This podcast is something you should listen to.

The conversation begins ten minutes from the top. There are audio only versions out there too, and of course you can download the audio with sites like this. It's a fine thing to listen to in the car or other vehicles.

Amongst its many notable features is a remarkable argument in favor of Universal Basic Income.

This graph is instructive when considering these matters.

Justin Bieber made an ass of himself -- So, what else is new? -- by challenging Tom Cruise to an MMA fight. Bieber is 25; Cruise is 56.

This has started a trend on Twitter of people challenging celebrities 31 years older than themselves to fights. Melissa Gilbert, star of "Little House on the Prairie," has officially challenged Joan Collins, intrigued by the possibility of Halfpint vs Alexis.

So, being the slave to trends that I am...

Jamie Farr, you want your ass beat? Think I'm scared of somebody who wore dresses for the first eight seasons of M*A*S*H?

Wilford Brimley, if Farr chickens out, I'm coming for you! Think you're feeling your Quaker Oats? You better hope your Liberty Medical is paid up!

Neuces (Texas) County Commissioner Carolyn Vaughn refused to sign a Pride Week proclamation honoring the victims of the Pulse Night Club shooting.

Evidently, she's not a supporter of homosexuality. She said, “I want it in the record that I do not support this proclamation or agree with the statements in it.”

Evidently, her gay hair stylist doesn't think much of her, either.

LGBTQUIA+ ~ from the link by Patrick at June 12, 2019 1:52 AM

Oh, for Pete's sake.

I gotta one up you Patrick. I'm ready to fight dead presidents if they are man enough to show up! Come on Washington, Lincoln, Hoover. Get your lazy bones up and prepare to be beaten!

I don't even know what those letters mean, nor do I care. I no longer support gay rights and it would suit me just fine if Obergefell v. Hodges were overturned.

Since the emergence of Desmond Napoles (a.k.a Desmond is Amazing) and other "drag kids," which is the unapologetic and undisguised sexualization of prepubescent minors, the entire gay community can go directly to hell.

Desmond belongs in foster care and his parents belong in prison.

Oh, Woody.

https://babalublog.com/2019/06/10/peta-member-woody-harrelson-petitions-texas-gov-to-prohibit-cruelty-of-texas-bar-b-q-but-he-honors-and-hugs-mass-murderer-fidel-castro/

More "your speech is violence" rhetoric.

https://twitter.com/jeffcimmino/status/1138458413283860482

which is the unapologetic and undisguised sexualization of prepubescent minors, the entire gay community can go directly to hell.

Huh. I'd heard about the drag kids, and seen bits here and there on the web in apparently serious articles trying to "normalize" pedophilia.

As I've periodically stated, I don't care what anybody does in the privy of their own home with consenting adults. But there are lines not to cross, because if you do, you'll make me care. And you don't want to make me care.

More "your speech is violence" rhetoric.

Gillibrand apparently got the 65K $1.00 donations she needs to get on the Democratic debate stage. Which means there are at least 65K people in the U.S. who are beneath contempt.

Gillibrand simply doesn't know how to impress people. At least not most people. On Twitter, she is by far the most relentless spammer currently running for the Democratic nomination. Her ads pop up in my Twitter stream far more often than all other Democratic candidates combined.

It is a shame she got the 65K. That is basically rewarding her for spamming. Moreover, her ads are duplicitous. You're invited to click on "Yes" or "No," when you're asked if you support her, but regardless of where you click, you're sent to a website begging for donations.

Though I do enjoy seeing that responses to her are over 99% negative. Very rarely do I see any positive responses to her. Most are just the "hell to the no!" variety, but many of them are not forgiving of her calling Al Franken to resign.

And the videos she shares are absolutely embarrassing. She is a tireless panderer. I saw a video of her delivering a sermon to Al Sharpton's congregation, where she was paraphrasing Ephesians 6:10-17.

And all I could hear from her was, "Okay, this is what I must do to get the black vote."

Then another video of her in a rainbow t-shirt in a gay bar. Again, the internal monologue was basically saying, "Okay, this is what I must do to get the gay vote."

As a gay man, am I supposed to be impressed at the sight of a 52-year-old woman in a gay bar throwing back shots?

If she wanted to impress me, she's not going to do it by proving she's an "ally" by hobnobbing with me in gay bars. Let's see her dressed like a Senator should be, addressing Senate over some issue that's important to gay people.

I R A Darth Aggie:

Huh. I'd heard about the drag kids, and seen bits here and there on the web in apparently serious articles trying to "normalize" pedophilia.

As I've periodically stated, I don't care what anybody does in the privy of their own home with consenting adults. But there are lines not to cross, because if you do, you'll make me care. And you don't want to make me care.

To be fair, I don't know that anyone is sexually molesting these "drag kids," but it wouldn't surprise me. Disgust me, yes, but not surprise me.

I do not want to see ten-year-olds at gay pride events or in gay clubs, dressed in drag, dancing like drag queens (which is to say, like Las Vegas showgirls) while grown men stuff dollar bills in his waistband.

As a gay man, am I supposed to be impressed at the sight of a 52-year-old woman in a gay bar throwing back shots? ~ Patrick at June 12, 2019 8:07 AM

Don't forget the swaying, dancing, and the "gay pride!" air high five - all while wearing a rainbow "Love is Brave" t-shirt.

If she wanted to impress me, she's not going to do it by proving she's an "ally" by hobnobbing with me in gay bars. Let's see her dressed like a Senator should be, addressing Senate over some issue that's important to gay people. ~ Patrick at June 12, 2019 8:07 AM

Why is it so difficult for presidential candidates to try to present themselves as presidential. Yes, Trump blurred the line, but at least he was always in a suit and tie and drew the line at drunken frivolity.

Elizabeth Warren's "I think I'll get me a beer" schtick was the same sort of pandering to the working classes; as was Kamala Harris' jerk chicken marinade fiasco with the brand new apron.

I think the Dems are drawing the wrong conclusion (again) from losing the earlier election. Trump, who had done WWE promos with his buddy, Vince McMahon, and did reality TV, related well to the working classes (of all races). In addition, he had the fairly wooden Hillary Clinton as an opponent; Hillary, who related well to no one.

As a result, all the Democrat candidates in this election cycle are desperate to show that they're the kind of folks you could sit down and have a drink with, whether you're gay, black, feminist, or whatever "progressive" identity group they need.

The Dems did the same thing with John Kerry's "reporting for duty" schtick in 2004. The pro-military Bush beat the rather-wooden Al Gore in 2000, so John Kerry tried to portray himself as a war hero and beer drinker. The Dems still lost, because they took the wrong lesson away from the earlier loss. Drinking beer does not automatically make you working class, especially when you're being chastised for parking your yacht in another state to avoid taxes. And it wasn't Bush's drinking or war record that got him elected.

Bush was authentic in a way that neither Gore nor Kerry were. Same with Trump vs. Hillary. And it looks like it will be that way with Trump vs. Whomever in 2020.

"Neuces (Texas) County Commissioner Carolyn Vaughn refused to sign a Pride Week proclamation honoring the victims of the Pulse Night Club shooting."

Wondering whence the specialness appeared. How is a victim honorable?

Radwaste: Wondering whence the specialness appeared. How is a victim honorable?

I'm sure they'd agree.

The point of honoring them is not because they're honorable. In all likelihood, since it's a gay nightclub, many of these victims were probably doing rather dishonorable things just before they became aware that they were in mortal danger.

The point in honoring them is that homophobia is very real and it's often deadly. Gays are, after all, the group most likely to be targeted by hate crimes.

How we should address this problem -- or even if we should address this problem -- is another discussion. We honor them by at least acknowledging the social ill that instigated their murderer.

For my own part, I think it's up to gay individuals (like myself) to acknowledge that not everyone is cool with that. To recognize that some people are vehemently opposed to that, even violently so, and act accordingly.

Not every despicable thing that people do requires government involvement or new laws.

When Rebecca Ann Sedwick committed suicide, people got outraged and demanded the criminalization of cyberbullying. I've experienced much worse in my life in the form of bullying that have someone send me a nasty private message telling me to "drink bleach and die."

I'm not prepared to criminalize free speech. I think we do this because we're not prepared to acknowledge our own complicity. Why didn't Rebecca avail herself of Facebook's block feature? Every social media platform I've seen allows you to block people you don't like. Why did Rebecca's parents not teach her to use this?

For that matter, why were Rebecca's parents allowing her on Facebook in the first place, which was against Facebook's rules? Facebook requires that all Facebook account holders be at least fourteen and Rebecca was twelve.

Why was Michelle Carter charged with involuntary manslaughter? She did not force Conrad Roy to get into that truck.

I think the reason we're so determined to criminalize every instance of despicable behavior is that when our conscience starts telling us that we should have done more for the troubled people in our lives, we need someone else to blame. Whatever it takes to keep us from pointing the accusing finger of blame at ourselves, where it most likely belongs.

As for The Pulse Nightclub shooting, we have laws in place that punish murderers. That's all I ask. It makes no difference to me if the person who murders me calls me a "faggot" as he's pulling the trigger. Dead is dead. And criminalizing speech is not going to make me rest easier in death.

It's enough that people be aware of his motives.

The anniversary of the Internet's death.

https://twitter.com/Holden114/status/1138416716415942662

Fairly well said Patrick.

> Fairly well said

Imperious little spud, arncha?

So we began today by rehabilitating one of the most notorious books of the last generation; Next, we can brutalize one of the most respected.

> at least he was always
> in a suit and tie and
> drew the line at drunken
> frivolity.

T's big brother died young of alcoholism, bringing shame to the family. (Imagine.)

During the campaign there was tale of DT harshly, almost violently humiliating his drunken son in front of his frat brothers.

Trump's a repre-fucking-hensible twat-nostril, but the problem isn't inebriation and the problem isn't a mistake: He *means* to do this shit.

R.I.P. #BraveLikeGabe

Gabriele Grunewald, Pro Runner Who Raced Through Treatment for Rare Cancer, Dies at 32

Social Media Companies Need to Stand Up Against Left

Socialism, the True Gospel of Greed

(That it is.)

Naw Crid. I could never hope to be as pompous as you. Those are heights I dare not dream of.

Trump's a repre-fucking-hensible twat-nostril, but the problem isn't inebriation and the problem isn't a mistake: He *means* to do this shit. ~ Crid at June 12, 2019 5:38 PM

Never said Trump's behavior was admirable, but it was authentic. What we saw of Donald on the campaign trail was the real Trump, warts and all. What we saw of Hillary on the campaign trail was a manufactured image, tailored to whatever crowd she was addressing next.

If the Dems want to win in 2020, they need an authentic candidate; doesn't matter if it's an elitist snob or proletarian wanker. I don't think they have a candidate in their stable who can come across as authentic.

In addition to the candidate being authentic, Trump rallies were fun. Hillary rallies were not. Humor has been a Democrat weapon for so long that Republican politicians have forgotten how to have fun. Excerpted from The American Spectator entitled Republicans Aren't Funny:

From the very beginning of the campaign, Trump realized that Romney/Ryan’s brand of solemnity doesn’t overcome liberal mockery, especially when that solemnity issues from the mouths of DC politicians who have absolutely no claim to victim status. Romney-Ryan lost, Trump won, but Establishment Republicans haven’t learned the lesson. They didn’t register how much fun people had at Trump’s rallies, or how much his jibes (“fake news,” “Pocahontas”) countered the jibes they’d endured for so long (“Teabaggers,” “wingnuts,”…). Trump’s success in spite of all the times the media declared him done — for instance, after Trump in South Carolina called the Iraq invasion a disaster — proved that a significant voting bloc was waiting to be inspired by a leader who could make them laugh. Ordinary citizens felt the bliss of candor when Candidate Trump groaned in 2015, “I am so tired of this politically-correct crap!”

AND

...liberals decry President Trump’s un-presidential vulgarity not because of their high-minded image of the presidency. They do it because he has stolen some of their weaponry.

With their current crop of uninspiring pre-fab candidates, the Democrats have begun to lose their edge in fun and humor. Their Trump jokes "aren’t very clever and they’re so predictable that they aren’t funny, either."

There's nothing 'authentic' about any of these people...

Though the word "deplorables" may be the expression of sincere interior loathing that put the 21st century in motion.

Trump is not about authenticity.

I didn’t say Trump isn’t a lying creep. I said his persona on the campaign trail was his, not one stage-managed to get votes. Lying creep that he is, his was the only campaign persona of either major party that was the same both in public and in private.

And the Democrats are still running stage-managed personalities. They’re taking the wrong lessons from their 2016 loss. People are onto the stage-managing.

And no, there’s nothing to find admirable in modern politicians, even the ones entering politics late in their careers from a supposedly successful stint in the private sector; perhaps especially those.

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. [...] To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. [...] To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.“ ~ Douglas Adams

Affirmed.

One of the best habits of a lifetime, with deeper rewards than even disciplined nutrition and exercise, is a reflexive hypersensitivity to the language of "governing" and "leadership."

I don't know how it happened in my case… Certainly the subversive media of boomer adolescence, from its tawdry forms (Mad, etc.) straight up through the Huron hippie stuff, had something to do with it. But I'm quite certain that a lot of it came also from my social studies education in public schools. The history reading was full of clues that my life was going to be my own test and responsibility, and the best judgment on my outcome would not be made on the basis of how much others liked me. Not even the selfsame teachers who presented the readings.

You are a fucking American. You don't need to be directed, and we don't need leaders. You don't need to be constrained, and we don't need to be governed.

We need to be served. They used to call it public service... They don't anymore.

I think the boldness of the American Revolution surpassed the speed of the English tongue: The word "government" was so ingrained in everyone's understanding of the largest mutual projects that far too many lost sight of its irony when applied in the United States.

That *certainly* seems to be the case in Britain. Ceaseless chatter about Queens and Princes and Lords and dukes not only strengthens the tawdry appeal from centuries of petty literature & historical drama; That language nourishes the infantile hope in every Subject(!) that he or she might deserve a free ride in a velvet chariot.

(Anybody remember Tresidder? She used to get confused about this all the time.)

And of course, all the new arrivals in their countryside come from that tradition as well.

America is too hip for the room.

Well put Conan. And that is why Sanders was the better candidate last time and appears to be the better candidate this time too. Which is rather sad. Sanders is a loony toon full of authentic communist gibberish. But the key word there is authentic. Sanders I at least mostly believe what he says. I don't like or support it. But I at least believe that is what Sanders is all about. Out of the other Democrat candidates it doesn't matter what they say. They lie so frequently and obviously there isn't any reason to pay attention to their words. They mean nothing.

Sanders I at least mostly believe what he says. I don't like or support it. But I at least believe that is what Sanders is all about. ~ Ben at June 13, 2019 7:28 AM

The problem i have with Sanders is the unacknowledged hypocrisy.

He flies on private jets, owns three houses, failed to address allegation of sexual harassment on his 2016 campaign staff, and has only ever lived off the public dole. Yet, he claims to be for the working class and against the 1%, for the environment, and for the protection and elevation of women in the public sphere. He's made a long career out of those things. And he's somehow become rich while only ever working as a "public servant."

So, no, I don't think he believes what he preaches. "Democratic socialism" is his path to power, not his religion.

I think he does believe what he preaches. But I also don't think he is that bright. Sanders has failed at pretty much every single thing he's ever done. I don't find him being unable to actually practice what he firmly believes unusual.

But lets put the hypocrisy to the side for the moment. (I don't disagree on it being hypocritical.) When Sanders says he wants to implement a policy change I expect he actually will try to do it. When Biden does the same thing I don't care. Maybe Biden will. Maybe he won't. Him saying most anything doesn't matter because he doesn't follow through on his words. Neither does Warren or Harris. During Hillary's campaign her complete unbelievability was a key component for both sides. The Republicans complained about how you can't trust her. At the same time the Democrats said don't worry about whatever unpopular positions Hillary just took. She is just pandering for votes. Key thing being neither her proponents or opponents believed a single word she said.
Her words didn't matter. The same can be said for most of the current Democrat hopefuls.

That is what sets Sanders apart from the crowd.

Ben: I think he does believe what he preaches.

Undoubtedly. You're talking about someone who has never met a conspiracy theory he doesn't like.

Sorry I'm late getting back to this, but if Conan's still around, I would point out that while he keeps trying to say why Trump, I would point out that he lost the popular vote.

In presidential elections, instances which someone wins the popular vote but still loses the election has happened only five times in our nation's history. And each time, it's happened to a Democrat (sort of).

But I will let conspiracy theorists hang their hats on sinister goings on behind the scene. The lovely thing about being a conspiracy theorist is that everything can be turned into evidence. Even a consummate lack of evidence in support of a conspiracy theory becomes proof that there was a whitewash.

But returning to Hillary, out of all the presidential candidates ever to lose an election but still win the popular vote, she has, by far, won the popular vote by the widest margin with over 2.6 million more votes.

I would point out that he lost the popular vote. ~ Patrick at June 13, 2019 5:25 PM

And that matters not at all.

First, we don't elect the president by a single nationwide popular vote. We elect the president by 51 statewide popular votes and she lost more of them than he did.

Second, his campaign strategy was to win a majority of those 51 popular votes while hers was to win a European-style parliamentary election. Apparently, she was running for president of Sweden while he was running for president of the United States.

Third, because our election is 51 popular votes, voters in certain one-party states don't show up to the polls (e.g., Republicans in California), feeling their votes would be lost in an avalanche of votes for the opposition. In a true popular vote, those voters would still show up to the polls. So we don't know that she would have won a true popular vote, although her margin of victory in winning more nationwide individual votes does seem to indicate that she would have.

Finally, had she been less stage-managed and hostile to the Great Unwashed, she might have won a few more of those 51 popular votes and, by doing that, the overall election.

But returning to Hillary, out of all the presidential candidates ever to lose an election but still win the popular vote, she has, by far, won the popular vote by the widest margin with over 2.6 million more votes. ~ Patrick at June 13, 2019 5:25 PM

Five times in US history a candidate has won the popular vote and lost the election:

• Andrew Jackson in 1824 (to John Quincy Adams)
• Samuel Tilden in 1876 (to Rutherford B. Hayes)
• Grover Cleveland in 1888 (to Benjamin Harrison)
• Al Gore in 2000 (to George W. Bush)
• Hillary Clinton in 2016 (to Donald J. Trump)

Hillary's "widest margin" loses a little luster when you consider that it's mostly up against 19th century elections; an era when the US voting population was much smaller.

No one here is arguing that Trump is a popular president, or even a good one; but, the Democratic clown car is full of pandering jackasses with focus-grouped political positions, while he's still the genuine Trump; and that may be enough to get him re-elected.

"No one here is arguing that Trump is a popular president, or even a good one"

I'll argue that one Conan. I'm pretty happy with Trump. He has kept more of his campaign promises than most.

"Undoubtedly. You're talking about someone who has never met a conspiracy theory he doesn't like."

Agreed Patrick. The man is a true communist. And communists come in only two flavors, the horribly corrupt and the horribly stupid. Bernie is mostly on the stupid side. The hypocrisy Conan point out about the man is true of all communists.

Conan, I agree with you original point about the overly and obviously managed candidates. The pandering is so bad and so blatant it looks worse to me than when Hillary did it. Does anyone care what Kamala Harris says? She is a Hillary knockoff. Completely corrupt and a pathological lier. I've seen people pushing Amy Klobuchar due to her private actions over that mine thing. But she falls into the same trap Biden has fallen into. Her private words and her public words don't match. Beto the fake Mexican? Warren the fake Indian? Buttigieg the fake Christian?

With Trump you had an ugly package. But that package was the same one public or private. 'Grab 'em by the pussy' had no effect because everyone knew he was that kind of person before it came out. It changed nothing. Like him or not you at least knew what you were getting. I feel the same way about Sanders. Like him or not you at least know what you are voting for. By all means point out another Democrat candidate like that.