Late Night With Seth Meyers: Seth Bombs His Audience

"Donald Trump Takes Cognitive Test, Goes on Lavish Asia Trip: Late Night News of the Week"

Source:Late Night With Seth Meyers talking about his favorite comedic target, again!

From Late Night With Seth Meyers

So either Late Night With Seth Meyers had a light audience when this segment was produced, (perhaps Seth was just delivering his monologue in front of his closest family members and people he paid to show up) or this wasn't very good. Because just from the reactions to his material here and to a certain extent from Seth trying to deliver it, it didn't go very well. 

Seth Meyers even had a joke about New Jersey and tanning salons. Unless you ae from the Tri-State region, how are you supposed to pick that 1 up? 

And a joke about Donald Trump (who is from Queens, New York) and what he might do if the Philadelphia Eagles win the Super Bowl, instead of the New York Giants. I mean this could've been a local access TV, standup comedy show or something, where only the local convention of insomniacs, are even able to watch it. And those are just the insomniacs who are trying to get some sleep. "(Hey, maybe Seth Meyers will bomb again tonight and we can finally get some sleep) 

And even though The King of Late Night Johnny Carson isn't 1 of Seth Meyers direct predecessors, (that would be Conan O'Brian and David Letterman on Late Night) I think Meyers could've used a little Carson comedic magic and timing here when his jokes felled faster than bricks being thrown out of he 2nd floor of a house. 

Johnny Carson was a pretty good standup comedian, but he didn't make it his career. He started off as a magician and got into music, I think he even had a game show at 1 point, before getting into talk TV where his producers noticed that he had an excellent sense of humor, which eventually led to The Tonight Show With Johnny Carson in the early 1960s. 

I'm just telling you this because I want to see how many people I can send to the nearest bridge to jump off of, so they'll finally be spared of having to hear me talk about this anymore. But the other reason I'm telling you this, is since Carson wasn't a professional standup comedian, (at least not full-time) he delivered his share of bad monologues. But his comedic timing was so spot on and powerful, that he could make his bad jokes sound funny based on how he would react to how his audience would react to his bad jokes. (Now I'm dizzy. But the blog post must go on) 

So when Johnny Carson's monologue would die faster than fish without water, in the middle of a desert, he would pretend his microphone wasn't working, or say something like: 

"Attention, K-Mart shoppers!" Which was his way of lightly making fun of his audience. Any Gen-Xer who sees this, will no what the K-Mart joke is about. 

Carson had a bad Valentine's Day monologue 1 year and he handled that by saying: 

"Look, I want you to be kind to me tonight. One massacre on this date was enough".

Another night where Carson delivered a bad monologue and was tired of sounding like a priest delivering a speech at a funeral, (even a comedic priest) he said: 

"That's it, folks — I've got nothing," to end his monologue for that show. 

You can find these Johnny Carson references on Google

But with Seth Meyers, he's like 1 of those U.S. Senators who gives a filibuster speech and simply runs out of material and gets tired of being the only person in the chamber (other than the presiding officer and the stenographer) and starts telling jokes on the floor, so he doesn't have to give up the floor. He just goes on and on, when a little comedic self-awareness would've been more appropriate. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Jackie Collins: Jackie Collins Talks Lady Boss & The Power of Women

"In this rare television interview from the early 1990s, Jackie Collins discusses her smash-hit novel Lady Boss, the latest installment in her beloved Santangelo series. With her signature wit, charm, and Hollywood sparkle, Jackie opens up about creating powerful female characters, the inspiration behind Lucky Santangelo, and why she believed women could — and should — rule their own worlds.

Blending glamour, humor, and fearless honesty, Jackie Collins reminds viewers exactly why she became one of the world’s best-selling authors and an enduring voice for female confidence and independence.

Bold. Brilliant. Unapologetically Jackie."

Source:Jackie Collins & Oprah Winfrey in 1990.

From Jackie Collins

I'll get to what Jackie Collins was talking about with Oprah Winfrey back in 1990, (which feels like 35 years ago... for some reason) but first I want to share a different perspective, which will lead into what these 2 women were talking about. 

So there are 3 types of women in American society and pop culture, from what I see. And these 3 tittles all have their own sub-roles in them. But there are: 

Gold diggers: a woman who becomes or tries to become romantically involved with a rich man in order to get money and gifts from him.

Trad wife: the Phyllis Schlafly ideal for a woman and wife. Even though Phyllis Schlafly argued in the 2nd half of her adult life that the role for American women was to "stand by their man" and be 100% loyal to him and raise their kids and even be subservient to their man and never work out of the home and earn their own money. Mrs. Sclafly had her own professional career as a political activist, author, and columnist, from the time she was 39-40 in the mid-1960s, up until she died in 2016. But the woman she talked about, was sort of the opposite of what she was. Her ideal American woman, was a trad wife, who had zero professional ambition, whatsoever. 

And then the women that Jackie Collies and Oprah Winfrey were talking about, which is essentially the independent women. Not necessarily women who try to have it all. But women who are independent of everyone else, especially men. Women who have their own careers and make their own financial and professional decisions. And some of these women get married and have children with their husbands. And some independent women never even get married or have kinds. But they always have complete control over their own lives. And the independent women was made popular in American pop culture with action shows like Police Woman and Charlie's Angels in the 1970s and 80s. 

Now me personally, the only kind of woman that I would want to get involved with romantically and sexually, would be the independent woman. Now there's a downside there as well. Some of these women are not just independent, but are very judgemental to the point that they are not independent, but they think they should rule the world. And men are just pigs and the biggest idiots in the world (not just physically) to the point, that they're not qualified to decide how they should dress in public and what they should eat. Sort of the straight women's version of the prick. 

But on the upside, independent woman tend to be educated, they're intelligent, tend to be attractive, (especially if they're straight) and you probably won't be financially obligated to them, if the marriage doesn't work out. Especially if you have a good prenuptial agreement with them. 

Gold diggers can be fun... just as long as the man knows what they're getting into. And doesn't marry their plaything, because that woman probably wouldn't sign any prenuptial that wouldn't leave her with most of her husband's wealth and property. 

The trad wife? Out of the question, for me. I mean, if you are married to a woman like that, especially if you get married while you are both fairly young and that marriage goes 20 years, (give or take) you might end up being financially responsible for your ex-wife for the rest of her life, unless she gets remarried. Because she hasn't worked out of the home for a long time. Maybe she didn't have a real career or even a college degree before you were married. It could be like taking care of 1 of your kids who never grows up.

But Jackie and Oprah were talking about what the R&B group Destiny Child's and the movie Charlie's Angels (2000) made popular 10 years after this interview... the independent woman. Women who are just as qualified and able to take care of themselves, as men and in some cases do it better. And those women I can at least respect for that. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tim Miller: Marjorie Taylor Greene Turns On Mike Johnson?

"Tim Miller joins MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle to take on the House taking five weeks off during a government shutdown to the absurd “autopen investigation” that’s distracting from the Epstein files. He calls out MAGA lawmakers for pretending to be populists while their trade wars hammer farmers and consumers, and reacts to Steve Bannon’s bizarre talk of a Trump third term." 

Source:The Bulwark Tim Miller talking to Stephi Baby Ruhle about ex-Crazy Baby Marjorie T. Greene.

From The Bulwark

As Fred Schneider wrote about U.S. Representative Marjorie T. Greene 3 weeks ago: 

"But for someone like a Marjorie Taylor Greene to ever be able to represent anything other than a gerrymandered, MAGA district, in rural Georgia, to getting elected in a big, diverse state like Georgia, (11 million people) she is going to have to drop her political escaped mental patient routine and sound and act like a mainstream Republican. You know, like a Conservative (for example) and be able to compete in the parts of Georgia where most of its residents live, which is the Atlanta metro area and the big counties there, as well as Savannah.  The parts of Georgia that are very urban and suburban, even blue. 

Georgia is not Mississippi. (Duh!!!) You can't win statewide in Georgia as a Republican, with just Anglo-Saxon-Protestant, blue-collar, rural voters. You have to compete and win in the cities as well. This is what Marjorie Taylor Green's call to political sanity campaign is really about: her winning Georgia." 

From The New Democrat

I'm not going to say something like: 

"You know there's something rotten in Denmark, when even Marjorie Taylor Greene can sound like a mature, responsible, sane, and even intelligent politician".

Or, something like 

"It's official: insanity has been cured and we can now let all the mental patients out. How do I know this? Because even our favorite mental patient Marjorie Taylor Greene sounds reasonable, responsible, intelligent, and even sane now. So the next person that calls Marjorie, "Crazy Marge", could be looking at a libel suit". 

Don't worry, I'm not going to say that. Correction: I'm not going to make those two comments again. 

As Fred said 3 weeks ago, the distinguished Representative from the Peach State, wants something more from her career, than to sound a career politician from Mississippi, or West Virginia. She wants to play in the big leagues, politically. And that means not just getting elected statewide, but getting elected statewide in a big, swing state, (like Georgia) where she would have real competition, especially from a Democrat, in the general election. 

To paraphrase Fred: the Crazy Baby act on MTG's part, might just be that. That''s what she did to become a MAGA star. But MAGA might be even to whacked-out, too far from Planet Earth, even for the Marjorie T. Greene's of this world.

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Hill: Mike Johnson BRUSHES OFF Trump Third Term Rumors

"House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) on Tuesday morning brushed off rumors that President Trump would be seeking a third term, saying that he has fun 'trolling the Democrats.'"

Source:The Hill with a look at the U.S. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson (MAGA, Shreveport, LA)

From The Hill

Also from The Hill: 

“It’s been a great run, but I think the president knows — and he and I’ve talked about the constrictions of the Constitution, as much as so many of the American people lament that. 

I don’t see a way to amend the Constitution, because it takes about 10 years to do that, as you know, to allow all the states to ratify,” Johnson said... 

From The Hill

Just to show you the 22nd Amendment and what Speaker Johnson is talking about here: 

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once". 

From Library of Congress

And the Speaker can try to make fun of Democrats all he wants to, but no question that Donald Trump would try to get a 3rd term, if he thought he could. And there's reason to believe that the President is looking into getting passed the 22nd Amendment. And Steve Bannon has already said as much when he was talking to The Economist last week about this. 

But if even freakin Mike Johnson, who would win a Donald Trump ass-kissing contest 100-100 times (I apologize to anyone who might have had food in their mouths when they saw that) and has probably even risked the future of the Republican Party, by being as loyal as he has to The Donald.... if he even not just knows that the 22nd Amendment prevents a 3rd term as President of the United States, then I would have to think that anyone who understands the 22nd, (like the U.S. Courts, FEC, etc...) that they already know this as well. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Inside Edition: New Questions About President Trump's Health After Recent MRI

"There are new questions about President Donald Trump's health Monday after he revealed that he had an MRI at his hospital check-up earlier this month. The White House has not released the results of the president's tests. His doctor wrote a memo, stating in general terms, that Trump underwent "advanced imaging … to ensure optimal cardiovascular health" and concluded that "President Trump remains in exceptional health."

Source:Inside Edition with a look at Don King. I mean King Don... uh, you know what I mean.

From Inside Edition

I'm going to ask you to use some real brain power here and use your imagination skills... sort of pretend you are on an episode of Rod Serling's The Twilight Zone and imagine (if you will) that Donald J. Trump was just an ordinary politician. Forget about him being a mainstream Republican... because that went out of the door with disco in the early 1980s. That would seem unimaginable. But try to look at him as an ordinary politician... if you can.

So Donald Trump is just your everyday Joe Jones politician. Except that he's 79 years old and President of the United States. So the President gets an MRI and a physical. If you were President of the United States right now and you were 79 years old, with the same poor diet that DJT has and the same lack of exercise that he gets, and you are saying you latest health results were "perfect", wouldn't you want to release them to the public the day before they came out? (If that were possible) But Donald Trump doesn't do that because he expects everyone to just take his word for it. 

So-called independent journalists like Chris Cillizza and I'm sure others, as well as establishment journalists like Jake Tapper and others, have always argued that they don't report on crazy things that Donald Trump says and does, because he's always been like that and it's not crazy for him. As if always being crazy doesn't make you crazy. I can't explain the logic in that, but you are free to give it a shot. 

People with perfect mental health, don't drop AI videos of someone, or himself taking a dump (to keep it clean) on people who are peacefully protesting their government. And that's just 1 example of 1 of the crazy and irresponsible actions that this man has done as President of the United States. 

People in perfect physical health, don't have swollen ankles and see their hards blackening... especially when they're not of African or South Asian descent. I'm not a doctor, but he obviously has some type of skin condition and issues with his ankles right now. 

But since Donald John Trump sees himself as an American king, (which was 1 of the points of the No Kings protests) he doesn't feel the need to share his health records and updates to his "peasant population", also known as the American public and media. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Fran Drescher: Funny Women of a Certain Age

"Funny Women of a Certain Age featuring Fran Drescher, Carole Montgomery, Luenell, Lynne Koplitz, Kerri Louise, and Vanessa Hollingshead is now available on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, YouTube, Google Play, Dish, and more." 

Source:Comedy Dynamics with a look at comedian Fran Drescher.

From Comedy Dynamics

"Funny Women of a Certain Age featuring Fran Drescher, Carole Montgomery, Luenell, Lynne Koplitz, Kerri Louise, and Vanessa Hollingshead is now available on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, YouTube, Google Play, Dish, and more." 

Source:Comedy Dynamics with a look at comedian Fran Drescher.

From Comedy Dynamics

So I'm guessing this Fran Drescher stand up performance is from late 2017, or early 2018, because she says she just turned 60 in 1 of these videos. But she was born September 30, 1957 (not that I'm her personal biographer or anything) and it's now October, 2025. So she's 68 today. Now, if anyone is still awake from that, I'll give both of you the rest of this story. 

Not that I would ever guess that Fran Drescher is 68 today. She's just too, damn cute, with those eyes, big baby cheeks, and smile. I think even her Jewish, Queens, New York accent, is very cute. Even though some people might think it's as annoying as spam calls at dinner time. I think she sounds like a sweetheart with it. And part of her Jewish Queens background, is how she got the lead in Nanny. So it obviously paid off for her. (Not that I'm trying to sound too ethnic here)

Speaking of very funny women... the hilarious and adorable Joan Collins, who made at least 1 appearance on Nanny with Fran Drescher, is known for the quote: 

"Age is just a number... unless you are a bottle of wine". I guess an old bottle of wine, wouldn't be a fine bottle of wine. But that's besides the point. 

And my point is not it's "not how old you are, but how you feel". That cliche is the great, great, grandfather of "only time will tell" and it's not accurate either. My point and I think it's Joan Collins point as well (even though I've never even spoke to the woman, let alone know here) is that it's not about years that you lived, but your quality of life. And besides, a crazy person could think they can walk on air, even at 85 years old, or jump out of a window, and fly away. But it's about how you are mentally and physically, how productive and happy you are, regardless of how old you are. 

There are 19 year olds who are currently in prison for murder and looking at as many as 30 years, maybe even the rest of their lives, in prison. Are you going to try to convince me that their quality of life and that they should feel better about their life, then a beautiful, adorable, 68 year old woman, who is a professional comedian and a very successful 1 at that? You wouldn't try to convince me that the 19 year old in prison is having a better life... unless you were currently high, drunk, insane, current suffering from brain damage that was never even diagnosed. Or, you drugged me, or spiked my glass of ice tea, with entire bottle of scotch, without me knowing about it. 

And as far as Fran Drescher having a gay husband: I would bet anything (that someone else has) that Fran didn't send her husband into homosexuality. Or broke into his closet, tore it down even, and through him out of it. 

But Fran Drescher's marriage to a gay man does remind me a series of Seinfeld episodes back in the 1990s, when George (played by Jason Alexander) is engaged to marry his girlfriend. And she calls it off, splits up with him and they run into each other later on, only this time she now has a girlfriend. 

Now, George Constanza could send Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, Jaclyn Smith... into homosexuality. 3 of the most beautiful and cutest, most feminine women, in the history of Planet Earth. But have them date George Constanza for a while, they would not just give up men, but they would become so gay that they would all try out to play for the New York Giants football team and all make the team as linebackers, not kickers, or cheerleaders. They would make former Clinton Administration Attorney General Janet Reno, look like Miss America, in comparison, after a few dates with Mr. Constanza. 

I mean George is like: 

5'6-5'7, 190-200 pounds, 

balding, 

can't see his fingers in front of his face, without his glasses, 

unemployed, still living with his aging parents in his mid 30s... 

he couldn't give a damn about anyone other than himself, even for a million dollars. George, is the perfect candidate to send an attractive, feminine woman, into lesbianism. 

But Fran Drescher: 

5'7 and built,

beautiful, baby face brunette, 

who is very sweet and funny, as well as successful. 

I think her ex-husband, was living out-of-a-closet and pretending to be straight man's, man, (meant in the straight man's sense) to keep his secret safe. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

Columbo: Lovely But Lethal (1973) Review of Vera Miles

"Lovely but Lethal" is a Season 3, Episode 1 episode of Columbo that features Vera Miles as a beauty industry executive, Vincent Price as her rival, and Martin Sheen as a young chemist. Reviews describe it as a solid but not top-tier episode, highlighting Miles' performance as memorable and praising the supporting cast, even while acknowledging that the plot formula isn't as strong as other episodes." 

Source:IMDB with a look at the beautiful & adorable Vera Miles.

From IMDB

As my colleague Fred Schneider write about this episode back in 2023: 

"I got into this episode of the Columbo series 4-5 years ago and was blown away by the fact that Vera Miles was on it. And thanks to Sundance and COZI-TV, probably seen this film 10 times now and even have it on DVD. Only 70 minutes, not a dull moment in it and that plus Vera's presence and her being so cute and beautiful on it and just comes off as a total sweetheart on it, (at least for a two-time murderer) I can see it over and over again, to the point that I wanted to write about it." 

From The New Democrat

I'm just going to give you a little of my own background information about this episode, first and then I'll give you my response to what Schlock Horror (who'll you will hear from later on) said about this episode on YouTube. 

I first started watching Columbo in my mid-teens and when I was just out of high school in the mid-1990s. A&E back in the 1990s had this series on as part of the Mystery Matinee series almost everyday, with other shows like Rockford Files, McMillan & Wife, McCloud, and perhaps a few others. 

And now that classic TV and movies has gone through resurgence that last 10-15 years, with cable networks not just going 24 hours of day of classic TV reruns and even modern TV reruns, but doing marathons of a specific type of programming, like mystery TV, Columbo, which is still 1 of the most popular TV cop detective shows, ever... this series is now on 3-4 cable networks, almost everyday now. If it's not on COZI-TV, you can find it on Hallmark Mystery, or Sundance, METV had for a longtime as well. 

To make a long story shorter... I saw the Lovely But Lethal episode from COZI-TV, 10-11 days ago. Similar with Fred, I've seen this particular episode, at least 10 times the last 7-8 years. Vera Miles is just that good and that great to look at and to listen to. A better looking Lana Turner, who was born to do soap operas and mystery TV, because of her great appearance, but her ability to verbal jab and comedic timing, and keep her counterpart on the run and even guessing as far as what she's doing and how that person might stop her. 

And I'm with IMDB on this... Lovely But Lethal is in my personal top 10 as far as my favorite Columbo episodes. But not in the top 3, or even top 5:  

The Jack Cassidy episodes (which I wrote last December on The New Democrat) 

as well as Lee Grant's episode, (which Kire Schneider wrote about on The New Democrat) 

Robert Conrad's episode (Exercise in Fatality) and the 2 Robert Culp episodes, I think are better than Lovely By Lethal. But what Schlock Horror said about this episode, I think goes too far: 

"We're (finally) back with the weakest season opener of the '70s." 

Source:Schlock Horror with his own review of Lovely But Lethal.

From Schlock Horror

And I think Nicholas Schroeder had the perfect response to Schlock Horror: 

"Completely baffled by the dislike of Vera Mills:  I think she's deliciously evil in this--and she's supposed to be shallow.  She's just an aging, mercenary beauty queen.  This episode is also loaded with humor." 

So Schlock Horror's main criticism of Lovely But Lethal episode, is centered around Vivica Scott. (Played by Vera Miles) He's says there isn't any depth to her and we don't really learn anything about her. He says she's not all that dastardly or that sympathetic. "She's just kind of there". 

So my response to Schlock Horror, is... pre-1974, Columbo episodes were only 70 minutes on NBC. Sure, that's more than a Rockford Files episodes, which were about 45 minutes. (Not including commercials) But when the network is giving you about 100 minutes, (give or take) including commercials, to put together what's essentially a short film, do you really want them to spend a good part of their limited time talking about: 

what it was like growing up in Oklahoma in the 1930s and 40s? 

Or, what it was like breaking into the Los Angeles cosmetics industry in the 1950s? 

How about Viveca Scott explaining what life was like without TV when she was growing up in Oklahoma?

Anyone who is familiar with the Columbo series, knows this is not A&E Biography. It's a police detective show. All they're going to give you is a little background as far as what the murderer does for a living, the pressures that person is under, why they killed the person that they did, and the actual homicide itself. You are not going to see Peter Graves or Harry Smith, Jack Whitaker (3 A&E Biography hosts) talk about the life and career of Vivica Scott in the Los Angeles cosmetics industry, before she murdered 1 of her cosmetics designers, Carl Lessing (played by Martin Sheen) in 1973. 

And the thing about Vincent Price... I agree he's great at playing the bad guy. He can be both very evil and hilariously funny at the same time. Which is an impressive talent, especially in Hollywood. But replace Vera Miles with Price and it's no longer "Lovely But Lethal". The episode would be more like: "Tall, Gruesome, and Lethal". With of course Vincent Price playing the lead, because who better, (at least from Price's generation) at scaring the hell out of people... while making them laugh at the same time, then Vincent Price

But as Fred got into on his post, Vera Miles is perfect for Lovely But Lethal, because that's exactly what she was. She's 44 at this point and still as cute as a doll and beautiful as most young women back then, even in Los Angeles. So who more perfect to play a cosmetics company owner, who is struggling financially and needs a new hit product, or risk having to sell off her business, then Vera Miles. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Sam Harris: Reflections On Christopher Hitchens

"Sam Harris is the author of five New York Times best sellers. His books include The End of Faith, Letter to a Christian Nation, The Moral Landscape, Free Will, Lying, Waking Up, and Islam and the Future of Tolerance (with Maajid Nawaz). The End of Faith won the 2005 PEN Award for Nonfiction. His writing and public lectures cover a wide range of topics—neuroscience, moral philosophy, religion, meditation practice, human violence, rationality—but generally focus on how a growing understanding of ourselves and the world is changing our sense of how we should live.

Sam’s work has been published in more than 20 languages and has been discussed in The New York Times, Time, Scientific American, Nature, Rolling Stone, and many other publications. He has written for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Economist, The Times (London), The Boston Globe, The Atlantic, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), The Annals of Neurology, among others. He also hosts the Making Sense Podcast, which was selected by Apple as one of the “iTunes Best” and has won a Webby Award for best podcast in the Science & Education category.

Sam received a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA. He has also practiced meditation for more than 30 years and has studied with many Tibetan, Indian, Burmese, and Western meditation teachers, both in the United States and abroad. Sam has created the Waking Up app for anyone who wants to learn to meditate in a modern, scientific context." 

Source:Sam Hitchens talking about Chris Hitchens.

From Sam Harris

After you see this, you'll know why Sam Harris likes Chris Hitchens so much: 

"Author Christopher Hitchens discusses his book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" as a part of the Authors@Google series. The author of Why Orwell Matters and Letters to a Young Contrarian, Christopher Hitchens is a Vanity Fair contributing editor, a Slate columnist, and a regular contributor to The Atlantic Monthly. He has also written for The Nation, Granta, Harper's, The Washington Post, and is a frequent television and radio guest. Born in England, Hitchens was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he received a degree in philosophy, politics, and economics. He now lives in Washington, D.C., and he became a U.S. citizen in 2007.  This event took place on August 16, 2007 at Google headquarters in Mountain View, CA."

From Talks At Google

I was hoping to hear from Sam Harris what he thought about Christopher Hitchens and any impact (if any) that Hitchens might have had on his life, career, etc. But it was just a 4 minute video (which is very short for YouTube) and they just talked about the last day that they spent together. 

So, we're all Agnostics at The New Democrat. And that's a big reason why we're Liberals. Not that all Liberals are Agnostics, but a big part of liberalism has to do with facts, evidence, and reason, not faith. 

If you think about it, liberalism might the least romantic and idealistic philosophy, in the world. And probably the most successful (up until Donald J. Trump) political philosophy, at least in the western and developed world, because it's all about facts, evidence, and reason, as the core of the philosophy. And of course we use those values to argue for individual rights, personal autonomy, property rights, checks and balances, the rule of law, equal rights and protections, etc. 

Liberals don't tell people "it's going to get better". We would say: "If we do this, that, and the other thing, and stop doing these things, life will get better". But we don't say "it will get all get better. You'll see". If we don't believe that, we're not going to say that. 

So I tell you all of this, because 1 of the goals for The New Democrat is to send as many people as possible, into a severe, deep, sleep. Just not while they're driving, or flying a plane, trying to run a government... trying to do anything that requires being intelligent and responsible. 

Actually, I share some of the liberal values of liberalism, to tell you why we respect the Chris Hitchens, the Sam Harris's, the Bill Maher's, the Richard Dawkins's, the Michael Schnurer's,,, all men of reason, facts, and evidence and, not faith. I'm sure there are plenty of women who share these values as well. I just can't happen to name 1 right now. 

And another liberal value, is consistency. Actually, credibility is another liberal value as well. You get credibility as a communicator, by being consistent... being factually accurate helps as well. Chris Hitchens, wasn't an Atheist because he was a militant Communist, or something, who believed in State Atheism. Or 1 of what The New Democrat would call New Atheists from the 2010s, who are really just anti-Christians... people who bash and put down Christianity, especially Anglo-Saxon-Christianity. Or some hippie/hipster who claimed to be spiritualist, but not religious. (Even though religion and spirituality are siblings of each other)

Hitchens and Sam Harris are both Atheists, because they don't believe in God and both oppose religion, period. And it's not just the so-called Christian Right (who are about as Christian as ants are elephants, in too many cases) but fundamentalists from eastern religions, like Islamists and the Islamist regimes in the Middle East and their Islamist, terrorist networks. 

Bill Maher got in trouble with the far-left back in 2014-15, because he spoke out against Islamism and Islam in general. But Islamists and fundamentalist Christians, especially Anglo-Saxon-Protestants, share a lot of the same cultural values, when it comes to women's place in the world, their opposition to personal freedom, free speech, and individualism. And had Maher given the same speech about fundamentalism Anglo-Saxon-Evangelicalism, as he gave about Islamism and Islam in general, the far-left would've treated Maher as their "progressive hero". 

I didn't agree with Chris Hitchens on everything. He was a self-described Democratic Socialist, at least up until 9/11, 2001. And perhaps remained a Socialist on economic policy for the rest of his life. And after 9/11, Hitchens became more of a Neoconservative when it came to foreign policy and national security and supported President George W. Bush on practically everything as it related to foreign affairs and national security. But his belief in reason and evidence, as well as facts... what we know, what we can see for ourselves, the real facts and evidence on the ground... instead of faith, has always been the reasons why I and the rest of The New Democrat have always been fans of Hitch as well. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Dan Mitchell: Socialism Humor

“Building on columns from May and July, let’s enjoy five more reasons to laugh at socialism.

Though we may want to cry after seeing this first bit of satire since Donald Trump has morphed into Bernie Sanders and is having the government take partial ownership of various companies.

Next, we have a reminder that we should be nice to our socialist friends when they suffer trauma.

Our third item points out that socialism is for the young and hardy (actually for the naive and foolish).

Next we have some helpful ways of diagnosing a health emergency.

As usual, I’ve saved the best for last.

This final meme shows that capitalism “exploits” us by providing many products, albeit at a cost. Socialism, by contrast offers nothing, but at least it is free.

Reminds us that the choice is full socialism or full stomachs. Or maybe this bread meme is most appropriate." 

Source:Dan Mitchell talking about the Socialist Don.

From Dan Mitchell

If some of Dan Mitchell’s comments here don’t make sense and you are wondering what he’s referring to, it’s because it’s his own personal captions about photos that he posted on his own blog about socialism. And those photos aren’t here, except for the first 1.

So 1 of MAGA’s favorite targets and talking points, is of course Socialists and socialism. Their Dear Leader Donald J. Trump attacks Socialists and socialism, almost every time he’s talking about Democrats. Fine. But he has a credibility problem here and the photo on this posts shows you exactly what I’m talking about.

So in a year Donald John Trump, who is almost completely, personally, responsible for the January 6 riots on the U.S. Capitol, who also happens to be a convicted felon, (but not for the felonies that a lot of Americans wanted him to be convicted of) is reelected President of the United States, just a couple months before, a Socialist wins the Democratic nomination for Mayor of New York City.

You would think Zohran Mamdani’s winning the Democratic nomination for MYC Mayor and who is also the most likely Mayor of New York, (unless NYC Republicans get a brain and Curtis Silwa drops out of the race) would be a great target for Donald Trump and his MAGA Party. 1 problem: as much as they’re bashing socialism, the U.S. Government is buying and taking parts of private companies and threatening to take over other companies, if they don’t change their politics.

As I wrote about Donald Trump’s socialism back in August:

“As Erick Erickson’s said on his blog post:

“When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk…

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there’s no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy…

From The New Democrat

To hear Donald Trump or any other MAGA head talk about how bad socialism is, would be like:

hearing Vladimir Putin talk about the need for peace in the world… or at least in Europe, or in the Slavic world.

Or Donald Trump talking about the need for law and order, the rule of law, peace and civility in our politics. As well as talking about the dangers of lawfare in our politics.

Or Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about the need for moderation in Congress.

Ilhan Omar and Rasheda Tlaib both giving speeches in opposition to antisemitism.

It would be almost impossible (unless you were on a 2-week binge consuming nothing but alcohol and meth and somehow managed to survive that experience) to take these people seriously, when they’re talking about those issues. So maybe as the the photo on this post suggests… assuming the Trump Administration continues their own policy of state socialism, that the next time they’re speaking out against socialism, they something like:

“We taking down socialism by taking down 1 private company at a time, until the root out all of the socialism in America”. Just as they’re building their own socialist empire to replace the 1 that they claimed was socialist.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

John Thune & Chuck Schumer: Government Shutdown Press Conference

Senate Majority Leader John Thune: "Good afternoon. I think the American people are wondering when the Senate Democrats are going to end their temper tantrum and vote to reopen the government every day that goes by, there are more and more Americans who are getting smaller and smaller paychecks. People work for the federal government. Now, fortunately, the Trump administration has been able to make sure that our troops, our military, gets paid for a while longer. But there are limits to what they can do.

But, they will have a ninth opportunity today to vote open the government. They had an opportunity yesterday and they will have, if necessary, a 10th opportunity to reopen the government tomorrow. All we need, all we need are five courageous Democrats with a backbone who aren't afraid to buck their leadership, who are marching them right over a cliff. 

Chuck Schumer may think that every day gets better for them politically, but I can tell you that is not the experience of the American people. This needs to end. We can end it today. The bill is sitting at the desk. We're going to get a chance to pick it up and pass it open up the government and get to work for the American people". 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "Well, here we are on day 15 of the Trump shutdown. That's right. It's now over two weeks since Republicans shut the government down because they refuse to negotiate and fix the health care crisis that they themselves created. In fact, House Republicans haven't been here doing their job in weeks. Thousands of federal workers continue to work and not get paid. House Republicans continue to get paid and don't work.

Cost is the number one issue facing American people. How are they going to pay each week their bills and because of Trump's tariffs, because of what they did on electric rates, because food costs are going up so much, and health care is the tip of the spear of that cost increase. And yet Republicans are not moving forward.

The bottom line is they won't even negotiate with us. So that's a premature question. But of course I'm not going to negotiate in public. We need to address the crisis that is afflicting and that's the right word, the American people.

Republicans hold the blame for the government shutdown "because they refuse to negotiate... 

Source:Associated Press covering at the Senate Majority Leader's press conference.

From the Associated Press

But as the Senate Minority Leader said so himself back in March about why he didn't shut down the government then: 

“First I’d say, Sunny, no one wants to fight more than me, and no one fights more than me. We got to fight smart. It is not true — that bill had far less — it was bad, I hated it,” Schumer said. “But it does far less damage to — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are far more susceptible to being eliminated, which is what that horrible Musk — can you imagine this guy Musk, a billionaire, saying $1,100 for a senior citizen is not necessary? Or a Ponzi scheme?”

If you have two choices, one bad, the other devastating; one chops off one of your fingers, the other chops off your arm? So I want to fight, and we are fighting, we’re going to fight every day,” he explained." 

From The New Democrat

So the 1st question here should be: what has changed from March to now October? Like any good lawyer, I'm asking a question that I already know the answer to. This is what has changed in the last 7 months: 

"Because Leader Schumer made the right decision not to shut down the government in March, the so-called Squad (which most of the time looks no more professional and experienced than the Columbia chapter of Students For a Democratic Society) threatens his job and tells him he has to step down, or face a primary challenge... probably from U.S. Representative Alexandria O. Cortez in 2028. She's probably not just the most popular and powerful Socialist, inside of Congress right now (sorry, Senators Sanders and Warren) but probably the most powerful and popular Socialist outside of Congress as well. 

So the reason why the government is shut down right now, even though it gives the power to the President to cut and layoff at will as many people as he wants, during the shutdown, because 75 year old Chuck Schumer (who has been in Congress since 1981, served 9 terms in the House, now in his 5th term in the Senate) is worried about losing his job 3 years from now. So this is just 1 reason why The New Democrat is calling this government shutdown, the Schumer shutdown. Because it's not based on what's good for the country, or even the Democratic Party next year, but what's good for Chuck Schumer's political future... 

From The New Democrat

If you are wondering why I'm posting all this background information and you are thinking that I'm doing it because I'm worried about some insomnia crisis going on in the country (that of course Robert F. Kennedy JR knows nothing about... or, is just denying it) I can see why you might believe that. But there's another reason for it. What Chuck Schumer is doing here (and I think it's now safe to say that he's the distinguished Minority Leader from New York) is taking a page out of Donald J. Trump's. 

Is this how all New York politicians try to govern? Someone you don't like says something bad about you in public, someone you thought was an ally, or just someone you know doesn't like you... and what you do in response is to have them inducted simply because you don't like them. That's what Donald Trump has done in the last couple of weeks. 

This is a little different from Leader Schumer. Instead of cancelling next year's midterm elections, (President Trump hasn't done that yet) because he's worried about his party getting their political tails handed to them, (to be kind) the Senate Minority Leader shuts down the government because he's worried about losing to Alexandria O. Cortez in 2028 and he doesn't like how the Trump Administration governs.

When you were a kid and you wanted to go to some concert or movie or something on a school night with your friends and you knew you would be home pretty late, if you went to it and your parents said you can't do that because you have to get up early next morning for school... perhaps you had the big test or something... what was your response to your parents saying no... or what would you have done? Would you run away from home so you could do whatever you want and not have to listen to your parents say no to you? Some kids have done with with horrible results that soon followed. 

But hopefully you were disappointed but understood why your parents turned down your request. And maybe they said something like: 

"If you do well on the test, you can go to any concert or movie that you want on Friday night and stay out all day on Saturday and go out that night as well. And we'll even give you the money for that". 

That's how a mature adolescent would respond to that and how I think intelligent parents would've handled that. That's would part of the carrot and stick approach to parenting: you lay down solid and understandable rules and expectations for your kids and reward them when they do well. 

But there are times, even when members of Congress can look like immature 16 year olds who think they own the world because they have all the latest fashions and gadgets and follow the "hottest" celebrities. And it's not difficult to see what Congress on a good day, gets around 20% in approval (and with that 20% made up of only meth heads, alcoholics, and mental patients) because being there is almost never about serving your constituents. 

Congress is like some social club that the members love so much that it cost them work and other opportunities because they spend so much time there and love the perks so much. And love it so much, that losing their membership there, would be like someone stealing your home and family on the same day. They can't see themselves out of their club that much, to the point that they will do anything in their power to stay there as long as they can, regardless of how many innocent people they have to hurt. 

I'm not a political psychologist... not sure if 1 even exists. But that's going on with Chuck Schumer right now. The government is shut down right now because he won't let his members vote for cloture on the only bill that has a majority of support in the Congress, to reopen the government. And he's doing all of this because he's worried about losing his exclusive membership to this political club, known as the U.S. Senate and end also ending his membership in the U.S. Congress. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Sara Sidner & John Berman: John Bolton Arrives At Federal Court a Day After Being Indicted

"John Bolton arrived at federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, on Friday morning. Bolton, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser-turned-adversary, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland on Thursday." 

Source:CNN with a look at Ambassador John Bolton.

From CNN

I will get into the John Bolton story as well. But just on a personal note first: (and since this is Friday, I feel the freedom to do this) isn't great to have the real Sara Sidner back at CNN? 

The Sara Sidner you see in this video, looks a lot like the Sara Sidner in this photo. This is the Sara Sidner from 2022, or even back in 2011 when she was an international correspondent at CNN. Tall, plus-sized, beautiful, long, black hair, and a beautiful babyface. I thought she had the best hair, at least at CNN back in 2022. She's a woman that I would call a beautiful plus-sized baby, because as tall and big bone as she is, she has the face and smile of a little, baby cutie. Her hair is a little shorter now then it was 3 years ago before she got sick and she's lost a lot of weight to help her stay healthy. But she has her hair back and looks absolutely beautiful. 

Source:CNN anchor Sara Sidner.

As far as the John Bolton case: You could look at this case from 3 different ways:

You could look at it from a partisan point of view and not just as a Democrat, but as a Conservative Republican, who simply doesn't like Donald Trump and his MAGA party. (Doesn't like might be generous) Or as a Democrat, who doesn't like John Bolton, but who believes in the rule of law and doesn't want to see even Republicans get prosecuted simply because they oppose Donald Trump. 

You could also make a political lawfare argument here as if you are a defense attorney and saying that if they had the same evidence against someone like Pete Hegeseth, (who just happens to be Secretary of Defense) that DOG would've never brought this case against Secretary Hegseth. Why? Because the Secretary is an ally of President Trump. But since Ambassador Bolton has been in opposition to the President, at least since the President fired him back in 2018, that's the only reason why DOJ is prosecuting him today. 

And then there's the lawyer's-lawyer argument and you heard that in this video from Tom Dupree and Michael Moore (not that Michael Moore) where they're looking at the evidence that DOJ has already made public against Bolton and talking about the case based on that. 

Did New York Attorney General Leticia James prosecute Donald Trump back in 2023-24 because she doesn't like him and wants to put him prison? 

Did Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg prosecute Donald Trump back in 24 because he doesn't like DJT and wants to see him in prison?

The answer to both of my questions is obviously yes. But the point is both the NY Attorney General and Manhattan DA had excellent cases against President Trump. That's why they won those cases. And the Bolton case is not that different, if any different from those 2 Trump cases. 

I'm not a lawyer, don't even pretend to be 1 even in my mind, let alone on TV. But I know enough about the law and juries to know that at the end of the day, if the prosecution has a case for conviction, regardless of the reason or reasons for bringing the case at all, they'll probably get their convictions. And that's what the Bolton case will come down to as well, if it makes it that far. Does the U.S. Attorney have a case for conviction in this case, or not. 

You can follow me on Facebook and Threads.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tara Palmeri: How Zohran Mamdani & Donald Trump Use The Same Playbook

"What if the boldest voices in politics—from rising stars like Zohran Mamdani to entrenched figures like Donald Trump—are secretly reading from the same scripted page of tactics and maneuvers?

In this episode of Tara Palmeri Live, dive deep into the uncanny parallels shaping today's political battlegrounds, where progressive upstarts and conservative powerhouses deploy identical strategies of disruption, narrative control, and crowd mobilization to advance wildly opposing agendas. Joined by Steve Schmidt, the veteran strategist behind incisive takes on political peril, we unpack how these playbook moves expose the raw mechanics of influence in a divided America, from viral messaging blitzes to coalition-building gambits that flip the script on conventional wisdom.

What overlooked tactic from this shared playbook do you see dominating the next election cycle?" 

Source:Tara Palmeri doing her impression of a lot in space valley girl. Actually, I don't know what she's doing there.

From Tara Palmeri

So the basic point of what Tara Palmeri and Steve Schmidt is talking about here, is that what I would call the Squad-Left, or the Bernie Bro-Left, has taken on the establishment wing of the Democratic Party and has beaten them. All that's obvious and Palemeri and Schmidt got into what they call the establishment wing of the Democratic Party.

If you are from Washington, like myself, the establishment is the K Street wing of the Democratic Party. The Squad-Left is basically the hipster, coffee house wing, of very young and idealistic... leftist Democrats and people who aren't officially Democrats, but vote Democrat when they see Democrats who are leftist and cool enough for them. 

And the K Street wing of the Democratic Party, are the corporate backers who can finance mainstream Democrats campaigns all by themselves, just from their corporate pacs, or with their own money. And those folks don't want to be seen as Republicans, even mainstream Republicans. But what they are really worried about is the Democratic Party becoming too left-wing and too far-left, too idealistic and populist. And think you win campaigns by being mushy-middle, but never ever having any solid principles about anything to win purple states and districts. 

And I agree, part of the problem with the Democratic Party is that they're seen as the party of Ivy League, wealthy people, who've never had to even worry about they would pay for their own college education, let alone their kids and people are very awkward when they have to talk to ordinary Americans, who have to work really hard everyday, just to pay their bills. 

So Zohran Mamdani comes along in 2025 in New York City who has taken some real far-left, whacked-out positions like: 

NYPD: "Racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety, and a rogue agency." 

Property rights: “If there was any system that could guarantee each person housing — whether you call it the abolition of private property or you call it a statewide housing guarantee — it is preferable to what is going on right now". 

Government-run grocery stores: Zohran Mamdani has proposed to create municipal owned grocery stores in New York City. He's proposing that the government there run and own grocery stores in that city. 

But since Mamdani speaks to the concerns about a lot of New Yorkers there, when it comes to affordability and has no issues about telling people what he thinks about anything, regardless of how far-left he sounds, he's doing something in New York City, what Donald Trump is doing nationally... or at least in the states that Trump won... which is win in all of these places simply by being himself. And running against the corrupt establishment in his own party. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Tom Mullen: Donald Trump's Tariffs Harm Americans No Matter Who Pays Them

"President Trump announced Friday that his administration would impose a 100 percent tariff on Chinese imports “over and above any Tariff they are currently paying” in retaliation for China’s threat to impose export controls on rare earth exports, which the U.S. consider vital to national security.

This latest exchange of trade restrictions is purely intended to harm the other party rather than to achieve any benefit for the respective countries’ populations. But it has occurred in the context of the trade war with China started by Trump in his first term. The ultimate goal of these trade wars is still mysterious, given Trump’s own self-contradictory statements.

 Trump continues to claim both that the tariffs will restore American manufacturing and that foreign exporters will pay the tariffs rather than American consumers. Both cannot be true. The only way for the tariffs to reestablish American manufacturing is if they do raise the prices American consumers pay for the imported goods, and not just marginally. They must raise the prices so dramatically that they exceed the much higher prices for the same goods domestically produced that led to the imports in the first place.

 If the foreign exporters reduce their profit margins to absorb the tariffs and thereby make their exports available to American importers at the same price, as they have in most cases so far, then American manufacturing is not stimulated. Americans are still buying the imports at the same price just as they were before, which is still lower than they can buy goods produced domestically.

Trump represents this as a “win” for America, citing all the new tax revenue flowing into the treasury, but this doesn’t help Americans as workers or consumers. It doesn’t create new jobs or lower the cost of goods. On the contrary, the tariffs ultimately harm Americans even if foreign exporters continue to absorb them...

Source:Tom Mullen is a Libertarian blogger & author.

From Tom Mullen

I'm going to respond to the title of Tom Mullen's blog post, first and then I'll get into what I really want to talk about. 

To start with a hypothetical: 

Imagine someone just getting elected mayor of some big city. And this person has strong political connections with a local company, or an association of companies in the city and has an agreement with those executive that says, if the new mayor drives up the taxes on their competition, this company or association will bankroll this candidate's campaign for the mayorship of that city. 

So now there's a new mayor and that's what he or she does in the first year of his or her mayorship: the new administration drives up the taxes on this company's competition. The competition responds by leaving town and going somewhere where their tax burden is not as high. The company that's still there, that is friendly with the new administration, drives up their prices on their products for the people in that city because they no longer have any competition to worry about. 

Competition is for private enterprise, what fuel is for motor vehicles: there is no private enterprise, without free competition. The competition is what keeps prices affordable for as many people as possible.  But with crony capitalism, the idea is to eliminate the competition, even with government force and drive up your prices on your consumers. 

Tariffs are not that different from crony capitalism. You eliminate the competition (in this case foreign investors) by raising their prices through tariffs (which are domestic taxes) making it some expensive for them to do business in your country, that they either raise their prices (which is like raising domestic taxes) or they get out of your country to go somewhere which is better suited for them financially. 

But the problem with tariffs is not just the higher prices (or taxes) on your domestic consumers, but it also weakens your domestic supply chain, because you'll have fewer foreign companies who will want to invest in your country, because your government has made it too expensive for them to invest in your country. And that gives your population fewer options in where they can buy goods, which jacks up the prices for them. 

The answer to rebuilding the American manufacturing industry, is not to raise the prices on your population and raise their taxes. But encouraging more domestic companies to produce here, instead of going somewhere else and encouraging more of your own people to start their own businesses in your country. As well as producing a higher quality of goods that can compete with the foreign competition, so Americans would want to buy domestic, instead of foreign goods, or a combination of both. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.