The Atlantic: Hannibal Buress- Advice For Comedians


Source: The Atlantic Magazine– Part of Hannibal Buress’s comedy routine 

Source: The New Democrat

I didn’t get much from Hannibal Buress here as far as advice for comedians, other than that inspiring comedians should just do it. Write down what they think and try to get a job performing or becoming a comic writer. Which would be like telling and inspiring basketball player that if they want to make it to the NBA, they should just play and try to become the best basketball player that they can become. Which is sort of like telling people to cross the street with their eyes open and look to see whether any vehicles are coming first. And also adding that if vehicles are coming, don’t cross yet, but if no one is coming or the next vehicle is like 20 feet from you, then it’s OK to across. No offense, but I could get better advice from my nephew or nieces.


Source: The Economist– Truer words have never been said 

So as someone who writes political satire on my blog and writes about politics a lot of the lighter side of it which today where it seems like something stupid and funny about our government and politicians happens everyday, there’s no shortage of material. Similar to Niagara Falls where there’s never any shortage of water, I’m going to give you my own advice for comedians especially political satirists and people who want to do comedy and satire about politics and government for a living.

The first thing I would say is don’t worry about offending people short of saying something that is truly bigoted. Not what oversensitive over caffeinated Millennials thinks is bigoted because what the hell they know about anything that’s not celebrity culture and new technology anyway that they don’t see on their I-phone. But as long as you’re not comparing people of any race or ethnicity with animals, to use as an example or using racial or ethnic slurs and your humor is just critical whether it’s about religion, culture, lifestyle, or anything else don’t worry about being offensive.

Comedy almost by by definition is offensive and meant to offend unless it’s self-deprecating because you’re pointing out the flaws about people, places, things, situations. So if you’re writing a humorous, but critical and even truthful piece about someone or something, people, or doing a comedy routine and you do it well, of course you’re going to offend someone or some people. But so what because you’re just doing your job which is to make fun of the lighter side of life and the flaws of people and places in society.

I mean what’s the worst thing that will happen to you if you’re doing a good job as a comedian or humorous and pick up a following and making a good living at it, but some people find you offensive and even bigoted, you won’t be able to perform in front of over caffeinated, oversensitive college students and people just out of college? If they’re your target audience to begin with, you’re not going to have much of a following and will spend most of your time just offending over caffeinated, oversensitive young adults.

My other piece of advice would be especially if you want to do comedy about politics and government is to be nonpartisan and just go where the material takes you instead of just concentrating on the flaws of one party or another. Or a political faction in one party or the other. This idea that one party has all the Saints and enlightenment and the other party has a monopoly on stupidity and corruption, makes as much sense as crossing a busy street blindfolded.

We all have our own politics and positions on policy issues but when it comes to comedy we shouldn’t pretend that those things don’t exist, but be honest enough to be able to see the humor and lighter side, the pure stupidity in both parties including our own or whatever political party that we happen to be a member of. Take the George Carlin approach to political satire and go where the material and comedy takes you wherever it takes you.

Comedy should be offensive! What’s funny about the Philadelphia Eagles winning the Super Bowl or someone getting a great job or landing a big raise or promotion? Comedy rarely if ever is about the positives in life and almost always is about negativity in life. Like a politician who doesn’t do his homework and just wings it before going to meetings, or claims to no more about national security and foreign policy than all the generals, even though he has no military or foreign policy experience, or even governmental experience before getting elected to his first political office. Comedy should be about what’s wrong with life and people and using to help people help themselves instead of trying to be mean. Or that’s comedy at it’s best at least.

The Atlantic: Hannibal Buress- Advice For Comedians

Posted in The Atlantic | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Roll Call: David Hawkings- Opus: ‘5 Reasons Why Congress is Broken’


Source: Roll Call– A look at Congress 

Source: The New Democrat

I guess I would disagree a little with what David Hawkings is saying here and that I would add a little to his argument as well.


Source: Roll Call– Debates in Congress 

Money, is an issue with Congressional elections, but it’s not the issue. It’s not so much what’s spent on House and Senate elections, but the fact that we as voters don’t know what the money is spent on and how it was raised, who donated the money to the Congressional candidate or incumbent, or did a third-party raise that money and decided to spend it on a Congressional race and how they raised that money.

If someone wants to spend ( or waste ) 10 million dollars on a U.S. House race, that’s their money. But we as voters and the media have a right to know how they raised and spent that money. So we know if that candidate or incumbent is being bought like a loaf or bread and taking policy positions based on what their political contributors are giving them. And if they promised their contributors votes and bills if they give them money.

If we had full-disclosure on all political contributions from candidates, incumbents, and third-parties that and raise and spend their own money on Congressional elections and money that’s raised and spent by third-parties to run their own advertising on those races, we could fire a lot of crooks and liars in Congress, because we would know how they get their political contributions. Or another option would be that those crooks and liars would clean their political hands and start voting and legislating based on what they actually believe is best for their district or state, because they don’t want to be seen as bought because they know the voters, media, and probably more important for them the Federal Elections Commission will know how they raise their money. Who they’re getting their political contributions from.

And people could ask themselves, “do I really want to vote for someone who takes so much money from the oil and gas industry and always votes and legislates in favor of them?” Or, “do I really want to vote for someone who takes so much money from the teacher unions and never takes a position that goes against them like school choice and school accountability?” Members of Congress in both chambers fundraising records would become public, as well as their Congressional records their votes and positions that they’ve taken in Congress, because of full-disclosure and voters would have a lot of information at their disposal to look at and see if they want to reelect their Representative or Senator. or vote for or against their opponents when they’re up for reelection.

Just to talk about the U.S. House for a second and the main reasons why the House is broken and functions more like a broken home where you can’t close the doors or windows in it, and the floors are cracking is two reasons.

Gerrymandering- the reason why Representatives are so partisan and act as if they now hate members of the other party and just don’t disagree with them is because they represent gerrymandered districts and voters who hate the other party. These Representatives simply come from the community that they represent and are representing the views of their constituents in the House. You eliminate partisan gerrymandering from both parties and Democratic and Republican Representatives would then be forced to represent people from both parties in their district. Instead of representing a House district where 3-5 or 7-10 voters in their district are members of their own party. They would be forced to moderate their positions and tone in order to get reelected because their district would be a lot more diverse.

Majority always rules- the other reason why the House is so partisan is because of the way the chamber is set and run where the majority party isn’t just in complete control of the agenda but how bills are debated and have complete control of whether even amendments to partisan bills can be offered or not. Unlike in the Senate where the minority party led by the Minority Leader can not only obstruct the majority if they have at least 41 votes to do that, but can offer amendments and substitutes and have those amendments voted on to every bill that comes to the Senate floor, as well as in committee.

Not saying that the House should also have a cloture rule and allow the minority party led by the Minority Leader to obstruct everything, because that would make the Washington rush hour look like a NASCAR event, ( an inside the beltway joke ) and nothing would get done in the house. But the House minority party should at least be allowed to offer amendments and substitutes to bills and have those alternatives voted on to every bill that the majority party tries to write and pass on their own. Giving the minority party stake in the game and a feeling that there to do something other than to talk and vote no.

I’ll just close this piece with a little George Carlin the great political satirist. He asked the question to his audience during one of his shows where do politicians come from? And I’ll paraphrase him by saying they weren’t shipped here from Mars or some other planet or flown in here from another country. They go to the same schools that we did and same communities. They represent the communities that sent them to Congress or whatever office they hold.

Carlin’s point was that politicians aren’t much different than the people they’re supposed to represent that their Congressional salary is supposed to pay for. The reason why Congress especially the House is so partisan is because that is what their voters want it to be. To vote exactly the want they want them to and represent their values and not compromise, because they see the other party as the enemy and not as opponent. You want a better and less partisan Congress especially in the House, you need better and less partisan voters voting for it’s members.

Roll Call: David Hawkings- Opus: 5 Reasons Why Congress is Broken

Posted in Congress | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Law & Order: Season 17- Talking Points: Featuring Charlotte Ross & Ron Silver


Source: Law & Order– Ron Silver & Louis Cancelmi, on Law & Order Talking Points 

Source: The New Democrat

Just on a personal note first, I’m a huge fan of Law & Order. It was one of 3-5 network shows that I watched regularly in the 1990s when I was in high school and just out of high school. It always had a great cast, great storylines, great writing, plots, guest stars like Charlotte Ross and Ron Silver in the Talking Points episode. We’re talking about one of the most popular and best TV series that has ever come out of Hollywood and certainly one of the best series that NBC has ever produced along with their great sitcoms from the 1980s and Columbo before that.


Source: Charlotte Ross– Charlotte Ross, as Judith Barlow on Law & Order Talking Points 

And a few weeks ago I’m flipping around the tube after just finishing work and getting and eating dinner and I see a Law & Order marathon on ION-TV ( I guess it’s called ) and if you’re familiar with that network you know they only show old TV reruns and reruns in general. They’ve produced maybe one TV series of their own which is Private Eyes which is still on. And each night during the week they do a marathon of reruns for one particular TV series. On Wednesday it’s Law & Order all day and all night. TNT, has a similar Law & Order marathon late Tuesday and Saturday night as well. Every other week and sometimes every week.


Source: Getty Images– Sam Waterston, as NYC Executive Asst. DA Jack McCoy 

So, watching this Law & Order marathon on ION 3-4 weeks ago is where I came across the Talking Points episode which is one of my favorite LO episodes or I wouldn’t be writing about it, because it was so perfect with the times of the late 2000s. This show came out in 2007 when free speech and political correctness were real issues on campus and where you had controversial right-wing authors and speakers, talk show hosts, like Charlotte Ross’s character on this show, speaking on college campuses that tend to be dominated by left-wing students who believed that controversial right-wing speakers didn’t have a right to speak, at least at their school and to them.


Source: ION Television– Jesse Martin & Milena Govich, on Law & Order Talking Points 

Judith Barlow, ( played by Charlotte Ross ) is controversial right-wing author and speaker who speaks on college campuses and is basically the Ann Coulter of this show who says nasty things to piss people off and to sell her books and other writings. She gives a speech on campus at a New York college to a bunch of leftist students ( to be kind ) who perhaps believe she doesn’t have a right to her own opinion and perhaps not familiar with the First Amendment which unfortunately wouldn’t have been in common back during the 2000s or certainly today. She goes too far at least for one particular student there and he not just brings a gun to this event but fires it into the crowd trying to shoot her and instead shoots and kills and innocent bystander there. Obviously not the work of a professional hitman.

The star of this show is Charlotte Ross, not the only star, but the star of this particular show. Ron Silver, does a great job playing the defense lawyer here, Fred Thompson is still on the show as the District Attorney, with Sam Waterston as his deputy and Alana De Le Garza has his assistant. Jesse Martin, as the lead NYPD Detective on the case, Milena Govich as his partner. Like I said before, Law & Order always had a great cast and both as far as regulars and as guest stars and Talking Points is a perfect example of that. But Charlotte Ross, on this show plays Ann Coulter better than Ann Coulter plays herself, but is a helluva lot better looking and so much cuter and sexier as she normally is and perhaps even funnier than Ann Coulter who also has a good wit, when she’s not a witch from hell.

Law & Order: Season 17- Talking Points: Featuring Charlotte Ross & Ron Silver

Posted in Law & Order | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mises Media: Tom E. Woods- ‘On Socialists and Other Grotesque Ingrates’


Source: Mises Institute– Right-wing radio talk show host Tom E. Woods, speaking at Mises about Socialists and socialism 

Source: The New Democrat

I think it’s important when you’re talking about Socialists to categorize them and put them in three factions, because there Socialists and there are Socialists. Just like there are lawyers and then there are lawyers and then there are politicians and then there are politicians. There not all the same people, but just happen to have the same title. So, what I going to do here is talk about those three socialist factions and then talk about what I don’t like about any of them, but perhaps leave out the word grotesque or any other highly insulting word. Not that I’m a fan of political correctness because I’m not, but I’m not a fan of Christian-Conservatives, Nationalists, or Islamists, but I don’t think they’re disgusting either, just perhaps some of their beliefs.


Source: Mises Institute– Right-wing radio talk show host Tom Woods, speaking about Socialists and socialism 

When I think of Socialists, I think of Bernie Sanders, Hugo Chavez, and Fidel Castro. One is a small d Democratic Socialist. The other is a hybrid between a Democratic Socialist and Communist and the other is a Communist, a Marxist-Socialist.


Source: Mises Institute– Welcome to the Nanny State! 

The Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party, what would’ve been the Far-Left of the Democratic Party just 10 years ago and had been the Far-Left at least since George McGovern was a major factor in the Democratic Party in the 1970s, but because you have all of these Millennial’s who can’t afford to pay off their student loans and can’t find jobs even if they have college degrees, have decided that socialism is “like totally awesome” for them and free speech is bigoted, freedom is dangerous and capitalism is racist, have all decided that their now Socialists and have moved out of their parents basements and into the Democratic Party. With what’s left of the Democratic Leadership to babysit them. So, now you know what I don’t like about Socialists.

And as a result what was the Far-Left in the Democratic Party pre-Barack Obama is now looking mainstream in the party similar to how Nationalists are now looking mainstream inside the Republican Party. Even though back in the day Nationalists were considered to be mental patients by Republicans. But Bernie Sanders today, represents for Democratic Socialists what former U.S. Representative Ron Paul represents for Libertarians, perhaps Gary Johnson represents for Classical Liberals and represents what’s left of American liberalism.

So what’s democratic socialism and what do Democratic Socialists believe?

Democratic socialism is a hybrid economic as well as governmental and political philosophy. That you should have a small d democratic state meaning country or any other jurisdiction, that individuals should have a good deal of personal autonomy short of hurting others with what they’re doing. That the economy even by enlarge should be in private hands and that there should be private enterprise and even capitalism, but that you need a big central state to make sure that everyone in society’s needs are met. That no one goes without the basics in life because there is no poverty and there’s no wealth. Because big government is managing the finances of the country and decides what people need to live well in life. A long way of saying a welfare state that’s financed though high taxation. A long with a large regulatory state to regulate the private economy.

So what do I not like about Democratic Socialists?

Similar to Communists, they tend to view people as stupid who need to be babysit ( sort of how Millennials actually are in life ) and that individualism is dangerous because some people will actually do very well in life and not need or even want the welfare state, while others will struggle just to survive in life. What Socialists like to call income inequality. Socialists tend to view non-Socialists as stupid because they don’t have an Ivy League degree or a degree from some other great Northeastern or Pac-12 college, and see themselves as brilliant who aren’t capable of making mistakes even when they’re trying to run other people’s lives for them. They’re just simply over narcissistic and wrong about these things and should probably get rid of every mirror they own and perhaps they’ll fall out of love with themselves and see the real world for a change.

So what’s socialism and what do Socialists believe?

Socialism, is basically democratic socialism or if you prefer social democracy, combined with communism. And this here is about what I call hybrid Socialists, people who mix both democratic as well as communism in their political thinking. Venezuela, is essentially now a socialist state. Not purely a communist state and certainly not a social democracy, but they still have elections as sham as they are and even perhaps still have some free media even if it’s tightly regulated and they still not just have an opposition party, but a liberal democratic opposition that if the Maduro Regime there were forced to have real elections, President Nicholas Maduro would probably be out-of-power right now. And yet you have Socialists in America who believe President Maduro is a good man and the Socialist Party there are good people.

So what do I not like about Socialists?

Similar to what I not like about Democratic Socialists which is Socialists believe individualism is dangerous and people are essentially come from idiot farms where brains were never given out or developed and need big government to manage their lives for them. Socialists, regardless of the faction have this Donald Trump narcissistic cult like persona that they have all the answers and thinking should not just discouraged, but perhaps outlawed. They remind me a lot of Reverend Jim Jones who created that death camp in Guyana known as Jonestown.

So what is communism and what do Communists believe?

There really isn’t any real official definition of communism and what it means to be a Communist anymore. Cuba and China, are officially still communist states, but China especially now has a large private sector where people there not only own their own homes and other personal property, but manage and own their own businesses. Similar to Cuba, but Cuba is still in the early days with their experiment with private enterprise and capitalism. The official definition of a Communist is basically someone who believes in the state should own the means and production of society. Meaning the economy and capital. Meaning there is not private enterprise or private economy in society. But doesn’t explain what Communists believe as far as their politics and how decisions should be made in society.

My definition of a Communist, is someone who believes that individualism, freedom in general should be outlawed and that it’s the job of the central state to manage the welfare of the people. Decide where they should work, live, what they should believe, learn, etc. And exchange their basic needs in life will be met by the state. The Communist Republic of Korea ( or North Korea ) unless you want to include Syria, is really the only remaining pure communist state in the world. Not authoritarian, but the last of the communist states in the world.

So what do I not like about Communists?

Well, imagine doing a life sentence in a maximum security prison, because that’s what life would be like living in a communist state. But if you to a typical maximum security prison in America, you might see inmates there that have more freedom there than the average person in North Korea. That is inmates who aren’t in solitary confinement and by enlarge obey the rules of the institution and take advantage of what the prison has to offer. Things like education, work, visitations, etc. I mean, do I really have to explain what I wouldn’t want to live in prison especially a maximum security prison? Because that’s what life is like in a communist state.

You can’t put Socialists in the same discussion as you would put Liberals, Conservative-Libertarians, or Nationalists, because again there are Socialists and then are other Socialists. I believe the best way to look at Socialists is two camps, one being democratic and the other communist. All Socialists have a lot in common similar to how Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians have a lot in common as far as individual rights and equal rights. The best way to look at Socialists is to look at each faction of socialism or just the socialist faction that you’re interested in.

Mises Media: Tom E. Woods- ‘Socialists and Other Grotesque Ingrates’

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

Reason Magazine: Opinion- Peter Suderman: Donald Trump’s Vladimir Putin Summit Is Another Reminder Her Prefers Dictators To Democratic Leaders


Source: Reason Magazine– President Donald Trump & President Vladimir Putin, meeting in Helsinki 

Source: The New Democrat

Donald Trump, likes to portray himself as this big guy from Queens New York who doesn’t take any junk ( to put it lightly ) from anyone and never gets pushed around. He always shows strength and toughness and is never soft. That is the reputation that he wanted to have in his 45 plus years in business and the reputation that he wants to have now as a politician. Except that in his heart he’s basically just a bully. Trump, is a guy who’ll be as tough as he possibly can against someone he says as a pushover, but if the person has any strength at all, he’ll fall back.


Source: The Denver Post– Don & Vlad, meeting in Helsinki 

If President Trump, believes he can push someone around and sees that person as weak, he has no problem attacking them verbally, because he doesn’t believe that person can defend them self, but if that person fights back like Hillary Clinton or someone else, he backs down. Or if he views someone as tough like a Vladimir Putin, he’ll be as nice as he possibly can even going as far as appeasing that person to make them feel as good as possible. He’ll make our democratic allies in Canada and Europe, look like the enemy and the authoritarian dictators look like our friends.


Source: The Australian– Vlad & Don, chatting in Helsinki 

Donald Trump, is the ultimate flatterer to people he views as tough and respects, who’ll tell someone who just made them a peanut butter sandwich that is the best sandwich that he’s ever eaten or the best meal he’s ever had, even if the peanut butter sandwich only came with crackers and perhaps water and not even milk, he’ll try to convince the person that he sees as tough as serving them the best meal he’s ever had. Forget about those great steak dinner and other meals that he’s had in New York or those great quarter pounders that he’s had on his own airplane, the peanut butter sandwich is the best thing he’s ever eaten, which is what he would want that person to believe.

Trump, doesn’t care if the people he likes and respects are horrible people, just as long as he likes and respects them and he feels they like and respect him. If Donald Trump felt something he liked about Saddam Hussein, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Adolf Hitler, or any other mass murderer you want to name in world history, he’ll be nice to that person regardless of what that person has done with their life or to other people. It’s not about defending or promoting America or even the people who voted for him with Donald Trump, but defending and promoting Donald Trump the man. Or I would argue Donald Trump the lack of a man who doesn’t have the guts ( to put it mildly ) to take on evil dictators. Even though he literally is the most powerful man in the world.

30, 40, 50, years ago Far-Leftist Democrats the George McGovern’s of the world and even to a certain extent the Ted Kennedy’s of the world, even though he moderated his politics at least on national security and foreign policy by the late 1980s or so, were seen as soft and people who appease dictators around the world especially Communists dictators. Before the McGovern’s it was the Henry Wallace’s of the world who had this reputation and now it would be the Dennis Kucinich’s of the world from the last 10-15 years when he was in the House. And for good reasons because they were soft on authoritarians and authoritarianism and in some cases would even deny the obvious brutality that would go on in those countries that would be coming from the government’s there.

I only mention this because if any major national Democrat who was looking at running for president or seeking a Democratic leadership post in Congress today the Elizabeth Warren’s, Bernie Sanders of the world, said half or even a quarter of the nice things that President Trump has said about President Vladimir Putin, President Kim Jong-Un of the Communist Republic of Korea, President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China, President Rodrigo Duterte of Philippines, they would be seen as American traitors and as treasonous. If Hillary Clinton won the presidential election in 2016 and had said a quarter or half of the nice things that President Trump has said about these dictators, House Republicans would be calling for her impeachment immediately. But for some reason Donald Trump gets a pass from the same people who would be looking to arrest and lockup Democrats for doing the exact same things.

Living in America now is like being on a Twilight Zone episode or just living in The Twilight Zone, where you now have a Republican President who likes dictators and authoritarianism and who takes the word of President Vladimir Putin from the Russian Federation, who is a authoritarian right-wing Nationalist who locks up and even murders journalists and politicians simply for opposing him, over the word of the American intelligence community people he appointed to run those agencies who were confirmed by the U.S. Senate in most cases overwhelmingly. Career intelligence and national security professionals who run those agencies. The truth and evidence be dammed with President Donald Trump, if it doesn’t backup up his spin and propaganda and helps him politically. That’s the state of the Republican Party and American politics right now.


Source: Global News: Donald Trump Says He Takes Vladimir Putin’s Word On Russian Interference in U.S. Election– President Donald Trump, who is supposed to be President of the United States and not working for the Russian Federation. 

Posted in The Donald | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Liberty Pen: Charles Krauthammer- Insights on Big Government


Source: Liberty Pen– Syndicated columnist and Fox News political commentator Charles Krauthammer 

Source: The New Democrat

At risk of stating obvious ( not that I’ve never taken that risk before ) and I feel in this case it might be necessary since the term big government gets thrown out a lot I believe it’s necessary to define exactly what big government is and what it isn’t. Because it means a lot to everyone and to some people like Socialists and Communists, big government doesn’t exist at all to them because they believe in unlimited government in many cases. And for Anarchists or people who call themselves Anarcho-Libertarians, big government to them is government that tries to do anything without their direct personal consent and permission. So it’s important to explain exactly what big government is and what it isn’t first and then Charles Krauthammer second.


Source: Jan Welflin– Charles Krauthammer, on Conservatives 

To put it simply, big government is government that does or tries to do too much. And if that is not simple enough, I suggest that maybe you have issues with the English language and perhaps need a translator to follow along.

But government attempting to run private industries and nationalizing private businesses are examples of big government.

Government telling free adults who they can consensually live and sleep with would be examples of big government like these so-called sodomy laws that attempt to outlaw homosexuality.

Government telling people who much they can eat and drink or what they can eat and drink, these nanny state laws would be examples of big government.

Government telling people where they can send their kids to school, would be an example of big government.

Government telling people where they can and can’t get their health care and health insurance and trying to outlaw health care and health insurance in the private sector, would be examples of big government in America, even if Britain likes that type of health care system for themselves.

Government trying to outlaw law clearly constitutionally protected forms of free speech and expression. Like critical speech, hate speech even, pornography, certain forms of music and music videos that have a lot of adult content in them, TV shows and movies with adult content. Political correctness is a form of big government as well.

Big government is government that tries to do too much for the people and do for the people that they can do for themselves and do better for themselves. Like deciding where to send their kids to school and how to educate them. Where to get their health care and health insurance. How to plan their retirement and manage their money, including investing their money or even gambling their money. Government outlawing consensual sexual conduct where money even is exchanged like anti-prostitution laws, to me at least as a Liberal ( Classical Liberal if you prefer ) are big government laws and anti-free choice laws.

What Charles Krauthammer, was talking about here in this video when he was talking about big government like the Great Society are public safety net programs. Social insurance programs that are only there for people who are low-income and don’t outlaw any private economic or personal activity, aren’t big government laws or programs, but social insurance programs for people who are low-income. These laws don’t make anything illegal or even make any form of consensual activity illegal, but give financial assistance to people who are in poverty even if they’re also working.

Liberty Pen: Charles Krauthammer- Insights on Big Government

Posted in Big Government, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Super Cousins: The Facts Of Life- Jo & Blair: Hot N Cold


Source: Super Cousins– Jo & Blair, best friends?

Source: The New Democrat

How do you describe the relationship of two young women which is what Blair Warner ( played by Lisa Whelchel ) and Jo Polniaczek ( played by Nancy McKeon ) were on The Facts of Life, going to high school at Eastland and then going to college together at Langley, how do you describe a relationship between two young women who on the outside you would almost have to think that these two women hate each other and yet it’s hard to see a time or point when they would ever be separated.


Source: Karen Tusim– Jo & Blair, cold? 

If you’re familiar with the movie Who’s Afraid of Virginian Woolf with Richard Burton and Elisabeth Taylor, they played a married couple who’ve been married a long time and they have two guest’s over during the movie and Dick and Liz are always arguing with each other in the movie. With the second couple noticing all of this and thinking they should go because their hosts are obviously fighting and arguing and would perhaps would like to be left alone. With Dick & Liz saying, “you don’t have to go because this is how we normally communicate with each other.”


Source: Fan Pop– Jo & Blair, best friends?

I sort of look at Blair Warner and Jo Polnicczek as a married couple who’ve been together let’s say 30 years and perhaps haven’t been married that long and know each other so well and know each other’s weaknesses and strengths and then represent the opposite of what the other stands for and believes in and know how to exploit that and yet would always be the first one to help or comfort the other when the other is in trouble and going through a rough time.

As hard as this is to believe for anyone who is not a hardcore fan of The Facts of Life and just watches casually, Blair and Jo really were best friends on the show. I think they were really the only great and true friend that the other had on the show. Even though they were always riding each other on the show. They were the first to back up the other when someone was giving one of them a hard time, to to offer advice when they were going through a rough time. Generally critical advice and pointing out their flaws while at the same time offering them advice in how to improve.

You can claim you hate someone all you want, but you don’t try to prevent someone you claim to hate or act like you hate from making the biggest mistake in their life. Like dropping out of high school to marry a man who isn’t even a junior officer in the U.S. Navy and not an officer at all, who is also AWOL ( absent without leave ) but that is exactly what Blair did for Jo when Jo decided that she wanted to drop out of Eastland to marry her Navy boyfriend. And that is just one example of Blair and Jo coming to the rescue of the other.

The Facts of Life was a great show and I believe the best sitcom at least about Generation X. At least the best show about that generation growing up and what life was like back in the 1980s as a youngster and teenager, but without Blair and Jo and I would argue without Lisa Whelchel and Nancy McKeon, and Mrs. Garrett ( played by Charlotte Rae ) keeping the crew together perhaps especially Blair and Jo, it’s a good show but not a great show.

Those two women and perhaps Mrs. Garrett as well, brought people to show and to watch it. Sort of like a great soap opera where you have two great rivals on that show and people tune in every week or day to see what they might do to each other, Blair and Jo and I would argue Lisa Whelchel and Nancy McKeon just by themselves put people in the seats every week ( to use a sports analogy ) or had them tuning in every week to see what they would do next and what they would do to each other next.

Super Cousins: The Facts of Life- Jo & Blair: Hot N Cold

Posted in The Facts of Life | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment