Night People Music- P,J. O'Rourke- Roasting President Bill Clinton

Source:Night People Music- political satirist P.J. O'Rourke on President Bill Clinton, in 1993.

Source:The New Democrat  

"One of the greatest speeches ever written and delivered!  Be sure to watch Part 2. As P.J. said:  "The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop." 

From Night People Music

Well, P.J. O'Rourke once again giving me plenty of material to work with. Only this time there isn't a damn thing that I agree with on, somewhat disappointed about that, because I do see him as an intelligent real Conservative or Conservative Libertarian.

Let's start with President Bill Clinton: I realize he used the name Bill Clinton over and over to the point that I almost felt dizzy from drinking a glass of Sprite that was spiked with a bottle of Bourbon or something, but it sounded like he was talking about Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich, or Carl Marx, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara (go down the socialist food line) someone really radical on the Left, at least in America.

I realize that before Republicans and the Far-Right learned of Barack Obama and even knew the man existed, Bill Clinton was considered the devil to them. The Satan of Satan's, because he was a Baby Boomer from the 1960s, who believed in freedom for other Americans and not just Christians and very wealthy Anglo-Saxon Southern Protestant men. That America was for Americans and not just a group of us, but for all Americans and that freedom both economic and personal freedom was for all Americans. Which for the Far-Right, you might as well be arguing for making Satan's birthday a national holiday or something, because of how evil and Un-American that sounds to them.

Okay, here's a good one, the conservative idea of freedom. Hum, freedom for who and what you do you mean by that? Would be my question, because unless you are talking about Barry Goldwater from back in the day where the term Goldwater Conservative comes from, that was later followed by the term Conservative Libertarian that is accurately used to describe former Representative Ron Paul's politics and his son current Senator Rand Paul, if this is what you're talking about, great I agree with you that this is real freedom. Big government out of the wallets and personal lives and it's coming from Conservatives.

But if your idea of freedom is freedom for you and the people who tend to agree with you and even look like you and have the same religious beliefs as you and live their lives the way you do, but for everyone else freedom is doing what you approve of and not the freedom to be an individual and live individually and if you do you risk jail time or even prison time, then no, this is not freedom and you are not talking about limited government, but serious limited freedom. The right to live the way others approve based on their religious and moral beliefs.

Just to go back to President Bill Clinton for a second, he was truly seen as a devil by the Far-Right of the GOP and perhaps Satan himself in the 1990s. Not hated as much as Barack Obama today, but Wild Bill represents everything that the Far-Right the Traditional Values Coalition thinks is wrong with America. The Baby Boom Generation that P.J. O'Rourke is from and the 1960s. And they believe America has been going downhill ever since the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s where Americans regardless of racial, ethnic, cultural, geographical or religious background now feel free to live their own lives and if everything Americans have been gaining more freedom ever since.

The whole statism issue the last thirty-years or so, hasn't been coming from the center-left in America. But from the Far-Right and people who want to impose their moral and cultural values on the rest of the country even through law. "Get big government out of our wallets, so we can stick it in the bedrooms and the rest of the homes of free adult free-thinking Americans". That real statism that is in America, but it is coming from the Far-Right, not center-left Progressive like Bill Clinton and others. Yes, the Left and the Democratic Party has a nut house and their own statists, but so does the Right and the GOP.

Howard Beale: It's The Individual That's Finished (1976)

Source:The New Democrat

I'm not sure you can understand the movie Network, without understanding the 1970s. Either through living through that decade, which I did the last four years of it, not much to go on, or reading about it, watching documentaries about that decade, or talking to people who lived through that decade and remember the whole decade or at least most of it and are knowledgable about it. Network was about contemporary media and now the news media was becoming more tabloid and if anything has moved much further in that direction ever since, but it was also about the 1970s and the cultural depression that Americans were going through, really that whole decade.

As far as Howard Beale's commentary about the individual being finished, I agree with him to a certain extent, but I would put it differently. Americans traditionally have been very individualist and big believers in individualism. Even our Far-Left believes in a certain level of individualism. Americans have a tradition of wanting to be happy and achieving happiness for themselves and their families. Not wanting to be dictated to on how to live and what it means to be an American. Being able to achieve their version of the American dream and not feeling the need to conform to society. That in many cases is gone now.

America has moved away from being that rugged individualist society where we as people go out to make a good life for ourselves and be ourselves as individuals, to now becoming a society that is about fitting in and being one of the crowd and like everyone else. Our culture and lifestyles now are a perfect example of that with so many Americans now sounding like so many other Americans with so many cliche's and catch phrases becoming exactly that, because they are used so many times. Because we have so many people who talk like so many other people, without much of an ability to think and speak for themselves. So they talk like other people.

For me as both a liberal and individualist, I always want to have that be those things. And not find myself in a position where I need to listen to other people simply so I know how to talk and communicate. Not just the words I use, but how I use them and what my body language is telling other people. I want to be me the individual and be that one person for everyone else to see. Whether that person is considered, well awesome (speaking of cliche's) by everyone else. Because at least I'll know who I am and that I'm still a person, an individual and not a member of any group.

KDBI-TV: Jon Caldara: 'One on One With P.J. O'Rourke'

Source:KDBI- One On One with political humorist P.J. O'Rourke.

Source:The New Democrat

"This week, nationally-recognized writer and political humorist P.J. ORourke joins host Jon Caldara for a one on one conversation. P.J. is the author of numerous books on politics including Parliament of Whores, Give War a Chance, and his latest, Driving Like Crazy." 

 

From KDBI

Here's where I agree with P.J. O'Rourke when it comes to the economy and why I don't like big government when it comes to social issues or personal issues: when government taxes or spends money to the point that now the people don't have that money to spend on themselves and their families, government then takes over responsibility for the people. It is no longer there to protect our national security and protect us from criminals and be an insurance system for when we are in need. But it then becomes the national parents of the country and makes people dependent on them.

As a Liberal (meaning real Liberal) I want government to serve as an insurer for the people. Not the insurer, but as an insurer to help people when they are in need. When they are robbed, lose their home, physically assaulted and other things. But not there to take care of people's basic needs like heir housing, their food, their health care, health insurance, pension plan, job and every other thing that American adults have to decide and figure out for themselves everyday. We live in a federal state, not a nanny state, or a welfare state, and certainly not a police state. Which means there are limits to what government, especially the national government can do for the people.

Big government equals big problems especially when it makes people dependent on it for its basic survival. We don't need Uncle Sam and is wife Aunt Mary (or whoever his wife is) to play mom and dad for a country three-hundred fifteen million people. We are not a country of genius's either, just look at our pop culture where we have an unlimited amount of experts on what their latest celebrity had lunch or what type of smart phone they use or what is the cost of their house. But couldn't tell you who their governor or U.S. Representative or Senator is, even if it meant a whole day at no cost for them with their favorite celebrity as grand prize. But most of us are capable of making our own basis life decisions and do that everyday.

Melissa Clouthier: P.J. O'Rourke- Don't Vote, it Just Encourages The Bastards

Source:Mellissa Clouthier interviewing political humorist P.J. O'Rourke in 2009.

Source:The New Democrat

In the piece I wrote about P.J. O'Rourke yesterday there was a piece that I left out, that I sort of wish that I put in. But hey, today's a new day and I'll be able to stick that in here, like you stick in ice cream that you can't seem to live without in a very crowded freezer. But again I'm not a Libertarian and I don't agree with O'Rourke on everything. And here is where he is wrong about not voting. What are the two biggest threats to corrupt politics and corrupt politicians? Educated voters and educated voters who vote on a regular if not every time they get a chance. And if they live in Chicago or perhaps anywhere in Illinois, they may get to vote for the same person twice in the same election.

I guess even if you're dead in Chicago not only does your vote still count, but your votes in the same election and contest still count. And that is all of the Chicago material that I have, for now. But the educated voter whether they are only able to vote once per-contest or not, (ha ha) is the biggest threat to a corrupt politician. Why I say that? I'll tell you anyway, because the educated voter knows about the corrupt politician because they keep up with the news and the news that effects their representative or executive in their town, district or state. And they know who has that Senator, Representative, Mayor, Governor whoever in their back pocket and what those groups get for their investment.

As a Liberal I would never be in favor of compulsory voting. In English that means requiring people to eat their vegetables, I mean vote by law. Especially when our politicians are at best only as good as the people they are supposed to represent. And even if they were as good as the people they represent, they wouldn't be good enough. That would just be big government nanny state "we're going to force those vegetables down your throat for your own good. And if you still don't comply, we'll lock you up, which will be worst for you. But we'll say it's for your own good, so we can get away with it". But imagine what an educated electric would mean for corrupt politicians? "I might have to clean up my act, or risk losing my next election, or worst going to jail".

Imagine if we had politicians as good as the people or even better. People who don't just get themselves a good education, but then use those skills to do something outside of technology, celebrity culture or entertainment and used that education to get involved in public service and current affairs. Not because they like politics and think it would be an easy way to earn a living at taxpayers expense and not have to work that much and just find enough special interest groups to keep happy so they never have to worry about losing. But because they hate the corrupt political system and the corrupt politicians in that system and want a better system that actually represents those people.

You match the educated good government candidates with educated voters, now the corrupt politician is out of a job. Why, because one thing that we know about educated voters is that they actually bother to vote and don't just keep up with real news and current affairs. So now you have educated voters voting for good government candidates and those good government candidates become good public servants. And know I'm not an alcoholic and I'm not high on any illegal drug, right now and I know this might sound like a drunken fantasy or a pipe dream. Like dreaming about the Detroit Lions actually winning the Super Bowl or the Redskins having a good team again under Dan Snyder.

But if people just bothered to learn about the people who are running for office and are currently in office and keep up with the government that they are forced to pay for, they would be "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" and take that anger out on the people who are in office. And vote for those people who were pissed off enough to run for office to change the system and give the country a government that is responsive to the concerns of the country and responsible. But I know that would mean watching less realty TV, not knowing what their latest celebrity wore to the last awards show, or what they are in jail for now. Or less time on Facebook and their smart phone. But wouldn't it be worth that to have good government that we actually don't mind paying for?
Source:Melissa Clouthier

P.J. O'Rourke: American Politics & Government

Source:Intelligence Squared- political satirist P.J. O'Rourke.

Source:The New Democrat

"P.J. O'Rourke is America's premier political satirist and has more citations in The Penguin Dictionary of Humorous Quotations than any other living writer. In this live appearance for Intelligence Squared he'll be discussing his new book, Don't Vote -- It Just Encourages the Bastards, a brilliant, hilarious and ultimately sobering look at why politics and politicians are a necessary evil—but only just barely necessary. Moving from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman to a late-night girls' boarding school game called Kill-F*@k-Marry, O'Rourke will explore the nature of the social contract. For him the essential elements are power, freedom and responsibility: the people like the freedom part, politicians like the power part, and hardly anyone wants to hear the responsibility part. This leads him to postulate the  "Death, Sex and Boredom Theory of Politics."

From Intelligence Squared

There's an old American saying that goes like this. "We get the government that we paid for". Another way of saying that is that we get the government that we voted for: 

"Look, buddy, you voted for those assholes in charge. What the hell do you have to complain about?" 

And for people who didn't bother to vote, seek help please, but they get the government that other people voted for. Just because you were too busy on your i-phone or watching reality TV, or don't think voting is worth it, you live in the same country as everyone else in that country and get government as well for good and bad.

I don't feel sorry at all about people who voted for people that they now don't like. They could've voted for someone else, or bothered to do their homework before they voted. And I don't feel sorry for people who don't vote and then later complain about the political system, when they aren't doing their part to make it better. We live in a democracy in the sense that the people vote for the leaders and the candidates and incumbents who get more votes than their opponents are the people who win and assume office. That is what majoritarian democracy is about.

I like P.J. O'Rourke's comment about personal responsibility and spending other people's money. (Great Danny DeVito movie about that by the way) Imagine if someone gave you a blank check of someone else's money: how responsible would you be with that? Or forget about the blank check, a check for ten-thousand dollars over a month or so, how well would you do with that money? If that money comes with no strings and no responsibility, you won't spend that money very well at least compared with if you were to spend ten-thousand dollars over a month of your own money. And having to live with the consequences of every financial decision that you make.

I don't want government to go away or disappear and I'm not a Libertarian, unlike P.J. O'Rourke. But at the same time I don't want government managing my life for me, or trying to manage someone else's life. Why, because they aren't trying to manage people's affairs for them with government money. They are trying to manage the affairs of people with the people's money, the taxpayers money. So of course they are not going to spend that money as well, because if they screw up, they can just tax us more to try to fix whatever problem they just created.

When Uncle Sam or whoever the government uncle is in whatever the country, says: "I know you have a problem and I want to help you and I'm the government and it won't cost you anything." Your first question should always be: "How much will your help cost me?" After you tell Uncle Sam to get his big fat hand out of your pocket. Because anything that government does comes with a cost that is paid for by the people who live in that particular country. Of course it is not free if you pay taxes, because with those taxes you're paying for those public services that you receive.

As far as freedom and fairness: You can't have one without the other. If someone is not able to by law to be as successful as they possibly can base on their own own work and production and the services they provided for others, because government has their hands down their pockets and in their piggy banks taking whatever they can away from that individual, then that person won't be successful. They'll say: 

"Why should I work so hard and be so good at what I do, when government just takes away most of what I created to give it to other people who aren't doing well?" Oh by the way, government is doing that in some name of fairness.

As far as the Baby Boomers, I have mixed feelings about them. I love the individualism of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s that allowed for Americans to be Americans and what the Founding Fathers essentially wanted to create, a society for people to be free to be themselves. But at the same time while they did that, they went completely the other way when it came to economic policy and created a society where people now expected government to give them things. There was this Tom Jefferson liberal free society on one hand. While on the other hand there was this Tom Hayden or Bernie Sanders collectivist utopian society where people weren't expected to act for themselves and take care of themselves.

The so-called Me Generation that Boomers tend to get labeled as, is me meaning: 

"Give me Uncle Sam!  I deserve this, that and the other thing and you the government should give that to me at someone else's expense. Because why should I as an individual have to do those things for myself?" 

As far as public education: again, that is only as good as the people want to be and a lot of that has to do with the kids that are part of that system and the parents that they come from. If you raise their kids well and make education a big part of what you are trying to get across to them, chances are those kids will do well in either a public or private school. But if you don't, unless they are a great bright kid perhaps smarter and more mature than their parents, they won't do very well in school.

Government, education, politics and politicians are only as good as the people. Well, at best they can only be as good as the people. The only thing worst than people not voting, are dumb voters who always vote or at least vote a lot. Because they are voting for people that they aren't knowledgable about and perhaps do not even understand that. 

You want good politicians, public servants and educators, you need to do your part to make that happen and not expect others to do that for you. The two worst fears for crooked politicians, are educated voters and a lot of educated voters. You do your homework, vote for the people who'll represent your best interests and hold them accountable, you'll have the best government that you possibly can.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing P.J. O'Rourke: Millennials & Baby Boomers

Source:Reason Magazine- political humorist and author P.J. O'Rourke.

Source:The New Democrat

"Just this whole process of going through the baby boom's history, I began to realize what a nicer society—kinder, more decent society—that we live in today than the society when I was a kid," says P.J. O'Rourke, best-selling author of Holidays in Hell, Parliament of Whores, and many other titles.

O'Rourke sat down with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Freedom Fest 2014 in Las Vegas to discuss his new book, The Baby Boom: How it Got That Way and It Wasn't My Fault and I'll Never Do it Again. As the father of three kids born between 1997 and 2004, he also lays down some thoughts about millennials, noting that they live in a much nicer, more tolerant world than the one in which he grew up. "I don’t think my 10-year old boy has ever been in a fist fight," says O'Rourke, who was born in 1947. "I mean there might be a little scuffling but I don’t think he’s has ever had that kind of violent confrontation that was simply part of the package when I was a kid."

He also feels that the internet "fragments information" in a way that destroys the sweep of history, at least at first. "You end up with mosaic information," he says. "Now, I think over time the kids put these mosaics together but I don’t think the internet itself lends itself to the sweep of history."

The interview also includes a tour of O'Rourke's long and varied career in journalism, from his humble beginnings writing for an underground alt-weekly to his time as editor of National Lampoon and his incredible work as a foreign correspondent for Rolling Stone to his current position as columnist at the Daily Beast. 

A prominent libertarian, O'Rourke also discusses the difficulties in selling a political philosophy devoted to taking power away from politicians.

"If libertarianism were easy to explain and if it weren't so easy to exaggerate the effects of libertarianism—people walking around with 'Legalize Heroin!' buttons and so on—I think it would've been done already," says O'Rourke. "But the problem is, of course, is that libertarianism isn't political. It's anti-political, really. It wants to take things out of the political arena." 

From Reason Magazine

I feel kind of strange talking about the Baby Boom Generation since I'm a Gen-Xer born in the mid-1970s the tail end of even my generation and come from parents who aren't Baby Boomers born in the the 1930s. So I didn't grow up with boomers in my family, at least in the household, even though I have uncles who are Boomers. So what I know about this huge generation the Baby Boom Generation, is what I've seen from talking to Baby Boomers as an adult and what I've read and heard about this generation. What I've seen from the news and movies.

But here's what I like about the Baby Boom Generation. The 1960s generation which is really what I call them, is the generation that freed Americans to be Americans. Pre-lets say 1963 or so, America was in long extensive era from the early teens or so and on where the country didn't seem to change, at least culturally. Where the idea of what it meant to be an American was universal. Guy grows up, goes to college, gets a good job, marries a young woman, they have kids. The woman stays home and raises their kids. No romantic couples living together pre-marriage and certainly no pre-marital sex.

The Boomers finally blew up the 1950s and moved America away from that with the Cultural Revolution and created an era where Americans became free to be Americans. And what I mean by that is that we are supposed to an individualistic society where Americans are supposed to be themselves and live their own lives. But we really didn't become that society until about fifty-years ago. Which in the grand scheme of American history is a fairly short period of time. Since then if anything Americans have become freer culturally and personally.

Lalarikyu's Channel: Late Night With Conan O'Brien- P.J. O'Rourke Interview in 1998

Source:Lalariku's Channel- Political humorist P.J. O'Rourke & comedian Conan O'Brien.

Source:The New Democrat 

"PJ O'Rourke interview. September 25th, 1998."

From Lalarikyu

Imagine trying to live in America and then trying to following American politics without a sense of humor, actually try living in America without a sense of humor by itself and all of the garbage (to put it mildly) that we have to see and put up with.

But just to talk about American politics, try following and keeping up with that without a sense of humor. We would probably be a country of Michele Bachmann's and Michael Moore's. Not just a nutty country, but a country of nuts. It would be heaven only for squirrels, but in actuality a country of mental patients and hell for everyone else.

If you can't laugh at American politics especially with a lot of things that government does, you have to pay for it, you'll be in hell all of your life and never be able to laugh at anything, because you would have no sense of humor.

I agree with P.J. O'Rourke about eating the rich. If you want people to be successful in life and not live in poverty, then you need to incentivize them to be. And not take most of their money away from them when they are successful. Good parents at least don't punish their kids when they get good grades.

Good parents don't say: "god dammit Joey (or Sally)! What the hell are you doing getting straight A's (or mostly A's and some B)? What are you trying to do, go to college and get a good job so you can move away from your mother and father?" They encourage them to do that and incentivize them to keep it up and if anything do even better.

Well, similar to people who are rich and financially successful. Instead of putting Uncle Sam's big fat greedy hand down a wealthy woman or man's pocket and take that money from them to people who need food stamps just to eat, we say being financially successful is a good thing and we want more people to be rich, not less.

Now socialist parents might say to Joey or Sally or DeAndre or Laquisha: (you know whoever it might be) "God dammit! What the hell are you thinking getting great grades? What are you trying to do, go to college or something and not have to live off of the welfare state like your mom and dad?" Because Socialists tend not to like individualism, self-determination others ways of saying freedom. They like collectivism and that no one should be so free that people don't need others, meaning government in order to take care of themselves.

Which is why Socialists slap the hands of rich people with a whip so they never want to make another dollar on their own and want government to take care of them instead. We should encourage people to be successful in school and in life, including adults who haven't made it yet and empower them to finish their education. So we have more successful people and not less. And more parents who praise their kids for doing real well in school and gotten themselves a good education themselves so their kids can just focus on getting a good education as well.