Laugh About: 10 Insane Late Night Talk Show Appearances

Source:The Daily Review- Heidi Klum, on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno in 2007, giving Jay a free ride 

Source:The Daily Review

I think the guests that stick out with me from this video, are Paris Hilton. Because she’s only famous, because who her father is and a few failed so-called realty TV shows she’s been on and of course one of perhaps thousands of so-called celebrities that have done time in jail. And if you noticed Dave Letterman, there was nothing else he wanted to talk about with Paris. Why, because she’s not well-known for really anything positive and for any substance. She’s known as a heiress who probably lives off her trust fund from her father and has someone invest and manage that money for her.

The Joaquin Phoenix, is another standout. Joaquin, later apologized to Letterman for his appearance on that show. Hopefully he apologized for not bothering to shave, or getting a haircut, chewing the gum, the sunglasses, perhaps not bathing before coming on. Dave, was expecting to see Joaquin Phoenix and instead what they got was Jim Morrison’s twin brother from 1970. Some zen new aged hipster, who didn’t seem to have a care in the world, or know anything about anything that was going on in his life. Not the way you want to appear on national TV on The Late Show with David Letterman.

Heidi Klum, well because she’s Heidi Klum. Arguably one of the five best looking women to ever come from Germany, or be of ethnic-German descent. I like Steffi Graf and Catherine Bach, but that’s me. That whole setup looked planned to me and Heidi with the sense of humor that she has, probably planned the whole deal herself with Dave and Marty Short, being more than willing helpers with the so-called Heidi wardrobe malfunction. I believe that show was from 2007, just three years after the so-called Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction at that Super Bowl.

Post-Johnny Carson, Dave Letterman to me is the best late night talk show host. And I think I like him the most because of damn straight candor. If he doesn’t have much respect for his guests, or his guests aren’t giving him much to work with and perhaps are acting like they want to be somewhere else, as you saw with Paris Hilton, who perhaps was late for her appointment with her dealer, or Joaquin, who looked like he just woke up from a ten-year coma, which would explain the shades and thick beard, Dave will let you know about it. Without actually telling you how he’s feeling.

Tom Polivka: The Outing- A Reporter Believes & George Are Gay: Not That There's Anything Wrong With That

Source:Tom Polivka- The Beautiful Paula Marshall in Levi's.

Source:The Daily Review

If you think political correctness is bad now and I sure as hell do, then go back to the early 1990s. When homosexuals, especially gay men were just coming out of the closet and just starting to appear on national TV in reality and fictional programming. Whether gay men were queens, or lets say passable as straight and straight people didn’t automatically think they were gay from meeting them, or talking to them, the level of tolerance for homosexuality and gay life, was better than it was in the 1960s or so, but not to the point it is now. Where an overwhelming majority of Americans don’t have a problem with homosexuality. Simply because they know gay people and are friends with them.

I call this Seinfeld episode, the Not That There’s Anything Wrong With That show. Because that phrase is used a lot in this episode and that’s the basic point of the episode. What Jerry and George are saying, is that they’re not gay and want to make that clear to anyone who’ll listen, because they’re not gay and they sure don’t women and potential dates thinking that they’re gay. But they don’t have a problem with gay people being gay. “Its alright if Joe is gay, but I’m not and that lifestyle is not for me.” Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David, the creators and producers of the Seinfeld show, went to gay rights groups and showed them the show ahead of schedule, to get it cleared by them.

There are several things I like about this show as a straight man and as a Liberal whose a strong supporter of free speech and strong opponent of political correctness. Which I see as a form of Far-Left fascism. That they made it clear that there’s nothing wrong with being gay, when the country was still fairly split on that and this episode came out in February, 1993. Same-sex marriage, is nowhere near the political radar and you could still get arrested for being gay in several states. But another thing, is that they took on political correctness directly, when political correctness is still fairly popular in America. And where any joke against any women, or non-straight person, or non-Caucasians, was considered bigoted. Because the political correctness crowd, even sees, “not that there’s anything wrong with that”, as homophobic, even if gay people don’t.

The other thing that I love about this episode, is actress Paula Marshall. She’s a beautiful, baby-faced adorable actress, whose like 27 at this point and playing a college student a journalism major. And she’s the one who taped recorded Jerry and George in the diner talking to each other pretending that they were gay and were a couple. Which is really how this episode gets started. Because she ends up interviewing Jerry and George in Jerry’s apartment, about Jerry’s career. And has already written her article in her college newspaper saying that Jerry Seinfeld is gay. And Jerry finds out about that and goes out of his way the rest of the show to prove to her that he’s not gay. Including inviting her over to her apartment for  a date.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Ted Balaker: Can Americans Still Take a Joke? Comedians Say No

Source:Reason Magazine- Lisa Lampanelli, Gilbert Gottfried, Jim Norton.

Source:The New Democrat

Can Americans still take a joke? That is really what this is about and for Americans who believe in political correctness, the answer is no. Doesn’t mean they can’t get a good joke and understand it. It just means they can take it. Kind of like the boxer with both a glass jaw and a beer belly. Sure! They can see the punches coming and know what they are, they just can’t take them. For political correctness fascists, humor is only humor when the humor is directed at the opposition. When its directed at your side of the isle, or your team, crew, clique, whatever the hell you want to call it, the person delivering the humor is a racist, xenophobe, sexist, homophobe and many times all of those things at the same time.

I believe two big cultural problems that we have in America, is that we’re no longer just divided politically, but culturally as well. It is no longer Left and Right, but cultural as well. The types of entertainment that you’re into as well as entertainers also tends to define your politics as well. And a lot of the entertainers, have become very partisan as well. So they’ll make fun of the opposition all the time, but when someone takes shots at their side, they’ll act like that person is the biggest bigot since Adolph Hitler. And that they should be deported to Siberia, or some place. And when you have entertainers who clearly come from one side of the isle ideologically, take shots at people their crew is supposed to protect, that person is considered a bigot and a traitor. Bill Maher comes to mind.

American politics and politicians, are so messed up right now, that you possibly can’t blame just one side, or the other. This blog is called The New Democrat for good reason. We are New Democrats ideologically and have a very strong liberal viewpoint, but this idea that Democrats and people on the Left are Einstein’s and full of perfect genius’, who are completely unflawed, while Republicans and people on the Right are useless bigots who should be put into one giant time machine and sent back to the 1500s or something, is as believable as saying Pat Buchanan, is a gay immigrant loving zen hipster, who embraces all cultures and loves all Americans. Who now says same-sex marriage should not only be legal everywhere, but we should invade countries where it’s currently illegal. Who would believe that?

Political correctness fascists, can’t have it both ways. If making fun of Hillary Clinton is sexist, just because she’s a women, but taking shots at Michelle Bachmann are perfectly legitimate, than neither is sexist and neither is legitimate. If racial jokes about one group of Americans, generally Caucasian is not racist, than racial jokes about Asians and Africans are not racist either. If you’re going to live in a liberal democracy, you need to be able to put up with all sorts of thoughts and ideas and ways of expressing one’s self. Otherwise you’ll end up in the nut house and perhaps have Michelle Bachmann as your roommate. Or end up on Donald Trump’s next reality show, Who Wants Donald Trump For President? Wait, that reality show is already playing. The only current hit show on CNN. Learn to take a joke and you’ll live a lot longer and better.

The National Journal: Clare Foran: All The Ways 2016 Contenders Want to Change the Constitution

Source:The National Journal-

Source:The New Democrat

I have to admit, that 2015-16, at least not yet isn’t as interesting as the 2011-12 presidential election cycle, at least when it comes to the U.S. Constitution and proposed constitutional amendments. In 2011-12, you had so-called constitutional conservatives like Representative Michelle Bachmann and former Senator Rick Santorum, both offer several amendments to the Constitution. Representative Bachmann, wanted to use the Constitution so the Federal Government could outlaw pornography and same-sex marriage. Senator Santorum, would’ve actually gone further and supported the first two amendments, but added an amendment to outlaw gambling from the Federal level as well.

Now it seems to me anyway looking from this from the outside as a non-conservative, that someone who calls them self a Constitutional Conservative, would like the Constitution as is. And want to, gee I don’t know, conserve the Constitution as is. And leave the constitutional amendments to Progressives who want the Constitution to progress forward and create more, well progress. I mean this all sounds like commonsense anyway and maybe I just get from not being an addicted career politician whose only happy when I’m holding office and looking for the next step up in my political career. And as a result I feel giant craving for voters who I need to like me.

2015-16, isn’t as bad, at least so far. Hold the phone, because we still have more than fourteen months until the presidential election. You got a couple Democratic presidential contenders, offering amendments to overturn Citizens United. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. And few Republicans offering amendments to allow for states to define marriage as only between a man and women. Governor Scott Walker, offered that amendment. Senator Marco Rubio, offered an amendment to excuse people who choose not to buy health insurance from paying a tax on that. Mr. Big Government anti-Federalist Republican Rick Santorum, is back at it with an amendment that would have the Federal Government define marriage for everyone else. Between a man and women.

Keep in mind, the politicians and wannabe politicians that are offering all of these amendments, are all smart enough to know what it takes to amend the U.S. Constitution and why we only have like 27 amendments to it. They all know that there’s a better chance of Paris Hilton winning an honorary degree from both Harvard and Stanford, than the U.S. Constitution being changed anytime soon. What they’re counting on I believe at least is the people they’re speaking to, are unaware of how unlikely these proposals would ever become law. They’re speaking to their audiences and bases both Republican and Democrat. And represent a big reason why so many Americans don’t like American politics and don’t bother to even vote.

Thoughts On Liberty: Aunt Merryweather: What is Left Libertarianism?

Source:Thoughts On Liberty-

Source:The New Democrat

The way Aunt Merryweather describes left-libertarianism, is how social liberalism is described and what social liberalism is. I use to see myself as a Classical Liberal, or even Liberal, which is what this blog is about for the most part. And then I read up on so-called Social Liberals and social liberalism. And the way that is put is people who believe in both individual freedom, both personal economic. But they also believe in using government to expand freedom for people who are struggling. You can call that the safety net, or social justice.

So after reading up on Social Liberals and social liberalism, I thought to myself, you know what I’m a Social Liberal. I didn’t like that term before, because when that term is used today that is the way you would describe a Social Democrat, or Democratic Socialist, or even Progressives of today. People who believe in not only a supersize welfare state, even if that means less income for people individually with higher taxes, but a nanny state. To make sure people are living healthy and not making bad decisions with their own personal lives.

If more Americans would just read up on social democracy and democratic socialism and then looked at their own politics and realized they believe in both personal and economic freedom. And don’t want a big government to try to manage their own lives for them economically, or personally, they would realize that they’re Social Liberals as well. Because they believe in a safety net and social insurance, but that those things should be for people who truly need them. Not big enough to try to run people’s lives for them. And only be left with mindless decisions over their own affairs. Without being able to take any risks with their lives.

I’ve never thought of myself as a Libertarian, even though I tend to be with Libertarians on 99% of the social issues generally. And even a lot of the economic issues. Because again it gets to role of government. I don’t want a big government, but I want a government effective enough to protect the innocent from predators who would harm them intentionally, or otherwise. Which includes, law enforcement and national security, but also a regulatory state not to run business’s for the people, but again to protect the innocent from predators. So products are being made safely and for the consumers as well. And today’s so-called Libertarians, don’t seem to have much if any role for government at any level.

Late Night With Seth Myers: David Brock & Jerry Seinfeld: Jerry Seinfeld is Tired of Political Correctness

Source:Late Night With Seth Meyers- Jerry Seinfeld: "What's The Deal With Political Correctness?"

Source:The New Democrat

“There’s this creepy political correctness thing going on right now.” To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld and perhaps my version sounds better. But I couldn’t agree more. I could try I guess, if only I had so much time to waste. Who are these judges of what’s appropriate and inappropriate language and humor in America anyway and why are they all on the Far-Left? America, is not Sweden, obviously our weather is a lot better and not all our women are blonde. We are a Constitutional Federal Republic in the form of a liberal democracy. We have a guaranteed constitutional liberal right to free speech. If we didn’t, maybe we would be Sweden.

And the problem is, we either have this New York, or San Francisco, or Seattle centric faction of Americans, who don’t believe in free speech. Because free speech means people can essentially say whatever the hell they want. Even if someone else disagrees, or disapproves. And they are also the biggest tight asses, that you’ll ever see. And no I’m not talking about beautiful sexy curvy women. I’m talking about a tight ass, whose foot is far up their ass and think so highly of them self that they can’t take a joke. Either about them self, because they see them self as perfect, as well as the people they associate with in their local coffee-house wearing their berets reading and listening to poetry.

People who can’t take jokes, should not listen to comedy, or read comedy. Because comedians get paid to make people laugh and tell jokes. I know, that sounds crazy. Now you’re thinking I’m going to suggest that actors who get paid to act and pitchers get who paid to pitch. I know it’s a crazy world, but part of making people laugh is making fun of people who have weakness’. Not to make those people look bad and hurt their feelings, but to show sides of people where they can use some self-improvement. And again if you can’t take a joke, maybe America is not the right place for you. And maybe you would be better off in a country where everybody thinks and talks the way you do.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Starr Parker: 'The Lie of The Left': Give Me a Break!

Source:Liberty Pen - Starr Parker. 

Source:The New Democrat

“The Lie of The Left”, not sure which Left Starr Parker is referring to. Because it is a very large political faction of people in America. Just look at the Democratic Party. Where you have Center-Left Liberals such as myself and then you have Progressives, who are a bit left of me, but still in the mainstream of American politics. But then you have Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialists, who are very way left and look more like the Green Party, or Democratic Socialist Party, than they do the Democratic Party. So is Starr Parker, saying everyone on the Left lies?

Of course racism, stills plays a factor in America and Americans are denied access as a result. It’s not the only reason for poverty in America and perhaps not much of a reason at all. But if you get yourself an education and you apply yourself and show perspective employers that hiring you can would benefit the organization, you can overcome racism. It also helps to have access to good lawyers when you are denied a position because of your race. So the person who victimized you won’t want to do that again and pay a price for what they did to you.

I agree with Starr Parker about the welfare system. Which is why it was reformed in 1996, but we need to go further with that. But this idea that The Left, again as if there’s one Left, as if there was one Right, especially when you have John Stossel talking to Starr Parker, believe that if you’re born Black, or Brown, or whatever it might be that you’re automatically going to have to live in poverty in America, especially with people compared with lighter complexions, is stupid. The Far-Left, I’m sure believes that. Black Lives Matter, would be an example of that.

Another thing, I’m not sure what world Starr Parker is living in and I’m glad she was able to get herself off of Welfare. But this idea that racism has nothing to do with people either being denied access, or living in poverty is foolish. 12-100 Americans, are African-American. 70-100 Americans are Caucasian, depending on how you define Hispanics. Race, is obviously a factor in this country, so just on numbers alone African-Americans are more likely to be exposed to racism than Caucasians. Again not sure what world Starr Parker is living in. And perhaps she lives somewhere in America where people are never judged by their complexion, or their race. Sounds like paradise and a place that I would like to visit myself.
Source:Liberty Pen

Cato Institute: 'Daniel Shapiro on the Welfare State'

Source:CATO Institute- Daniel Shapiro on the so-called welfare state.

Source:The New Democrat 

"In his new book, Is The Welfare State Justified?, philosopher Daniel Shapiro insightfully combines moral and political philosophy with contemporary social science to argue that proponents of the welfare state — egalitarians, communitarians, and liberals alike — have misunderstood the implications of their own principles, which in fact support more market-based or libertarian institutional conclusions than most people realize." 

From The CATO Institute

I'm not sure that Daniel Shapiro understands what Social Security is. And even though the title of his talk is about the so-called welfare state, this video only covers Social Security. Social Security, is not a retirement system. It would be very difficult for someone to pay their bills and not live in poverty if Social Security was their only income. Social Security, like most social insurance programs, is exactly that. Social insurance for retirement. To help people fund their retirement, but not be the sole income of their retirement.

For most Americans unless they have a government job, if they have a pension its a private pension. That either they funded them self, or they funded with help from their employer. Social Security, is not only not only the national retirement system, but it isn't a retirement system at al. It is insurance that people pay into through their working lives and then collect from once they retire. To go along with any private savings and perhaps a pension plan that they picked up during their careers. So when people talk about privatizing Social Security and creating private savings accounts, private savings accounts already exist. And they're talking about privatizing retirement insurance.

Reason Magazine: Stephanie Slade: 'Why I Am a Pro-Life Libertarian'

Source:Reason Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

One thing that Stephanie Slade said in her Reason piece is that if she didn’t believe that fetus’s were babies and that life started at conception, she would be pro-choice on abortion. I have the opposite position and say that if I believe life started at conception, I would be anti-choice on abortion. I would be against right to choose an abortion to end pregnancies. Other than to save the life and health of the mother. This is exactly where the abortion debate is. When do you believe life starts. At conception, or when the fetus is born and becomes a baby.

I’m not a Libertarian, but I don’t believe being anti-choice on abortion is anti-libertarian. Especially if you believe that life starts at conception and you have consistent libertarian views both on economic policy and social issues. Which is what Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul both have. And one thing I would give anti-choice Libertarians on abortion credit for is that when they say their pro-life, they really mean it. They also tend to be against the death penalty and the use of drones.

So I think its hard for today’s so-called Progressives to make the case that anti-choice on abortion Libertarians are now pro-big government, because they want government involvement when it comes to health care. Because when they also tend to support same-sex marriage, prostitution, gambling, pornography, marijuana, gambling and are pro-choice on other issues. But that won’t stop Salon, AlterNet, The Nation and many other New-Left publications, from trying to make that case anyway.
Source:Reason Magazine

The Week: Sam Fragoso: 'How The Riveting Vidal v. Buckley Debates Paved The Way For an Era of Idiotic TV Punditry'

Source:The Week- William F. Buckley I believe debating Gore Vidal at the 1968 Republican National Convention, on ABC News.

Source:The New Democrat 

"This summer, the silver screen has been dominated by microscopic superheroes, prodigious dinosaurs, sexually uninhibited trainwrecks, and gyrating strippers — you know, the usual summertime fare. But the most entertaining film released this summer revolves around something different: a pair of loquacious, Anglo-Saxon intellectuals who wanted nothing more than to extinguish one another on public television.

Directed with precision and panache by journalists-turned-documentarians Morgan Neville and Robert Gordon, Best of Enemies begins in the spring of 1968 with a failing network desperate for viewership. With nothing to lose, ABC — dubbed the "budget car rental of television news” by New York's Frank Rich — settled on an unconventional approach to the Republican and Democratic conventions. The plan? Put William F. Buckley and Gore Vidal, two ideologically opposed scholars, in front of a live an audience to do what they do best: debate.

Hailed as the "St. Paul of the conservative movement," Buckley (founder of National Review) served as the voice of the right. Conversely, Vidal, an esteemed author and consummate provocateur, represented the left. As Best of Enemies meticulously documents, this mercenary ploy for higher ratings led to riveting television. For 10 debates, Buckley and Vidal engaged in vigorous, often pointed dialogue about the problems plaguing America, from the Vietnam War to the marginalization of the poor. But the real draw, some might argue, was that these conversations often dovetailed into vindictive ad-hominem attacks. The heated tête-à-têtes weren't just about Richard Nixon, or the overreach of the federal government, or any other hotly contested issue. They were about personal domination. Vidal and Buckley didn't simply want to outsmart each other; they wanted to pummel the other into submission." 

You can read the rest of Sam Frasgoso's piece at The Week.  

"In the summer of 1968, television news changed forever. Dead last in the ratings, ABC hired two towering public intellectuals to debate each other during the Democratic and Republican national conventions. William F. Buckley Jr. was a leading light of the new conservative movement. A Democrat and cousin to Jackie Onassis, Gore Vidal was a leftist novelist and polemicist. Armed with deep-seated distrust and enmity, Vidal and Buckley believed each other’s political ideologies were dangerous for America. Like rounds in a heavyweight battle, they pummeled out policy and personal insult—their explosive exchanges devolving into vitriolic name-calling. Live and unscripted, they kept viewers riveted. Ratings for ABC News skyrocketed. And a new era in public discourse was born." 

Source:Movie Clips- William F. Buckley debating Gore Vidal on ABC News, at the 1968 Republican National Convention, in Miami Florida.

From Movie Clips

I think people need to be careful when they compare with Bill Buckley-Gore Vidal debates with modern partisan talk TV where the host of some so-called news talk show has a clear political slant and simply brings on guests to back up what they are already saying. And when they do bring on an alternative point of view, they cut the person off every time the guest contradicts the host. 

Buckley-Vidal, is not Bill O’Reilly, or Rachel Maddow. Buckley-Vidal, is also not the old CNN Crossfire either where you would have 2-4 all talking at the same time and not knowing what someone else on that show said during the whole debate. Because they were too busy spilling hot air out of the big fat mouth.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, were between two men who hated each other and yet respected each other enough to hear what the other said and actually think about what they said before they tried responding to them. These debates were sort of like the Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960 where the two leading presidential nominees, were at the top of their game and knew exactly what they thought and wanted to do and what their opponents knew as well. And actually listened to each other.

The only placed that would put on a Buckley-Vidal debate, or that type of talk and debating show, would be PBS, or C-SPAN because the rest of the country when they get home from work, are only interested in mindless entertainment, like so-called realty TV and the other tabloid shows, for the most part. And if they’re going to watch something that presents itself as news, it has to be entertaining. Because if it isn’t, they fall asleep on the couch from watching it, because getting something out of a real news show, or news magazine, or documentary, requires actual thinking. And not thinking about which jail their current favorite celebrity is currently being held at.

The Buckley-Vidal debates, weren’t supposed to be that. They were brought on by ABC News, Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal to offer opposite points of view from the other about the 1968 Republican and Democratic national conventions. 

I guess ABC News, was small, or cheap, that they couldn’t afford a research staff because if they did their homework they would’ve known that Buckley and Vidal hated each other. ABC News’s lead news anchor Howard K. Smith, was supposed to moderate their discussion, but he acted more like a U.S. Senate presiding officer, (sorry for the Congressional joke) than a moderator. Because Buckley and Vidal did all the talking. But it made for every entertaining as well as intelligent TV.

Liberty Pen: John Stossel- 'The Fight For Education Freedom'

Source:Liberty Pen- from a school choice debate on John Stossel.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Kelley Williams-Bolar (School Choice Advocate) and Kevin Chavous (American Federation for Children) discusses how government will spend on private investigators in order to keep children from accessing better schools. Liberty Pen." 

From Liberty Pen

What they’re talking about is that most school districts in America require kids to go to school based on where they live. That is if they are going to a public school in that district. Which means if you live in a middle class, or upper middle class, lets say white-collar neighborhood where the people aren’t rich, but doing very well, or you live in an upper class neighborhood, you’re going to be able to good schools from K-12. 

But if you live in a low-income neighborhood (which I’m guessing the mother in this video does) you’re going to get stuck in a high impoverished school. That simply doesn’t have the funds to teach their kids well and pay their teachers enough. And anyone wondering why we have such a high poverty rate in America?

What this mother wants to do is be able to send her kids to the best school that is for them. Which is what any responsible parent would want to do. Why should kids be stuck with a bad education, or practically no education and end up working dead-end jobs their whole lives just because their parents, or single-parent didn’t make enough money for them to live in a good neighborhood with good schools? 

Which is what this is about: kids being stuck in bad schools, because their parents make very little if any money. And can’t afford to live in a good neighborhood. Whereas middle and upper-income kids get good education’s, or at least the opportunity to get one simply, because their parents and generally both parents are economically successful.

I’m not calling for private school vouchers, or abandoning low-performing schools in America. Actually, the opposite is true, because I want public school choice and allow for every school district to set that up if they choose. So their parents can send their kids to the best school for them. Especially if they’re low-income, while we reform the low-performing schools and invest enough money in them so parents would want to send their kids there. Instead of parents getting stuck sending their kids there simply because they’re low-income.

Lew Rockwell Show: John V. Denson- Strategy For Peace

Source:Lew Rcokwell Show- John W. Denson.

Source:The New Democrat

I'm not going to touch the thing that John Denson said implying that Britain, started the war against Germany. That is just the type of thing that you have to listen to when you listen to Lew Rockwell. As well as things like the CIA and Lyndon Johnson assassinated President John Kennedy.

But as far as what this is supposed to be about a Strategy For Peace, looking at it from a Liberal Internationalist perspective the policy for achieving that I believe is fairly simple. Harder to execute and perhaps even harder to get passed. But at risk of quoting Ronald Reagan, you do that by being strong at home. You don't waste tax dollars on the military, but you're strong enough to the point both militarily and economically that another country would be crazy to want to attack you, or attack one of your embassies oversees. Because they know you could either destroy them militarily, take out their current regime, or economically bankrupt you, or a combination of all of those things.

Instead of trying to police the world by yourself, or taking our regimes simply because you don't like them, (2003 Iraq War comes to mind) you work with your allies to keep potentially dangerous, or dangerous regimes at bay and in a box. You work with the people on the ground who you can work with in those states to see if they can knock the current regime out of power. You also incentivize those rogue states to improve their behavior. To not be so authoritarian with their own people. To not invade other states, to not fund terrorists. And you work with your allies so these rogue states don't become so strong that they become such a problem that a military option could never be on the table.

A lesson from the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. Don't attack and invade countries that aren't threats to you. Don't try to fight for people who aren't willing to fight for themselves. Some countries are destined to fail and fall simply because the people there aren't willing to do what it takes to see that their country can succeed, or at least become stable. And that is when you sort of have to let nature take its course. Even if that means a new authoritarian regime that you don't like comes to power there. Like the Communists in Vietnam. We stayed out of Cuba for the most part at least during their civil war and we should've done the same thing in Vietnam and perhaps Korea as well.

Peace is not easy which means it is not easy to achieve. America has its own experience with their own civil war when the Unionists  won the battles and the war. But where the Confederates won the aftermath and whatever peace that both sides were able to achieve. With the brutality that the Confederates were able to get way with against the former African slaves. But you can achieve peace when you don't try to do everything yourself. You play your part and allow and demand that your allies do the same thing. You live by the standards and human rights that you say you want for the rest of the world in your own country. And you're strong enough to make it clear that it would dangerous if not suicidal to try to attack you.

Liberty Pen: James Day- Interviewing Ayn Rand in 1974: Reason and Atheism

Source:Liberty Pen- Objectivist author Ayn Rand, perhaps in 1974.

Source:The New Democrat

"Ayn Rand explains why an Objectivist must be an atheist."

From Liberty Pen

If it wasn’t for so many anti-religious militant Atheists in America and Atheists who tend to get linked with Communists and other statists, I might be an Atheist myself. This is a tough issue for me even as a Liberal who of course believes in reason and evidence which is what liberalism is built around. At least the real and classical versions of liberalism. Because I haven’t personally seen a God and don’t know of anyone who actually has. And if everybody especially religious fundamentalists regardless of religion were honest about this issue, they would say the same thing. And state the obvious and say: “of course I’ve never seen a God before and I don’t anyone who has.” I'm sort of like one of those courtroom drama witnesses who takes the stand and basically has to say: "as far as I know, there isn't any God."

The main reason I’m not an Atheist and not religious, is because I don’t know that there isn’t a God. All I know is that everyone has never seen one. And if I was forced to take a stand on the issue I would say: "God doesn’t exist." But what keeps me from being an Atheist is the good that you see from religions and good work that comes from churches. Not saying that non-profit secular groups don’t provide the same services. But with religious people who sometimes are so far-right they might be better suited in Saudi Arabia politically than America, they do these good works like helping out the disadvantage from their religious core. Feed the hungry, house the homeless, treat the sick and so-forth.

There’s a lot of good work that comes from religious communities and religious charities. And to that extent at least there’s a lot of good that comes from religion whether God exists, or he’s some made up figure that people feel the need to turn to every time they’re in trouble. But I don’t believe in God, because again I’m more about reason than faith. Sure, I have faith in things and people who I know and trust, but that is different in having faith in someone you’ve never even seen and don’t even know exists. I don’t want to consider myself to be an Atheist, because Atheists at least from what I’ve seen sound and look like the most intolerant people you’ll ever come across. And perhaps aren’t religious, because they don’t believe in live and let live.

The Atlantic: Peter Beinart: 'Why Is the Iraq War Never Mentioned in Debates About the Iran Deal?'

Source:The Atlantic- "Iraqis peer through the window of an armored vehicle as the last American soldiers leave Iraq." Also from The Atlantic.

Source:The New Democrat 

"I have a fantasy. It’s that every politician and pundit who goes on TV to discuss the Iran deal is asked this question first: “Did you support the Iraq War, and how has that experience informed your position?”

For me, it would be a painful question. I supported the Iraq War enthusiastically. I supported it because my formative foreign-policy experiences had been the Gulf War and the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, all of which led me to exaggerate the efficacy of military force and downplay its risks. As Iraq spiraled into disaster, I felt intellectually unmoored. When my sister-in-law was deployed there for a year, leaving her young daughter behind, I was consumed with guilt that I had contributed to their hardship. To this day, when I walk down the street and see a homeless veteran, I feel nauseous. I give some money and a word of thanks, and think about offering an apology. But I don’t, because there’s no apology big enough. The best I can do is learn from my mistake. These days, that means supporting the diplomatic deal with Iran." 

From The Atlantic 

"President Obama is taking heat for his rhetoric while trying to sell the Iran nuclear deal. CNN's Jim Acosta has more." 

Source:CNN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking about the Iran Nuclear Deal.

From CNN

To answer Peter Beinart’s question: the neoconservative idea of diplomacy is blackmail: “Give us everything we want and we won’t destroy you, or we’ll tell you we won’t destroy you.” As the saying goes, Iran may be crazy, but they’re not stupid. Of course they would expect to get something out of giving up their nuclear weapons program. Just as South Africa did, Libya did and Ukraine did. 

But lets say Saddam Hussein let the weapons inspectors into Iraq in 2002-03 and of course they would’ve found nothing, because as it turns out that program was eliminated in 1998-99, would the Bush Administration decided not to invade Iraq after discovering that there were not WMD, or nuclear weapons program to be found? Perhaps they wouldn’t have believed the reports, or bothered to even look at them.

President Obama, simply wants to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran a known terrorist state from obtaining a nuclear weapons program. That is his only goal here. He doesn’t have some idealistic utopian fantasy that he can remake Iran and the broader Middle East from a region of authoritarian states and turn them into liberal democracies. 

With President George W. Bush unlike his father H.W., G.W. wanted to remake Iraq. And he started with eliminating Saddam and his regime from Iraq. But he also had vision that other countries would follow our lead in Iraq and become democracies as well. Well, twelve years later, sure Iraq looks better when it comes to freedom and democracy. But its Arab neighbors and Persian neighbor Iran doesn’t. If anything Iran looks worst today.

When you’re simply trying to get something from someone, or get them to try to behave better and you have economic leverage on them, all you have to do is convince them why it’s in their best interest cooperate. You don’t have to try to destroy them, or even threaten to destroy them to try to accomplish that. You show them why it’s in their best interest to improve their behavior. 

The difference between President Obama when it comes to Iran and President George W. Bush when it comes to Iraq, President Obama, is not looking to remake Iran. President Bush wanted to create a new Iraq and even broader Middle East even by force. And that is the main difference between the two President’s when it comes to the Middle East.

Ron Paul: 'Ron Paul's Message to Paul Krugman'

Source: Ron Paul- Get the point? 

Source: The New Democrat 

"Ron Paul responds to Paul Krugman's recent smear, "The Old Man and the CPI." Krugman's ageist and racially-charged argument is demolished."

From Ron Paul

I can't really comment on what Paul Krugman supposedly said about Ron Paul, because I haven't seen that Paul Krugman column. I don't read him that often. From time to time I see him on TV. But I believe one of the issues that the Krugman crowd and his followers have with Representative Paul, is that Paul represents everything that they are against. At least from an economic perspective and to a certain extent and social perspective as well. Since Paul doesn't support the welfare state, or the nanny state and people as far as the left as Krugman tend to believe in both. That people need need big government to manage their economic affairs for them, but also tell them what they can eat and drink. And tell them they need to wear bike helmets and that sort of thing.

And because Ron Paul Libertarians represents everything that Paul Krugman Progressive/Socialists lets say hate, they try to make Paul look worst than  he is  and to make him look like something that he's not. So they'll try to tie him to these so-called white racist groups. Or to say that Ron Paul actually supports some big government and isn't as libertarian as he claims, because he's pro-life on abortion, or has ties with Far-Right Christian-Conservative groups. Representative Paul, is pro-life on abortion, as well as the death penalty, as his record in Congress in the House of Representatives makes clear. But he's also pro-life on the death penalty. Something the Far-Left won't give him credit for. But other than abortion he has no real connections to Religious Conservative groups. Other than protecting freedom of religion.

I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul either, other than we tend to agree on the social issues. Except for abortion, but the reason why Paul has so much support with young voters who tend to be liberal and libertarian and even liberal-libertarians, is because he doesn't want big government in our wallets and homes. And despite the political support that Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders is getting with his presidential campaign, that is where young Americans tend to be today. And the Paul Krugman followers are smart enough to know that. And know to bring some of those Paul people to them they feel they need to make Ron Paul look like something that he's not. Which is a bigot, who hates minorities and poor people and everything else that they care about.

Reason Magazine: Steve Chapman: Planned Parenthood & Our Abortion Choices

Source:Reason Magazine- A look at a fetus, from Reason Magazine.

Source:The New Democrat

What is very typical in Washington especially in Congress is that when something controversial happens that puts one party on the defensive like the Planned Parenthood videos, the other party especially if they have power in Congress not just rushes to judgment, but rushes to action. The Republican controlled House of Representatives, votes to defund Planned Parenthood and the Republican controlled Senate, takes it up today with Senate Democrats voting to block it on a strict party-line vote. With not a single Democrat, or Republican voting with the other side. Which I would think would leave people who prefer just to observe Washington and look at things objectively asking the question, “what was this for and what was the point? Didn’t Senate Republicans know they didn’t have the votes going in and that not one Democrat would vote with them?”

With all the other issues that Congress could be addressing right and since they are so addicted to vacation and go out of their ways to get out of Washington and bash this city, even though all of them seem to be addicted to having jobs here especially since they don’t have to be in town and work much, you would think they would find more useful things to do with the taxpayers time. Then to work on issues where neither party has the power to get what they want and doesn’t want to compromise. And this other idea that Congressional Republicans seem to be considering about shutting down the Federal Government if Democrats and President don’t agree to defund Planned Parenthood, is even dumber. And just adds to the dysfunction in Congress and Washington as a whole. That Washington isn’t about governing, but trying to score partisan political points.

The whole Planned Parenthood debate, if you don’t like abortion here and believe taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for someone else’s abortion, that is not what Planned Parenthood does. With taxpayer funds, even though I’m sure they would love to provide those services. They are in the business of women’s health care and empowering women to decide when and how they get pregnant and allowing for women to make these decisions for themselves. Even if they have sex lives and do those things with men. What the pro-life community and the broader Traditional Values Coalition doesn’t seem to understand that is abortion and the right to choose when it comes to abortion is not only here, but it isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. The next President, mostly likely will be a Democrat and be able to replace the two aging Liberal Justice’s on the Supreme Court with young middle-age Liberals. And then after that the next Justice’s will all be replacing the elderly Conservatives on the Court.

So if I’m facing this reality as a pro-lifer, or lets say someone whose anti-abortion, or an anti-abortionist which is more accurate, knowing the route of a constitutional amendment and the current and most likely future power structure in Washington, I’m looking past Congress and the White House. And looking at political campaigns and treating abortion like the way the anti-tobacco advocates treated tobacco in the 1990s. To use pop culture terminology, to make abortion seem uncool and put out all the facts about it and not distort information about abortion, but to put real information about abortion out there and to let American women know that you don’t have to get an abortion. That there are other alternatives like adoption out there. Which is what some people in the anti-abortion community are already doing and as a result we’re seeing record lows for abortion in America now.

The right to choose whether its abortion, or any other personal choice, or personal freedom issue, is exactly that. The right for an individual, in this case women to make a decision for themselves. Instead of big government trying to do that for them. Personal freedom comes with personal responsibility. So if a women decides to have an abortion she’s financially and personally obligated to deal with it. So no taxpayer funds for abortion, other than to save the life and health of the mother. But it gives people who are anti-abortion completely, to put out information to potential mothers about the consequences of abortion, as well as the alternatives to it. Instead of trying to get big government and Uncle Sam to put his big fat bloated foot down and say, hell no!

Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher: The Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky Affair (1998)

Source:Heartbeat For Us- Politically Incorrect With Bill Maher.

Source:The New Democrat

Shocker! A 1998 political talk show covering the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky affair. Gee, I guess there was nothing else going in the world. Similar to 1995 with the O.J. Simpson trial. As far as David Brock, I guess he was a closeted left-wing Socialist, as well as a gay man. Pretending to be a far-rightist who wanted to put America in a time machine and take us back to 1955. Perhaps even 1915 before American women had the right to vote. Well, Brock was a closeted homosexual until 1998 when I guess someone on the Right outed him. And now he’s head of a far-left media group called Media Matters. That seems to be in the business of trying to put right-wing media out of business.

But there’s one thing I sort of feel sympathy for David Brock. Being a closeted gay man and Socialist, pretending to be a right-winger on the Right in America. Having to pretend you love women, cars, sports, American capitalism in front of a group of people who think that gays should either be deported, or put in prison. Of course, he could’ve always moved to Canada where he would’ve fit in perfectly. And perhaps not even have to listen to, or hear any right-wing media whatsoever. Wait! Canadians, watch, read and listen to American media all the time. Perhaps because their media is so boring and has so little to report. I mean Canada, a country physically the size of a continent, but with only thirty-five million people. Because there’s year round arctic winter in half of the country.

One more thing about the Bill Clinton White House intern blow job scandal. I’ll give credit to anyone who can tell the difference between the group in America that tried to eliminate one way or another Bill Clinton from the presidency, from the Far-Right in the Tea Party that has tried to do the same thing to Barack Obama 10-15 soon to be twenty-years later. Wait! I have it. The difference is that the people who tried to kick Barry out of office are about 15-20 years older than the people who tried to kick Wild Bill out of office. Same crew, but with just more gray hair and resources to work with in the areas of the internet and social media.