Arthur Brooks: 'Narcissism is Increasing. So You're Not so Special'

Source:AEI- Arthur Brooks with a humorous look at narcissism.

Source:The Daily Review

"My teenage son recently informed me that there is an Internet quiz to test oneself for narcissism. His friend had just taken it. “How did it turn out?” I asked. “He says he did great!” my son responded. “He got the maximum score!”

When I was a child, no one outside the mental health profession talked about narcissism; people were more concerned with inadequate self-esteem, which at the time was believed to lurk behind nearly every difficulty. Like so many excesses of the 1970s, the self-love cult spun out of control and is now rampaging through our culture like Godzilla through Tokyo."

From AEI

The internet and even the social media revolution by in large have been great things. I’m not a blogger without it, but with every new way of people expressing themselves comes more ways of people showing more of themselves than others would like to see. And to think more of themselves than they actually are. With social media and internet wave has also come with an increase in how others live and how they present themselves. And of course I’m talking celebrity culture and tabloid news. Or what I like to call tabloid TV which is called reality TV. But anyone who is actually familiar with so-called reality TV and how it operates knows that there isn’t much that is real about. Participants are actually encouraged to act out, not be themselves which if different.

We now live in a world where not everybody, but everyone who thinks they’re awesome or whatever and with pop culture has to have whatever is new and has to have it as soon as it’s new. Because if they don’t, they believe they’re so not awesome or hot or whatever. Because even though they just got a new i-phone (to use as an example) it’s not the latest i-phone. And their friends who perhaps they just met on Facebook will think they so yesterday or whatever. So we have a culture that is now dominated by celebrities and new technology and a young generation that for the most part is only interested in those things. When they’re not protesting against the Washington Redskins or what people wear for Halloween or whatever the latest political correctness fad is.

We live in a world where people want to be like whoever their latest favorite celebrity is, who also happens to be a narcissist in many cases. And they think they’re as awesome as that celebrity and live their lives as if they’re trying out for the latest reality/tabloid TV show. So of course they’re going to live like the whole world revolves around them with a giant size mirror for walls in their parent’s basement where they currently live. And that is another thing. We have a generation of narcissists who aren’t do very well economically right now and they present themselves as if they’re the hottest celebrity in Hollywood. Even if they’re currently living in their parent’s basement in Canton, Ohio. (No offense to Canton) With a college degree worth nothing, or having to drop out of college, because they could no longer afford their student loans.

Once someone thinks they’re the center of the world, they lose touch with reality and Planet Earth. And are so far out-of-touch that they couldn’t get back in touch with a Star Trek cell phone. The most important tool that Americans will ever have in life is the truth. Especially about themselves and always know exactly who you are. Your weakness’ and yes your strengths. So you know where you’re solid and where you need self-improvement. So you never are out-of-touch with reality. And you take things for what they are. You don’t view reaching a thousand followers on Twitter or Instagram as a major life achievement. Especially if you’re currently unemployed or can’t pay your own bills. Which might be why you have so many social media followers, because you have too much free time. Self-confidence generally speaking is a good thing. But only when it’s justified. 

The National Interest: Daniel R. DePetris: 10 Questions to Ask Before Intervening in Libya Again

Source:The National Interest-

Source:The New Democrat 

It’s not that intervening in Libya in 2011 was the wrong decision. The American, European, as well as Arab intervention there saved as many as a hundred-thousand lives from the Libyan governmental forces. It was the aftermath of that war where the United States, European Union and Arab League, all failed. We knocked out the Qadhafi Regime and handed the country over to Libyan rebels that simply weren’t ready to govern and defend a country the size of Iran and Saudi Arabia in size. The Libyan military and security forces, including law enforcement, simply weren’t ready to defend this large country even with only six-million people. Plus the fact that the National Transitional Council in Libya, only represented at most half of the country and they weren’t ready to govern and defend the entire country.

So now Libya has essentially been divided in half with an east and a west. Without any true national government. Not all that different in how America looked in the 1860s before the Civil War. Or how Vietnam looked before the Communist North took over the entire country in the mid 1970s. And because of this power vacuüm ISIS has moved into Libya and about ready to control part of this large country, because again there is no real national military, national law enforcement agency and no national government, to push back and prevent ISIS from coming in. Whatever you think of the Iraq War and I’m against it, but America didn’t bail after we knocked out the Hussein Regime. We stayed, stayed, stayed and are still there. The Iraq War would have been a hell of a lot worst for Iraq had we not stayed after we knocked out the Hussein Regime in 2003.

I believe America, Europe and the Arab League, should and need to intervene in Libya again, with coöperation from the two warring government’s there, but to put it simply we need to do it right this time. Destroy ISIS and whatever other terrorists group are there, but then stay to help a unified Libya develop their own military and law enforcement agencies and national government. As well as the provincial government’s there so they can govern and defend themselves in the future. And that would mean bringing the two government’s there together and forming a national unity government. With one executive, one legislative and one national judicial branch. As well as one government for each province and locality so this large country and govern and defend itself. And no longer be vulnerable to rebels and terrorists groups.

Libya, is in America’s and Europe’s interest, because ISIS is now there and they’re a threat to us. Not the same threat as lets say Russia, but they could hit one of our embassies or hit America inside of the United States. Libya is also in America’s and Europe’s interest, because its’ such a large country. Only Algeria has more land than Libya in Western Arabia. And it’s simply ‘too big to fail.’ (A phrase from the Great Recession) And we need to at least try to make this country work which is what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan with limited success and are still trying to help those big countries succeed as well. The West and the Arab states, can’t afford to have a large country that is in chaos that is being run by terrorists, because we and them could get hit by those groups. And the United States and European Union should help Libya in the air with the Arab League on the ground, to destroy ISIS.
Source:CATO Institute

The Federalist: Lewis M. Andrews: Political Correctness Is A Mask For Far-Leftists Intellectual Insecurity

Source:The Federalist-

Source:The Daily Review

I agree that political correctness is a mask for insecurity on the Far-Left, as well as the Far-Right. When Neoconservatives hear things that they view as Un-American or immoral and want stricken down and prevented from ever being heard again. But with the Far-Left they view some world in their Utopian dreamland where people they view as insecure and have been persecuted in the past to the point that they deserve governmental special protection. To the point that minority groups shouldn’t have to even hear criticism about them even when it’s true. That the only people who should be criticized are ‘The Man’, (meaning the White man) Christian-Conservatives and even right-wingers who are minorities. And they should be portrayed simply as ‘White people’ with dark complexions.

Who wouldn’t want to live in a world where everything is swell. (To quote The Beaver) Where everything is perfect, where people regardless of race or ethnicity, never have to hear anything negative about them, because everything is swell. They’re perfect. No such thing as teenage pregnancies or poverty. But that is not the world we’ll ever live in, at least in my lifetime. We have a large religious-right in this world, both Christian and Islamic. And to say that only Christian-Conservatives are bigots towards women and gays and leave Islamists off the hook, is denying facts that are right in front of you. To say that only Anglo-Saxon redneck jokes are acceptable, but if you make fun of African-American ghetto people and impersonate people from that community, you’re a bigot, but jokes and impressions of rednecks are perfectly acceptable, is a form of bigotry.

If you believe only the Christian-Right and rednecks, are the real bigots and Neoconservatives in general, but Islamists who have similar positions towards gays, women, as well as ethnic and racial minorities and in some cases would go even further and are more authoritarian and would put gays to death simply for being gay, make the case. Try to make the case that only Caucasians have bigoted views. That only the Christian-Right hates gays and believes women should be subservient to men and good luck with that. Perhaps you’ll win the lottery and win a million dollars. Become a millionaire on Wall Street by only investing only five bucks. Never get wet in a Seattle rain storm, or ever see snow in Minnesota again, even if you live there year-round, etc. Maybe you’ll just become the most bless person in the world as well.

Library of Law & Liberty: John O. McGinnis- The Political Dangers of Rising Political Correctness

Source: Library of Law & Liberty-

Source:The Daily Review

I have several issues with political correctness, but I believe my main issues gets to the Marxian, or Marxist angle of it. That suggest freedom of thought and speech is somehow dangerous. Which is how authoritarian regimes stay in power by preventing their regimes from having to hear from any real opposition from inside of their country. The more that communications has advanced just in the last twenty-five years makes that even more difficult. But for the life of me I can’t understand why someone who calls them self a Liberal or Progressive, would be arguing for something that is illiberal and regressive. Which is preventing free thought and education from flowing to the people these illiberal’s say they care about.

The other angle about political correctness that I hate is the pure hypocrisy of it. You make fun of the Christian-Right about their bigoted views about gays and their place in the world for women, you’re funny and progressive. You make the same jokes about the Islamic-Right or Islamists, who in some cases are even further right than the Christian-Right on those issues, you’re a bigot. You make fun of Anglo-Saxon rednecks jokes and call rednecks Jim Bob and Mary Lou and accuse them of having kids with their cousins and make kissing cousins jokes, you’re funny. You make African-American ghetto jokes about people named Tyrone Jackson and Sheneka Jackson and jokes about all the different fathers that Sheneka has had for each baby she has, you’re a bigot.

The phone booth size political correctness world that illiberal’s live in, (phone booths are booths that people use to make phone calls in) jokes about minorities and criticism even if true about is considered bigoted. But jokes about majorities even if wrong and highlighting stereotypes about Caucasians, especially Southern Anglo-Protestants, are considered progressive. Americans who can’t take a joke, should stay away from comedy, or only listen to illiberal New-Left comedians. And while they’re doing that maybe they’ll be able to learn to walk with both legs again after they get their foot out of their ass. Maybe they’ll drink more alcohol and less caffeine and take up pot and learn to relax. Perhaps go outside and see a world where not everyone agrees with them. Which is what liberal democracy is about the right for people to freely express themselves and share their viewpoints.

Remember we’re talking about liberal democracy. Not illiberal democracy or Marxist Statism. We’re talking about a society where people can freely express themselves and be very informative. Or risk sounding like a complete asshole who know everything about nothing and nothing about anything of value. And in a society like that you’re going to hear things that might offend you. That you might disagree with and even find hateful. You’re also going to hear things that are inspiring and very informative. You would be wise to pay attention to the hard information. Get out of your coffee houses and put your i-phone down from time to time and you might actually learn something. Even accidentally, but you would be doing yourself a lot of good. While you put the asshole in their place for being exactly that, but not trying to silence them simply for being ignorant.
Source:Robin Hood UKIP

AEI Ideas: James Pethokoukis- 'If You Want Government to Spend Like a Nordic Nation, it Also Has to Tax Like One'

Source:The New Democrat- American Socialists, or European Socialists?

Source:The New Democrat 

"One difference between these two candidates’ [Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders] platforms and the social-democratic agenda in your book is that both are talking a lot about raising taxes on the rich, while in the Nordic countries, the middle and working classes pay more in taxes, too.

The tax strategy that these countries have tended to pursue is to spread the tax burden around, and in fact, their overall tax systems are pretty much flat. Almost everybody pays roughly the same share of their pre-tax income in taxes. You have a progressive income tax, but that’s offset by regressive payroll taxes, and especially regressive consumption taxes, which are very large in these countries." 

From AEI Ideas 

"Self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders on his 2016 presidential primary challenge against Hillary Clinton." 

Source:ABC News- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) the only self-described Democratic Socialist member of Congress. But not the only Socialist in Congress.

From ABC News

One thing with having a not only a Democratic Socialist, but a self-described Democratic Socialist running for president for the Democratic Party and doing well, (Bernie Sanders is not the first Democratic Socialist Democrat to run for president) is that you have someone with the political guts to say, ‘taxes will not only go up if I’m president, but they’ll go up on the middle class.’ 

Bernie Sanders, is a very smart guy whatever you think of his politics. He knows that there’s only so much that you can tax the rich and only so much the IRS will ever see from that for a couple of reasons. The rich won’t want to pay all of these new taxes, especially to pay for the cost of living of middle-income workers. And they’ll send their money oversees to countries where they wouldn’t be taxed as high. Senator Sanders, knows this, but the question is will he share that with voters.

So of course middle class taxes would go up in a democratic socialist administration, if somehow a President Sanders could get his programs through Congress. A new Democratic Senate wouldn’t be enough, he would need a new Democratic House as well. With a lot of new so-called Progressive Caucus members, or Democratic Socialists being elected to both chambers, which won’t happen. I mean Paul Ryan will be Speaker of the House in the next Congress. Even if Democrats win back the Senate in the next Congress. 

But putting that aside voters who are looking at Bernie Sanders, especially middle-income and lower middle-income, people making lets fifty-thousand-dollars a year, or less, need to know what voting for a Democratic Socialist for president comes with. A bigger more centralized government in Washington. With a smaller private sector and higher taxes on everyone.

As Jim Pethokoukis mentioned in his blog post, taxes in Scandinavia even if their welfare states are progressive, are regressive. They’re roughly flat and come with high sales and payroll taxes, to go along with flatter income taxes. Where everyone pays taxes including lower-income workers. So forget about the ten-percent tax rate in America which is our lowest tax rate. That would be more like 20-25, maybe, 15, would be probably be the best to hope for. 

But if you’re making forty-thousand-dollars a year right now and are lets say a teacher, or police officer, you’re currently paying ten-percent. Under a President Sanders if he got his economic plan through Congress, that worker would at least be looking at a fifty-percent tax increase. With the promise of better public services. Even if they can no longer make those decisions for themselves in the private sector.

Socialists (so-called Progressives in America) point to Scandinavia all the time that there high tax, big centralized government, big welfare states work so well over there. So we should do that here. While always leaving out some really huge facts. Let's take Norway and Sweden: physically big countries roughly, especially Sweden which is roughly the size of Turkey and Afghanistan. But in Sweden’s case only have about ten-million people. Sweden is also a large energy producer with oil and gas, the same thing with Norway. They’re not just large energy producers, but large energy exporters. 

Scandinavia government’s bring in a tone of revenue for their government’s and can afford to be very socialist and generous’ with their taxpayers money. America, huge country with a huge population, that still imports energy from other counties. We can’t afford to that generous with our taxpayers money.

For the life of me I don’t understand why Hillary Clinton is not making this argument with blue-collar voters. Whether it was in Iowa, or New Hampshire and wouldn’t she then take that to South Carolina and Nevada. And tell voters in these states that they would be looking at steep tax increases even if a President Sanders could get his economic plan through Congress. That this plan is not just radical, but it's unrealistic, but it also wouldn’t work. 

American companies and foreign companies, would conclude that America is simply too expensive to invest in. But not only that, because their workers, who still have jobs, because their employers managed to stay in the country, don’t have to spending money to buy our products anyway. And then Hillary should say she has a much better plan for the middle class. That is about higher wages and job creation. Not higher taxes and bigger government. But maybe this is what she’s struggling right now.

Steven Crowder: 'MYTH BUSTED: ACTUALLY, YES, HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST LIBERAL'

Source:Quote of The Day- Socialist-Nationalist Adolf Hitler.

Source:The Daily Review 

"A favorite tactic employed by leftists is to describe the Nazis as "right wing," with Adolf Hitler, their leader, as the grand leader of this "right wing" movement. Rewriting history is pretty common for leftists, as their history is littered with injustice (the KKK was founded by Democrats, did you know?). Injustices they claim to fight against today. Awkward.

But thanks to this nifty thing called "history" in combination with "the internet," we can bust this myth once and for all. Thoroughly. Or until a leftist insists on ignoring it. Then we'll hold them down and tape their eyes open. Just kidding, that's only what a leftist would do. For those who'd rather watch this column in video form, there's one below. For those who prefer reading, yuck. But scroll down." 

From Steven Crowder 

"A favorite tactic employed by leftists is to describe the Nazis as “right wing,” with of course, Adolf Hitler as their leader. Rewriting history is pretty common for leftists, but thanks to this nifty thing called “history” in combination with “the internet,” we can bust this myth once and for all...  

Source:Steven Crowder- calling Adolf Hitler a Liberal. Give me a break!

From Steven Crowder

I hope Steven Crowder isn’t a professor of political history, or German history, because his students would leave his class knowing less than what they knew going in. Crowder, knows less about Socialist Liberals and socialist liberalism, then Ben Carson knows about foreign policy and Donald Trump, knows about national security and Norwegians know about NASCAR and Texas rodeos, combined. 

Adolf Hitler, wasn’t just a Socialist, but a Marxist. Nothing liberal, or democratic about the man. Socialist Liberals, believe in democracy and personal freedom, with a big welfare state when it comes to economic policy, but not a Marxist command and control government-run economy. 

This idea Crowder throws out that Hitler was an inspiration for the KKK and other Southern Anglo-Saxon racist Democrats, again, not Liberal Democrats, but right-wing, Neo-Confederate Democrats who are and would be Far-Right Republicans today.

Hyper-partisan Tea Party Republicans, seem to believe that the only way they can look good is if Democrats and people they see as Liberals look bad. So they don’t talk about communism and socialism anymore, but instead one big mother ideology that they call liberalism, that they probably made up when they were getting high in their pickup trucks in South Carolina, or some place. They may officially be against marijuana and legalization, except for themselves. 

But of course the New-Right in America always leaves out actual liberal ideas and values that most of the country including Conservatives actually support: equal rights, equality under law, tolerance, judging people individually and not as members of groups, personal freedom, economic opportunity for everyone, public infrastructure, and education, etc.

Adolf Hitler, was monster who didn’t believe in liberal values and conservative values either. Who just didn’t hate Jews, but Slavs, Gypsies and I’m sure Africans as well. Not that Europe had much of an African population back then. This idea that any of these hateful policies would be liberal, when he was completely against the actual liberal values ( that I mentioned in the last paragraph) would be like saying the Saudi Kingdom is run by Conservatives, because they have a state religion and are not just fundamentalist, but have a state religion and treat women as second-class citizens, as well as ethnic minorities in Saudi Arabia. When the fact is Conservatives not only believe in a republic, but Separation of Church and State, as well as Freedom of Religion. Which all includes all religions. 

The Tea Party, just sounds like hyper-partisan desperate liars, when they need to compare Liberals with a evil man like Adolf Hitler.

If you want to call Adolf Hitler a Liberal, don’t wine when someone on the Left who might be as stupid as you (and perhaps you could settle that in a debate) compares Ronald Reagan with a Saudi, or Iranian theocrat. Because Ron Reagan was pretty religious, at least after he bombed in Hollywood as a b-actor and got into politics instead. Which many times actually has less truth in it than Hollywood. 

If you’re going to describe someone’s politics, here’s an idea: know what their politics first and then be able to explain them. Instead of comparing saying everyone on the Left is a Liberal, or everyone on the Right is a Conservative. I realize that could cost you ratings and subscriptions from people who were passed up when brains were being passed out. But at least you could be educating people instead of contributing to the state of ignorance in America.

Notes On Liberty: Edwin Van de Haar- Liberalism & Sovereignty

Source:The New Democrat-

Source:The New Democrat

Here’s another interesting piece and discussion from Notes on Liberty. And something The New Democrat debates all the time in the Classical Liberalism group on Google Plus. If you’re on Google Plus which we are and are interested in classical liberalism, I suggest you check that group out. Just look for the photo of the great Classical Liberal Milton Friedman.

Because when you’re talking about liberalism, what are you talking about exactly. Are actually talking about liberalism, or are you talking about libertarianism, or socialism, or Marxism. Because these are all different philosophies. Or are you talking about socialist liberalism, which combines social liberalism with a heavy belief in personal freedom. But with economic socialism and a huge welfare state that is financed through heavy taxation.

I and this blog fall into the Social Liberal camp. A heavy belief in both personal and economic autonomy, but with a limited government there to not only protect our individual rights and freedom, but to help people in need help themselves so they can to also live in freedom. So we separate from the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist, or Socialist Liberal camp, but also separate from the Ron Paul Libertarian camp. Where government is there just to protect the borders, defend the homeland and prosecute criminals when they hurt innocent people.

Social Liberals, share things in common with Libertarians. Because both factions believe in a lot of personal freedom short of hurting innocent people, but also holding people personally accountable for their own decisions. And we both believe in a lot of economic freedom. With low taxation to encourage economic investment and success. But we apply the don’t treat on me belief to both social and economic policy. As long as you aren’t hurting anyone from either a personal and economic standpoint, your business is just that. Social Liberals believe in a regulatory state not to run business’s, but to protect consumers and workers. And that is where we separate from Libertarians.

And I could get into people who are called Modern Progressives, who believe in both the welfare state and the nanny state, but now also have a speech state. That says government should decide what speech is appropriate and what isn’t. The so-called political correctness warriors. So-called Progressives that believe its the job of government not to expand freedom, but to be the national parents of the country and even protect us from ourselves. But this philosophy has nothing to do with liberalism and looks more like Neo-Communism, or Marxism, with a capitalist economic system and political freedom. When you’re talking about individual freedom it really gets to social liberalism, libertarianism, what is called conservative libertarianism and to a certain extent even socialist liberalism.