The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson: Richard Pryor (1979)

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Richard Pryor: "Don't call me Little Richard!" LOL

Source:The New Democrat 

"Richard Pryor Carson Tonight Show 1979" 

From The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson

As far as Richard Pryor’s drug abuse: I and millions of his fans are glad he finally got off of illegal narcotics in the 1980s or so. Just wish he did it a lot sooner and perhaps he’s still alive today. Because narcotics can really mess you up (to put it lightly) and turn genius's and people with good intelligence into morons. Because of all the brain cells that you end throwing away and not even donating them so perhaps some other moron can use them and no longer be a moron. But literally throwing them away like they are garbage.

Illegal narcotics and legal narcotics: damn, that’s a heavyweight combination of destruction for you. Sort of like a tank with nuclear weapons, that could go 0-60 in seven seconds or something. (That vehicle is being made in Hollywood as we speak) 

I mean if you’re not a fan of sanity and you think reality is simply too tough for you, drink alcohol until you put some local tavern out business because they are completely out of alcohol. Or go to a local liquor store and buy everything they have and then drink everything and that will take care of your reality problem for you. Because reality would have left the building and flown to Europe or some place. Leaving you to see sounds and hear colors and believe a killer tomato is trying to kill you.

Anyone thinking life is too tough and entertaining suicide, give drunk driving a shot and that will take care of your problem for you. Assuming you don’t screw that up, because now you’re drunk and weren’t very successful sober, so how you supposed to pull off drunk driving drunk: you may not make it to the car and end up in jail or something because you thought the seventy-year old bartender was grabbing your ass. And you took a swing at him and hit the young stud bartender instead and he beat the hell out of you and you both ended up in jail. Or since you’re now drunk, perhaps you forgot about the drunk driving part or ended up in a cab going home.

I have a full-proof plan of how to avoid divorce in life: don’t get married. Seriously it works every time. I mean how many divorce men you know who have never been married. Now you might know a drunk who says they’ve never been married, but divorced five times. But why take the word of a drunk. 

I know what you’re thinking right: “Too simple, how come I never thought of myself. Now I’ve been married five times and have fifteen kids and paying alimony and child support to all five of my ex-wives." Trust me, it works and just a little common sense for anyone intelligent enough to understand it.

NBC: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Jack Benny in 1973

Source:The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Comedian Jack Benny in 1973

Source:The New Democrat Plus

As far as fame, I would think someone who would have to be a complete narcissist to not be able to live well without fame. And perhaps narcissist is too polite. Maybe I don’t know jackass or asshole would be more appropriate. I mean if I was in Hollywood, I would probably enjoy the work, assuming I was good at it, (not a safe assumption) but I would probably go crazy without some downtime. Without the ability to get out of the city and just collect my thoughts and regroup for a couple of weeks, without someone recognizing me. But this is speaking as someone who is not famous, so I perhaps I would feel differently otherwise.

Shopaholics, that that’s the ticket for wealthy man. Marry a woman who loves to spend other people’s money, especially when they aren’t paying the bills. But what a man does with his wife is his own business and Jack I guess could afford an expensive, high-end wife. Who would perhaps consider it an insult to only be able to shop in Cleveland. And must be able to shop in Paris or Rome, again with someone else’s money, in order to feel loved. But again Jack’s wife and their marriage is their business.

Jack Benny’s best line was the Mark Twain quote about aging. And I’m going to paraphrase here. But he said that if you don’t mind aging, it doesn’t matter. Which means to me that aging like almost everything else has its positives and negatives. The better you age, the better you live. You age and live well by taking care of yourself. You don’t do those things and live may be hell for you and that is when you’re sober. And you’ll become old real fast.
NBC: The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson- Jack Benny in 1973

Even Mixer-NBC Sports: NBA 1992- Portland Blazers @ Boston Celtics: Full Game

Source: Even Mixer-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

A very interesting game, not just because it was a double overtime shootout, but also because it was one of the great Larry Bird’s last big games. 1992 was Larry Legend’s last season and a time when the Celtics were in transition. No longer a prominent NBA Finals contender and moving from a half-court based low-post motion offense team, to a more finesse team that would look to break a lot, with a lot more athletic players. And the early 1990s Celtics were also a deeper team where Legend, Kevin McHale and Robert Parish no longer had to play 35-40 minutes a night for the Celtics to beat good teams. Because they had good players on the bench on the frontline and in the backcourt. Like Ed Pickney, Dee Brown, Joe Klein and others. With Reggie Lewis now as a full-time starter and perhaps their best scorer. And also with Brian Shaw and Kevin Gamble. I would’ve loved to of seen a healthy Legend, McHale and Parish, to go with the young good players that the Celtics had in the early 1990s.

The Blazers of 1992 were like the Blazers of 1991 and 1990. A very talented deep all around team, that could score a lot of points and score fast with a lot of weapons. But were also one of the best defensive teams and rebounding teams in the NBA as well. But this was all when they were on, which was the story of the 1990s Blazers. The most consistently inconsistent winning team perhaps all-time in the NBA. So when you were playing the Blazers, you didn’t know who you were playing. Were you playing perhaps the best team in the NBA when they were on, or were you playing a team that looked like they could be beat by a bad team at home. They would make a lot of great plays and then follow them up with a lot of bad mistakes. Win a lot of games and then go on a losing streak. So this was one of the most interesting matchup’s in the NBA in 1992.
Even Mixer-NBC Sports: NBA 1992- Portland Blazers @ Boston Celtics: Full Game

Unforgettable Bulls: NBA 1992- Portland Blazers @ Chicago Bulls: Full Game

Source:Unforgettable Bulls- The Blazers and Bulls from 1992.

Source:The New Democrat

"1991/92 POR CHI 03-01-92."

From Unforgettable Bulls

What was supposed to be a preview of the 1992 NBA Finals, as this game turned out to be between the Blazers and Bulls, was also a blowout. The Blazers of the late 1980s and early 1990s were a very talented, deep all around great team with no real clear weakness’. They essentially replaced the Los Angeles Lakers as the top run and gun fast break athletic team. But that was only when they were on.

The Blazers were an up and down club as far as consistency that would still win 58-62 games a year, but not because of their consistency. But because they would go on long streaks followed by sloppy streaks. And get it together in time for the NBA Playoffs. The only consistent thing about the Blazers of this era, was their leader the Clyde Drexler. Who without Michael Jordan, is perhaps considered the best player of the 1990s.

The Bulls on the other hand were just coming into their own in 1992. Winning the NBA Finals in 1991 and using 92 to prove to the world that they were really the best team in the NBA. Not the deepest and certainly not the most talented. But the best team in the NBA that played the best as a unit and team.

I think the Detroit Pistons of the late 1980s and early 1990s had more talent than the Bulls. More great All Star caliber players, but I think the Bulls were better and had more talent and not just because of Michael Jordan. But throw in Scottie Pippen who would’ve been the best player on a lot of other teams in the NBA at this point. Similar to what the Lakers and Celtics had in the 1980s and Bulls proved this in the 1990s.

Ginoong Kamote: Video: CBS Sports: NBA 1978-NBA Finals-Game 7-Washington Wizards @ Seattle Sonics: Closing Minutes

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat on WordPress

What I think is the most impressive part of the Bullets in this game and especially in the fourth quarter, is that their best player and scorer power forward Elvin Hays fouls out halfway through the fourth quarter. But that just tells you how deep this Bullets team was with their center Wes Unseld, who was the leader of the team, stepping up with a couple of key buckets, foul shots, a key assist, big rebounds. And the Bob Dandridge and Charlie Johnson hitting some big shots as well, to prevent the Sonics from coming back. And don’t forget about Mitch Kupchak coming from the bench to replace Elvin and playing well and hitting a key bucket of his own. You really know how good of a team you have, when your best player is not available to play. And the Bullets won the rest of the game and the 1978 NBA Finals without Big E.

Michael Svat: Karen McCullough- 'Generation Y's Self-Esteem is Higher Than Talent'

Source:Michael Svat- Karen McCullough, telling it straight (no, not that straight) about Millennial's.

Source:The New Democrat

"Speaker Karen McCullough delivers another humorous take on the youngest generation in today's workplace."

From Michael Svat

I agree with Karen McCullough on actually everything here, which isn’t saying much, but that just might be because this video is only about three-minutes. In case you were thinking I was taking a shot at her.

But if you want to know why Americans are stereotyped as stupid around the world? I’ll tell you anyway and give you one reason: we have this generation of young Americans, somewhere around seventy-million people who know a lot about stuff that just isn’t that damn important. And not a hell of a lot about things that are actually important. That affect their pocketbooks and who is leading their city, state, country, who represents them in Congress and so-forth.

Another reason why Americans get stereotyped as stupid, is because Valley Culture was rescued from the dead ( where it still belongs ) that died in the late 1980s or so, that the Millennial Generation brought back to life in the late 1990s. Thanks to Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson and later on Miley Cyrus and I’m sure several other people all from this same generation.

Valley people are experts on technology, tabloid and celebrity news, but let's face it, are dip-shits about things that are actually important. Sally and Brett could both tell you what is Paris Hilton’s favorite thing to eat for lunch and which current jail she’s residing in. But couldn’t tell you who the mayor of their city or governor of their state is to save their lives.

Sally and Brett were also the two first people to buy the latest iPhone and iPad when it came out and bought them just after midnight. Because they camped out at the Apple Store a week straight. None of these things add up to people who are very bright.

I don’t know of a generation that thinks more of themselves and is worth less than the Millennial Generation. They are drowning in college debt and have a hard time just finding a job, but at least they all have the latest computers, smart phones and iPad’s and are all experts on celebrity culture. So not a completely lost generation, at least not yet.

FORA-TV: P.J. O'Rourke- Who's Leading The Tea Party?

Source: FORA-TV- Political satirist P.J. O'Rourke-

Source: The New Democrat Plus

Asking the question “who’s leading the Tea Party”? Is like asking someone, “how much dry water do you drink?” Or, “how often do you go swimming in an empty pool?” There are two answers to these three questions and they should be very obvious to even someone who lost their brain and didn’t bother replacing it. Never and no one. The Tea Party is not a party or a group, so they don’t have one leader or one group leading people to a better future of what have you. They are a collection of groups and different people who all make up this right-wing populist movement.

The Tea Party ranges from intelligent sane and rational conservative libertarian folks like Rand Paul and perhaps P.J. O’Rourke considers himself part of this group. To people who look and act like the only reason they aren’t currently institutionalized, is because there are already too many people like them who are institutionalized. And there just not enough beds and mental hospitals to go around for them. Or they were released because of budget cuts. The Michelle Bachmann’s and perhaps Ted Cruz’s of the world. The jury is still out on Senator Cruz’s sanity. Is he a complete partisan demagogue asshole. Or he is half a pack short of a six-pack of beer mentally.

Similar to the libertarian movement or the, yes socialist movement that is still around, just watch MSNBC talk and read The Nation or The New Republic now, there isn’t any one central authority that brings these parties together. Because they aren’t part of a larger party and in many cases like with the Socialists in America, spread out into different parties including the Democratic Party. So they don’t have anyone who is leading them.
FORA-TV: P.J. O'Rourke- Who's Leading The Tea Party?

Newseum: Inside Media With Frank Bond, P.J. O'Rourke on American Politics

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Again about politician’s, but we get the politician’s that the majority of American voters vote for. That is how American democracy works. So if you vote for someone for public office and lets say within months or weeks or days, perhaps even hours of that person taking office after they won the election, look for the nearest mirror and look at it. Because that is the person you voted for and a lot of other dumb voters voted for. And if you want to say that, “Joe or Mary wasn’t the person that I voted for and is now doing things they said they wouldn’t do. And not doing things they said they would do. They tricked me and that is their fault”. When you were in school and you didn’t do your homework, or didn’t study for a big test, who took the blame for that? Your teacher and parents who told you to do those things, or you? You’re at fault for not doing your homework and that includes politics.

I covered the Tea Party yesterday and by the way, I’m tired of saying the Tea Party, because that is like saying the Marshan, because that person or group doesn’t exist. At least as far as we know, I’m not an astrologist, or pretend to be one. But the Tea Party movement is exactly that and they have plenty of people who look just as sane and as intelligent as you or me. If you’re reading this, I hope you’re sane, especially if you are planning on commenting on this. And then you have people who looked like they were residents of a state mental institution that was lacking funds and was forced to shut down. And as a result all these mentally handicapped being released as a result. The Tea Party ranges from classical Libertarians, like certain members of the Ron Paul movement, to Conservative Libertarians like Rand Paul on the center-right, to the Far-Right, Christian-Conservatives and Neoconservatives. It is a very vast and politically diverse movement, that the Republican Party has to have right now.

I like P.J. O’Rourke’s comments on socialism and Margaret Thatcher’s great line about the problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money. And that economic growth and opportunity is not a zero-sum game. That you don’t have to share the current pot to make everyone wealthy enough to live well in America. That what you can do instead is to expand the current pot of wealth. Something I think today’s Socialists may never understand and that they also seeing that everything that is done positively done in a country, has to come from government, especially the big centralized government. When the fact is if Uncle Sam or government in general just gave his nephews and nieces the tools that they need to make a good life for themselves, that chances are most of us will do exactly that. That they just need economic fuel and for Uncle Sam to take his foot off of, well our feet and let us move on our own. And we’ll do very well for ourselves in America.

You know, if you don’t like your politicians, here a few things you can. Stop voting for those politicians. Gee, there’s a crazy idea that just might work. Vote for not better people, because voting for someone better than a crook and idiot, is not much of step forward. Vote for good people who’ll do a good job for you and your community. If those people aren’t running, recruit them to run and find the resources so they can run an effective campaign. If you can’t find that person, but you’re that intelligent, qualified, good person to work in public service, then run yourself. If we had more voters like this, we would have better politician’s and a better political system and government as a result.

OPC America: Christopher Buckley Interviewing P.J. O'Rourke- Talking About Politics and The Tea Party

Source: OPC America- P.J. O'Rourke-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I guess I will talk about the Tea Party, but as P.J. O’Rourke put it, there isn’t any one Tea Party. We are not talking the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or the Libertarian Party or libertarians. The Tea Party is a movement of people primarily from the South and Midwest, with the libertarian wing of the movement, wing of the movement that I somewhat respect, coming from the West. The Matt Kibbe and Dick Army wing of the movement. Their foot soldiers if you want to call them that, tend to be middle class, blue-collar working class people who perhaps are from an America that is disappearing and have decided they are going to fight back and bring that America back.

The foot soldiers of the Tea Party movement might be blue-collar working class folks, but their funders primarily are country club Republican billionaires who back people in these groups that they want to run for office. Without the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party, where is the GOP right now financially? Bankrupt perhaps begging President Obama the man they hate and represents everything they despise, like the New America with so many Americans who weren’t prominent in the 1950s when these traditional Americans who are now the Tea Party were running the country. Perhaps the GOP would be begging President Obama for a taxpayer bailout so their party can stay in business.

The Tea Party with their billionaire funders, are now the financial arm of the GOP. The foot soldiers might still be working class Joe’s and Mary’s, but their leadership are billionaires and represent the old school Republican Party. The good old days when the rich called the shots in the GOP and now have these working Joe’s and Mary’s out there with these rallies trying to convince Americans, especially Americans who look and live like them, that they are part of them and come from the same America.

But where is the Tea Party without the Koch Brothers and other billionaires? At home, pissed off, perhaps at their local tavern throwing their chicken wings and sandwiches at the tube every time President Obama and other Democrats from the same generation get up, give a speech or introduce some new policy. Generally speaking we are not talking about a group of people from normal economic and personal backgrounds who were pissed off over what is going on the country. And then got up and decided to organize their neighbors and community at the local dinner, bar or church. But people with strong political and financial connections, who organized the people through the internet to stand up and put this movement together. And that is the Tea Party movement.
OPC America: Christopher Buckley Interviewing P.J. O'Rourke- The Tea Party

DC Max-MSNBC's Hardball With Chris Matthews: P.J. O'Rourke in December, 2000

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Sounds to me at least that Chris Matthews voted for George W. Bush for president at least once. 2004 I think is pretty much a given the way he was talking about President Bush and seemed unimpressed by Senator John Kerry. And never saw Senator Kerry as someone who could beat President Bush. But in this interview, it sounds to me that he voted for then Governor George W. Bush for president in 2000 as well. Or maybe Matthews is just a fair-weather fan and goes with the winner no matter who the winner is. The ultimate blind-follower and faddist who’s addicted to the crowd and making sure he’s always part of the crowd. Sounds like a personality description for a lot of Americans. So now I like Matthews even less or dislike even more, you know what I mean.

As far as the Baby Boom Generation, I agree with P.J. O’Rourke especially on this. But hey without the Boomers, there wouldn’t be a lot of Gen-Xers and I would probably be somewhat lonely in Generation X, because my parents are from the 1930s, or what Millennial’s call the dinosaur age that they only know about because of what they’ve seen from their video games. But to go back to the Boomers, P.J. is right that they are the most self-absorbed generation at least in recent American history. You don’t get labeled the M Generation otherwise. Me, meaning “government give me what I want after the you tax me to death, bring me back to life and take care of me”.

As far as Bill Clinton, again I’m a liberal New Democrat, but if you look at where the country was when he became President and how he left it and look at his policies as President that he was able to put through, I don’t see unless you just hate the guy how you can’t call him a successful President. Whether that is very good or great, at least good, but I put him down as very good. A B+, that if he had personal discipline, 1998 is a completely different year for him and it is not wasted because of the Monica Lewinski scandal. We’ll never know that obviously, but President Clinton, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senate Leader Trent Lott were working on a broad bipartisan agenda together for 1998.

But to go back to P.J.’s point about the Boomers, they are the most self-absorbed generation that we know of. Bill Clinton is the President or the King of this generation and everything in his life is about him. Not saying he doesn’t care about anyone else, but everything he does has something to do about him for good and bad and for mostly good. And to a certain extent and not trying to take any responsibility away from Wild Bill as I call him, but perhaps he is a victim of his own generation. And so is Chris Matthews, speaking of self-absorbed selfish assholes, Matthews could be Wild Bill’s Vice President or Prince.

WGN Radio: Milton Rosenberg Interviewing P.J. O'Rourke- The American Automobile Industry

Source: WGN Radio-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

The timing of this interview is perfect because the General Motors and Chrysler Motors were facing bankruptcy and perhaps even at risk of going out of business. Which would’ve been a disaster for America and not just because of the lost of good jobs that it would cost the country. But also in prestige that it would’ve cost the country. The world’s only superpower that would’ve been down to one motor company being Ford. GM and Chrysler were both bailed out in late spring or early summer of 2009, which is when this interview was done. So they were definitely talking about a relevant subject here.

GM and Chrysler, the number one and I believe maybe tenth largest automobile company in the world in Chrysler’s case, ( that is an estimate from me ) were both saved and are both back in black today and have been back in black for several years now. Millions of jobs saved, fewer people being unemployed in the heart of the Great Recession as a result, the country didn’t collapse. So right now that GM and Chrysler bailouts that both came conditionally, are looking like very good investments right now.

But why did GM fail? I would argue because they stopped making good cars. The Caprice, which I believe was a great car or at least a borderline great car. Sort of a combination of a big luxury car, but that had very good power and handled well, a very popular police car. GM stopped making that and they stopped making the Monte Carlo, which was a big sporty car, with great power and handled very well, but also very comfortable. Sort of like a sporty luxury car. They tried to become more like Japan with smaller cars, because so many Americans were buying Japanese, but their cars simply weren’t as good.

Oldsmobile is now out of business, but Buick which is like the little brother of Cadillac, smaller cheaper luxury cars, are still around. Pontiac, which I at least is a better version of Chevrolet, at least with their sporty mid-size cares, is out of business as well. When these companies under better management, should still be in business today. Chrysler essentially over promised their employees with benefits and when the Great Recession hit, they got hit in the head over and over on that and eventually got knocked down.

Chrysler might be the best of the big three in America, even though they are number three. Ford Motors is the best run of the big three and didn’t have any financial difficulty in this period and the only one that didn’t need or take public assistance. Ford Motors runs two other profitable auto divisions, Mercury and Lincoln and their cars are doing very well right now. Their cars and trucks, the Taurus might be the best sporty mid-size car in America right now.
WGN Radio: Milton Rosenberg Interviewing P.J. O'Rourke

Michael Svat: Karen McCullough- ‘Gen X: Stuck Between Self Absorbed Baby Boomers and Gen Y’

Source:Michael Svat- looks like a lecture talking about my generation.

Source:The New Democrat

“Gen X, Stuck Between Self Absorbed Baby Boomers and Gen Y” 

From Michael Svat 

I agree with Karen McCullough a lot about these three huge generations, I would just add a few things to it that won’t make Millennial’s look very good. But it depends on how you define these generations as well.

Officially the Boomers go from 1946-64, which I think most people who look at that, don’t really buy that. It would mean someone born in 1944 is not a Boomer, even though they grew up and came of age, went to college, part of the Vietnam War, or perhaps were against it all in the 1960s.

But someone born in 1963 would be a Boomer, even though they have none of the experiences as someone born in the late 1940s or early to mid 1950s, as someone born in 1944. Who technically is not a Baby Boomer.

The unofficial definition’s of these generations, would be Boomers born lets say from 1942 or 43, all the way up to 1960-61.

Gen-Xers, my generation born from lets say 1961, maybe 1960 even, up to 1979 or 80, with Millennial’s being the last generation of the 20th Century, people born in the 1980s and 1990s.

I agree with the unofficial definition, because someone born in the early 1960s has a hell of a lot more in common and experiences with a Gen-Xer, than someone born in the 1940s and 50s who is a Baby Boomer.

To me at least Barack Obama even though he’s officially a Baby Boomer (born in 1961) is the first President of the United States from Gen-X. He has a lot more in common with us, then the Baby Boomers.

Now I’ve talked about this before, but what like about the Boomers, is the Cultural Revolution, their support for equal rights, including for gays, the music of this generation. And that they made individualism popular, at least as it relates to personal issues. That Americans should be free to live their own lives without government or their families even interfering with that.

Now as it relates to economics is where I differ with a lot of them, where a lot of them started off at least as Socialists in the 1960s and 70s and then someone of them moderated and became center-left Democrats as they matured. But a lot of them still believe we need a central government as big as the country. Meaning a welfare state big enough to take care of everyone.

Now what Gen-X has done, has built off of the color and racial blindness of the Boomers and believe in equal rights and treating people as exactly that and not as members of groups. As well as the individualism, but have applied individualism to both personal issues and economic issues.

Gen-Xers are a big government out of our bedrooms and wallets generation. Which is why a lot of us support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. But we are not all Libertarians, a lot of us are liberal-libertarian, people who are not anti-government, but don’t want a big government to try to manage our lives for us. A lot of us are New Democrats philosophically, I included and voted for Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Barack Obama for President.

I want to get off politics, because this post is not really about politics. But if socialism and Socialists ever makes a big run in America to the point that a Socialist or a Social Democrat can make a real run at the presidency, it will be because of Generation Y.

Gen-Y not only watch MSNBC, but take it seriously and see it as news and not simply left-wing or far-left even spin on the issues of the say. So if Socialists and socialism ever grows to the point that people who call themselves Socialists and are proud of that and never run away from those labels, but lets say closeted Socialists who are still in the closet ideologically, because of that prefer to be called Progressives or even worst Liberals, you could see Socialists make a real run in America politically.

But Gen-Y is probably the most socialist generation we’ve seen, at least since the 1920s. They are very social democratic in nature politically and perhaps the only people in the country who actually watch MSNBC and that might be the only news they are interested in at all.

Gen-Y is not a generation by in-large that is interested in what is called real news. They’re into tabloid news and celebrity culture, technology, and soap operas. And the networks whether its entertainment, news or sports know this very well and know how big of a generation that they are and tailor their programming to fit this generation.

Millennial’s are also the now generation, to the point that everything that happened last year: “Is like so yesterday or old school” to them. Basically anything that was around either before they were born or too young to remember, they are not even familiar with, or do not respect. Because it is not happening now. Whether it’s news, sports or entertainment. Their favorite athletes and teams are all playing right now. Their favorites movies are what they just saw, or were made in this century. I know this from talking to a lot of them online and even in person.

If you are talking to a Millennial about football, the NFL didn’t start to 1980 or 81 or even the early 1990s. They’ll tell you the two best quarterbacks of all-time are Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. The best basketball player of all-time is of course Lebron James. Because again they aren’t into history and don’t remember Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and sure as hell have never heard of Oscar Robertson. And the reasons they give for believing this, is that the players before played in a different era, meaning an older era and wouldn’t be able to keep up with the times. Which I think sounds stupid to anyone who knows better, but what are you going to do.

If the Boomers are the Me Generation and the Xers are the Live Free or Die Generation, not libertarian necessarily, but liberal-libertarian, than the Millennial’s are the now generation: “Because what is now, is what is happening and what is in the past, is so yesterday and old school that it is time to move on”. Now Millennial’s are still very young between 15-34 right now and they still have time to grow up and mature. But I think their lack of respect for history in general and that is current affairs, sports and entertainment, is my biggest beef with them. And I hope they do grow, so they can see what they’ve missed.

Oscars: Network (1976) 'Win Original Screenplay: 1977 Oscars'

Source: Oscars- Paddy Chayefsky, accepting an Oscar for Network (1976) in 1977.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Paddy Chavefsky wins the Oscar for Writing (Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen--based on factual material or on story material not previously published or produced) for Network at the 49th Academy Awards. Norman Mailer presents the award; hosted by Jane Fonda." 

From the Oscars

I got more out of Paddy Chayefsky in this fourteen-minute video than I can put in this blog. But I’ll do my best, but he made the point in a brilliant and entertaining way, that I can only hope I can come within miles away about how I critique especially the American news media and entertainment industry. Why does TV and Hollywood make so many violent films and shows back then and still today? Because it is what sells and what is what the audience in America wants to see. What sells is what makes their stockholders and their companies money. The power of the private ( not free market ) in America. The consumer decides what sells and what doesn’t.

What he showed with his Network movie from 1976 is exactly what the American media, news and entertainment is about. Which is what makes them money which is based on what people watch. You want to know why hard news doesn’t sell as much as tabloid news especially today and why CNN sometimes looks like ugly twin sister of E or Bravo, is because hard news simply doesn’t sell as much as tabloid news. CNN would make a hell of a lot more money covering Kim Kardashian’s wedding or her arriving at some airport, than they would covering the jobs report or the budget deal reached by Congress and the President. Because the tabloid news is what sells in America, because that is what Americans buy.

And if you go to the entertainment divisions of the networks, where the real entertainment is supposed come from and not the news divisions, it is soap opera whether it comes from an actual soap opera, a sitcom, a cop show, or any other law enforcement show, or it is violence. Car chases, someone getting the hell beaten out of them, who the hot detective or new person on the show is seeing or wants to get involved with, or so-called reality TV. Why? Because that is what sells and that is what the people buy to the point you now have so-called hard news shows covering tabloid stories like George Zimmerman and the trouble that some hot celebrity is in, or what is supposed to be hot in technology.

All Paddy Chayefsky did with Network was to open up millions of Americans eyes to why network TV shows the programming that they do. And give us a preview of what network news would like twenty-five-thirty-years later. When news would be combined with entertainment and so-called reality TV. Why? Because that is what Americans are buying. If it was hard news they were interested in, those shows would get a lot more time than they do. 60 Minutes would be on three nights a week instead of once on Sunday, to use as an example.

CBS News: Washington Unplugged- Bob Orr Interviews P.J. O'Rourke, The Lighter-Side of Politics

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

"Don't vote it only encourages the bastards". Well I guess another way of looking at that would that if you don't vote, some dumb bastard will vote instead and vote for the crooked bastard that is in office. Voting is not the problem with politics or democracy. Sure, voting is how we get bad politicians in the crooked and incompetent sense. Meaning someone who is simply in office to further their career, or simply not up to and qualified for the job they were elected to. But those politicians tend to get elected by people who vote based on personality and pop culture relevance. "I like Joe or Sally, because we use the same computer or smart phone, or have the same interest in movies or sense of humor".

It's the dumb voters and the smart people who are too lazy to vote that are the problem with American politics. Not good people who run for office and get elected, or lose to people, because they didn't have the funds to fight back against very skillfully attack ads and, well bullshit that was thrown at them from, well a bastard politician or candidate running against them. A crooked candidate or politician's path to victory is the stupid vote. "If I can win the stupid vote and discourage smart people who know what I'm about and what I'll do if I win from voting, I'm home free.

The stupid vote and stupid people in general the morons of the month club and their fellow members are what keeps crooks and liars in office. But the worst arch enemy of the crooks and liars are the smart people who know the crooks are crooks, but feel their votes may not count and the crooks will find a way to get elected and reelected anyway. So you get the smart people to vote, now the crooks and liars have a real problem. "Now not only the smart people are voting and know what I'm about and what I have done, but all I have for a line of defense are morons to defend me!". The better educated a society with the most educated voters possible who actually vote, the fewer crooks in the system.

Real Time: Overtime- Bill Maher, P.J. O'Rourke & Panel Talk About Politics

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- Bill Maher, P.J. O'Rourke, and Richard Trumka 

Source:The New Democrat

I've covered this before, but education literally starts at home. If you have parents who could care less about education, especially their own which might be why they didn't finish there's and even their kids, good luck to you as a student in school and the rest of life. If you don't have that person at the top telling you, "put down your iPhone or iPad, or turn off your computer unless you are using it for your homework, because it is time for you to do your homework". If parents don't stress education with their kids, why would their kids stress their own education. Especially with so much else in the world, most of it non-educational and considered "like totally awesome" to keep them busy.

Again politicians, you know we get who we voted for, well assuming that is the person who one of the people who counted the votes, well actually know how to count. But society as a whole gets the politicians they vote for and if they don't like those people, you know what, you can vote for someone else. That is called democracy, or run for office yourself, or recruit someone you like who you think would do a good job to run for office. The crooked politician's best friends are the dumb voters and the people who don't bother to vote. Because those people won't vote against them. The crooked politician's worst enemy, is the educated voter, because that person will vote for someone better.
Real Time With Bill Maher- Overtime- Politics

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

This post was originally posted at The New Democrat

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, 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 you're 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 Liberals 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.

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

Source:Woohoo Kitty's- Howard Beale, played by The Great Peter Finch.

Source:The New Democrat 

"This is the final Howard Beale speech in the movie Network. Most people cite his former speeches because they're empowering and harshly criticizing of the people and the system, but the movie ends on this sad note.

Thanks for getting this to 10k views, guys!" 

From Woo Hoo Kittys

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. (I hope you are not dizzy after reading that)

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.

Gart Williams: Network 1976- Ned Beatty: The World is a Business

Source: Gart Williams- Ned Beatty, speech from Network-

Source: The New Democrat

"The world is a business", scary thought at least from my perspective that business's and corporations, as well as government's, not trying to sound like a Socialist here, but government's at least to a certain extent are in the business of making money as well. Whether it is for their country or their own personal interests, depending on the country. And everything that government's and private enterprises do around the world has something to do with money. Where to invest, what to invest in, how to pay their bills, who to hire and how many people to hire, how to pay for their employees and at what costs. These are all decisions that government's make as well and what the Howard Beale character was saying in this movie played by Peter Finch, is enough. That we the people so to speak shouldn't take that anymore and have more freedom over our own lives and not be dictated to by corporation's. That we watch too much TV, don't read enough, aren't educated enough and that we need to do is to standup and fight back and not see so many companies turn into so few with all of the mergers. Which weakens competition when their aren't as many companies in business. And what the Ned Beatty character was saying, "you're messing with the forces of nature". Meaning the forces of business and he wasn't going to allow for that.
Gart Williams: Network 1976- Ned Beatty- The World is a Business

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

Source: KBDI-TV- P.J. O'Rourke-

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

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 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. Their 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 it's 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.
KBDI-TV: One on One With P.J. O'Rourke

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

Source:Melissa Clouthier- political satirist P.J. O'Rourke being interviewed about his book.

Sourced:The New Democrat 

"P.J. O'Rourke of the Cato Institute talks to Melissa Clouthier about why Libertarians are never happy and what could make them happier?

How much should social issues affect political policy? PJ answers this question and many more." 

From Melissa Clouthier

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. 

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. 

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 playing  in their first Super Bowl (not 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. 

I know all of this 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?

IQ Squared: P.J. O'Rourke- American Politics and Government

Source:The New Democrat

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 iphone 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, but 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?" And 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-

Source:The New Democrat

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 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 been.
Source:Reason Magazine