is those aren’t the Nationalists that Americans tend to hear about and hear from, except for maybe as it relates to foreign policy and national security, where you do see Libertarians who have nationalist leanings at least as it relates to foreign policy and national security.

The Nationalists that Americans tend to hear from are the people who believe that they’re the real Americans, the real Patriots and that the people who disagree with them and don’t share religious and cultural values, or even look like them are the Un-Americans: invaders and traitors to this great country that the so-called real Americans and the real Patriots supposedly love. And if you don’t believe me, just look at the modern Republican Party and their leader that’s dominated by an Anglo-Saxon, Christian-Nationalist, rural and Southern faction.

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