Friday, November 22, 2019

Michael Moore: 'I Am the Center. I Am the Mainstream Now of the Democratic Party'

 Article by Rick Moran in "PJMedia":

Radical-left filmmaker Michael Moore said on an MSNBC panel discussion after the Democratic debate that his views now represent the "center" and "mainstream" of the Democratic Party.

He also said that “The majority of Americans agree with me and Bernie on all the issues," which makes the "center" of the Democratic Party somewhere to the left of Karl Marx. "Bernie" is, of course, Senator Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist and one of the top contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Democrats should probably tell Moore to put a sock in it, or he'll lose them the election.

"The American people have moved left. So, the center is now more of these sorts of things. This is what we believe. So, when you say, like, for instance, with Joe Biden said tonight, 160 million Americans want to keep their private insurance. Says who? Are you actually talking to people about this? Yes, they want the insurance that whatever we have with the new Medicare For All is essentially just a transfer from what we have with their good union health care, it’s going to be that but it’s going to be better for you, you’re not going to have copays and deductibles — fine."
"The average Democrat and the average American does not like the health insurance company. They hate Aetna and Cigna and United Health Care. These are people that they’re fighting with to get them to pay a bill that they won’t pay. The health care industry has caused more pain and harm and anxiety for the American people than practically any other industry. And we should never side with candidates that are — say we’re going to keep this private profit-making thing going."

Americans may hate the big health insurance companies but do you know what they hate and fear more? A titanic government-run health insurance program that will ration care and give us multi-trillion-dollar deficits far into the future -- after jacking up taxes on everyone.

Medicare for all will end up handing the election to Donald Trump. And Moore also has downright weird notions of the "center."

Moore then suggested that if Democrats want to beat President Donald Trump, they need to “move to the center.”
“Just in the same way I think that we have to — when you guys were talking about how we have to be more moderate or move to the center, that’s how we’re going to win next year, see, to me, I think moving to the center — I am the center. I am the mainstream now of the Democratic party,” Moore said.

Moore is on the far left of the Democratic Party. He's delusional to think otherwise. I know a lot of Democrats and while they may be more liberal than most Republicans, they aren't bat-guano crazy. They still want private health insurance. They still want a strong military. They want to be tolerant, but they draw the line at most of the radical left's cultural agenda.

And the Democrats I know are as patriotic and love America as much as any Republican.
They are ordinary Americans who, either by tradition or family allegiance, happen to vote Democratic in most elections and are nowhere near as radical as most of the Democratic field of presidential candidates.

Let Moore think he is a mainstream Democrat. It will only scare moderates and Republicans into marching to the polls in 2020 to vote Republican

 https://pjmedia.com/trending/michael-moore-i-am-the-center-i-am-the-mainstream-now-of-the-democratic-party/
 Michael MooreImage result for images of vogons"

Mark Levin to Adam Schiff: You are the Democrat Party’s Yamamoto, You Have Just Awakened a Sleeping Giant

 Article by Elizabeth Vaughn in "RedState":

Mark Levin joined Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday night. “The Great One,” as Hannity calls him, delivered a powerful message to House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff.

No conservative commentator can cut to the heart of the matter quite like Levin can. He’s able to look at two weeks of mind-numbing witness testimony, extract the facts and explain it all in six minutes. I’ve transcribed the majority of his remarks below. But, if you have a few minutes, I highly recommend watching the clip. Because it is through Levin’s frequently changing tones of voice that a listener hears his message best. Particularly amusing is when his normally booming voice becomes quiet, suddenly soft, and he asks, “Adam, did you write this?”

Levin
After we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto of Japan said, ‘I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.’ You know, Adam Schiff, you are, in some ways, Admiral Yamamoto. You just awakened a sleeping giant. You threw everything you had at the president, at the Republicans, at 63 million voters who voted for this president and this is the best you have? This is the best you had? You have nothing! And you controlled everything. You control the witnesses, you control the information, you interrupted the Republicans. You had control over the hearing room, control over the rules and the timing at the press events. And you’ll have control over the charging documents. You are the Democrat party’s Yamamoto. And even now with all the control you have had, all the positive press, and all the clownish legal analysts and the rest, and the propaganda that they are pushing, and they are celebrating, the polls for Donald Trump are going up.

Once the Senate has control over this, there’s no more Adam Schiff control. There’s no more Nancy Pelosi control…

And the American people. They revere their constitution…They demand fairness from their representatives.

And let me tell you something Democrats. You screwed up big time. This was the weakest conga line of handpicked witnesses I’ve ever seen in any hearing at any time. There’s no smoking gun.

Overwhelmingly hearsay. What did we have here? A small cabal of State Department and NSC bureaucrats who didn’t like Trump for his policies. Yet, every single one of them when pressed by the Republicans had to admit that there was no b bribery, no extortion, no quid pro quo and no impeachable offense…

Not a single witness could or would accuse the President of criminality. Only a single witness had directly spoken with or met with the President about any of these issues. And he said, “The President didn’t do anything.”
We’re getting these lectures from the witnesses and the Democrats, ‘Ukraine needed the aid. We need it for geopolitical reasons.’ Their witness today, Fiona Hill, ‘I can’t believe the President did this. He’s empowering the Russians. And she wrote a few years earlier a long op-ed saying don’t give the Ukrainians the military aid they’re asking for.’…

It was Trump who got the Ukrainians the weapons that they needed.

It was Trump who stopped the Russians.

It was Trump who put the most severe sanctions in history on the Russians.

It was Obama who appeased the Russians.

It was Obama under whose presidency the Russians invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

If you want to impeach, then we have to retroactively impeach Obama.

Now, this will move to the Senate. Let’s hope for once the Republicans grow a spine. I want to remind the Republicans including the half dozen who said, ‘We cannot reveal the whistleblower.’

Read your damn law. You wrote it. The so-called whistleblower is not a whistleblower under your law. The so-called whistleblower’s complaint is not covered by the statute that you wrote.

The phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky is not covered by the statute you wrote.

President Trump is not covered by the statute you wrote. The so-called whistleblower is not anonymous under the statute, is he?

So the President’s lawyers will finally get a shot at the whistleblower. Who never wrote this complaint. And they will get to ask him – I know all about him, but I’m not allowed to say – but it’s time that sham comes to an end.

A President gets to confront the person who is challenging him. Here’s some of the questions for Mr. Whistleblower.

Who was involved in writing the complaint?

Who advised him to use the whistleblower statute to create this false protection?

Did he speak to Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi or any Democrat members of Congress directly or through surrogates?

What did he discuss with Schiff’s staffers who were formerly at the NSC?

Did he speak to Lt. Col. Vindman or not?

We want to know all about this whistleblower because the whistleblower wants to bring down the President of the United States. Moreover, we want Hunter Biden. Not because of anything in our imagination or right wing conspiracy theories. Because you folks at the New York Times and Politico and other places, you’ve told us about the Bidens…

This is the whistleblower’s complaint. This has been Adam Schiff’s playbook from day one.

Adam, did you write this?

Adam, were you involved in writing this because Adam needs to be a witness too. We want to know all about Adam. We know he’s a liar. But we need to put him under oath under penalty of perjury.

When you go through this complaint, you see this was Adam Schiff’s playbook from day one…

This was a shadowy exercise by Schiff, his staff, the whistleblower and the Democrats to bring down the President.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/11/22/mark-levin-adam-schiff-democrat-partys-yamamoto-just-awakened-sleeping-giant/

 

Warren: Favored candidate of White Suburban Liberals

Yesterday in Atlanta, Liz did her level best to shed this label of favored candidate of White Suburban Liberals by pandering to blacks. And it went over like a lead balloon.


Elizabeth Warren, like Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris, isn’t particularly popular among black voters.  Now, this doesn’t surprise me in the least.  Liz has always been the favorite of White Suburban Liberals (or cul-de-sac busybodies as Emily Zanotti once famously tweeted).

The 2020 Democrat nominee must secure the black vote. And right now, the only candidate who does is Joe “I come from the Black Community” Biden.
Liz, on the other hand, not so much.

Yesterday in Atlanta, Liz did her level best to shed this label of favored candidate of White Suburban Liberals by pandering for the black vote.

And it went over like a lead balloon.

Part of the problem is Liz doesn’t have clue one what actual black people want.  Sure, she knows what White Suburban Liberals think black people want.  But actual black people?

Yeah. Not so much.

Her black voter outreach included:

1. Touting Reparations.

2. Claiming the country is racist

3. Claiming that Georgia Governor Brian Kemp is sitting in Stacey Abrams chair.

4. And, of course, bragging about having a black friend

But while giving her speech, Liz was confronted by actual black voters.
And she had absolutely no idea what to do.



And how did Warren handle pro-school choice black protesters?
She, uh, called up her black friend to have her defuse the situation.



“What do we do with this?!”

That is not a good hot mic moment for Liz.  How strong of a President and Commander-in-Chief would this woman be if forty or fifty protesters completely derail her?

And the fact that she needs to pull Pressley off the bench to step and save her makes this all the more painful.




Liz Warren doesn’t want to actually listen to real life black voters.

As Josh Kraushaar put it on Twitter, “She’s playing to black activists, not the broader community.”

And that’s a big problem for Liz.

Sure her pandering speech about the history of blacks in Atlanta might play well among White Suburban Voters. But pandering aside, Liz Warren’s “plans” would economically destroy black Americans.

On top of that, Warren’s campaign made a deadly error when she decided to go all-in for public teachers’ unions while vowing to bring an end to school choice.

And who benefits most from school choice, charter schools and vouchers?

Black families.

Which is exactly why these folks were protesting Liz.

You would have to be completely out of touch with reality to think black voters care more about sore loser Stacey Abrams or Reparations than they do kitchen table issues like jobs, wages, and quality education for their kids.

But it is exactly the kind of mistake a candidate more at home among White Suburban Liberals would make.

When confronted with an issue that actually matters to black families, Liz came off as uncomfortable and out of her depth. And it was only made worse that Liz needed a black woman to step into the void.

Meanwhile, under President Trump, black unemployment is the lowest in history.  Lives are improving because our economy is growing.

Prattling on about white supremacy, institutional racism and Stacey Abrams is a piss-poor substitute for the concrete, measurable improvements that have occurred over the last three years.

This Georgia event was disastrous for Warren on so many levels.


The media is pushing hard for a Warren nomination. But I’m not sure they’re going to be happy with the outcome if they succeed. Sure, Liz might have the White Suburban Liberals vote all sewn up. But without 90% of the black vote, the Democrats are doomed.

And if this is an example of Liz Warren’s “outreach” to black voters, I think Liz doomed herself.

WWWP Open Thread




Wow, it's already a week later and here we are again. I'm all hopped up on Red Bull Winter Edition. It's actually very good tasting. I don't ever drink these things, so I'm a bit wound up. So, we started out this week with winter weather and now it's going to be almost 80º tomorrow. That's winter in the Deep South for ya. Shoot, you can go to work in the morning dressed for warm weather and leave regretting that you didn't layer up. 

Aaaand, I've already run out of stuff to talk about. Hey, it's better than usual where I start out and have no idea what's about to go down. Alright, I'm shooting from the hip now ... and wouldn't you know it I just hit my foot. Now I've got nothing to talk about AND a hole in my foot .... I wonder where MIA, Boho, Cajun, Your Founding Father, Jubal, and Geralt have been hiding at.

And just like that, the sugar rush is over. Now I just feel like I drank 8.4 fl oz of sugary plum flavored shame and regret.

This could be a long one today folks as I'll be doing a legit blog post in the next segment. And with that let's keep this thing moving ....




This week's next section is a bit more serious than usual. The meme factory has been really hot the past few weeks so there have been some good ones to feature; however, think everyone at Meme Inc. took the week off this week. That being the case I'd like to bring attention to something, but first let me give some context. I watch a lot of YouTube. It is my primary source of video entertainment.

A few weeks ago a handful of content creators brought up COPPA (Child Online Privacy Protection Act), and the recent fine that was just levied on YouTube by the FTC for violating this. The platform was collecting cookie data from videos meant for kids and and they were using it for the purpose of targeted ads. This is illegal online. It comes down to the collection of data online in the form of cookies that websites use. YouTube settled out of court for $170 million and they struck a deal with the FTC. Now the FTC will be going after content creators, even though it is YouTube and not the content creators who have control over the collection of data for advertising. Now, nobody is saying that we shouldn't be protecting kids online; however, the wording in the law and YouTube's new rules are the problem. 

YouTube has made a concerted effort over the past few years to hedge edgy content and push content creators towards making more family friendly content. They altered their algorithm to push this family friendly content in recommended feeds across the platform. In order to be family friendly content creators began making content that would be enticing to a broad audience. For instance some gaming channels that were clearly for adults dropped innuendo related jokes, swearing, and other off-color things in their videos and included jokes and references for kids while keeping jokes in that only adults would understand but not off color. This happened with game reviews, anime channels, unboxing channels, and just about every other type of channel you could think of in some form or fashion. Not conforming meant that your monetization was in jeopardy, so if a creator was making a living off of ads then they really had no choice but to go the "family friendly" route. Now here is the kicker. If you make content that the FTC believes is for children it's a $42,000 PER VIDEO. So that brings to question: What does the FTC take into consideration to see if a video is targeting kids? According to YouTube's FAQ Page here are the criteria that content will be judged against.

• Subject matter of the video (e.g. educational content for preschoolers

• Whether children are your intended or actual audience for the video.

• Whether the video includes child actors or models.

• Whether the video includes characters, celebrities, or toys that appeal to children, including animated characters or cartoon figures.

• Whether the language of the video is intended for children to understand.

• Whether the video includes activities that appeal to children, such as play-acting, simple songs or games, or early education.

• Whether the video includes songs, stories, or poems for children.

• Any other information you may have to help determine your video’s audience, like empirical evidence of the video’s audience.


It's all very vague. Now let's look at what happens when you select that your video is intended for kids on the YouTube platform. If you set your video as "made for kids" the following restrictions kick in, as per YouTube's Page about it:

Starting in January, when you set your audience as “made for kids”, we'll restrict certain features to comply with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and other applicable laws. When this happens, the following features won’t be available on individual videos or live streams:

• Personal advertising

• Comments

• Channel branding watermark

• Donate button

• Cards or end screens

• Live chat or live chat donations

• Notification bell

• Playback in the Miniplayer

• Super Chat or Super Stickers

• Save to playlist


Note: Starting in November, the channel memberships "join" button and the merch shelf won't be available on content set as made for kids.


Starting in January, if your channel is made for kids, your videos or live streams won’t have any of the features above. Your channel also won’t have the following:


• Stories

• Community posts

• Notification bell

• Channel Memberships


Your viewers also won’t be able to “Save to Watch later” or “Save to playlist.”

Note: Starting in November, channels set as made for kids won't be able to sign up for channel memberships.


This basically takes an active channel that someone can make a living off of and kills it immediately. Then if they are fined they are ruined financially. They are placing the blame and consequences where it doesn't belong. But then again, it is Google, and being evil is kind of their thing these days. I'll post a few of responses from youtubers I watch in the comments below.

They have already started flagging content, and most of it is missing the mark. Channels that are clearly not kids' channels are being flagged because they talk about animation, collectables, are family friendly, or are centered around gaming. Not only that, but YouTube is the one who collects data. Content creators can't collect it and they can't see it when YouTube collects it, but the platform has thrown them under the bus and moved the responsibility to them.

The FTC is collecting comments at this time, until December 9th regarding the issue. You can leave your remarks HERE


Tip of the week: 


This week we're going to look at how to control the leading in a post. Leading is the space between the lines of text. For example:
Lines might have big text
 and/or touch each other.


But we can control this with a simple code: <div style="line-height: 20px;"> Simply change the number and the space in between lines of text will change.

This will be typed (or copy/paste) above the text where it is to be applied and then closed at the end. So, applying the last two weeks of tips, if we apply a color and a size to the text and then adjust the leading "line height" our text would look like this in the HTML editor: (BONUS TIP: Use the same code but use "text-align" instead of "line height" and you can control your type of paragraph with left, right, center, and justify."

<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="line-height: 20px;">
<span style="color: #e47825;"><span style="font-size: 40px;"><b>
Lines might have big text</b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: #e47825;"><span style="font-size: 40px;"><b>
and touch each other.</b></span><span></div></div>

This what the coding for the example above looks like. Now let's adjust the line height to 40px and the font size to 30px and watch it clean up.

Lines might have big text
 and/or touch each other.
Remember that the <span> tags have to be closed out and reapplied between each line break ( <br /> ) whereas the <div> tags can cover the whole paragraph.

Next week we'll do a few random things like add a runaround to a photo as well as choose the photo in your blog post that Blogger will use as the photo is posts with an article on the homepage.




Music time.


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


//////////////////////



\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\





y'all know what's up 
memes, gifs, music, pics, random thoughts ... 
post 'em if you got 'em 
 

Burisma Corruption; The Cliffnotes



 To be clear: 

The head of Burisma has been wanted in Ukraine in the past before. Even the UK and EU froze his assets. He fled the country. After Hunter Biden hired, investigations were dropped.

Then in 2015-2016 Prosecutor Shokin issued a new warrant and confiscated the Burisma head's property and Rolls-Royce. Quite the car for an oligarch.

Shokin then handed one investigation into oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky off to NABU which is a US-tied office

Biden was furious at Shokin over all this. Biden spoke to Poroshenko by phone in Feb 2016. Told Poroshenko to drop Shokin or he wouldn't get IMF funds.

Remember, Biden is on video confirming this point.

4 days later, Ukrainian President Poroshenko called for Shokin to step down

March 29: The Ukrainian parliament, in a 289-to-6 vote, approved Shokin’s dismissal.

On March 31, Poroshenko met with Biden during a trip to Washington, and Biden pressured the Ukrainian president that the IMF loan guarantee is contingent on further reform progress beyond Shokin’s removal.

Quid pro quo.

This is all from WaPo:

The next prosecutor closed the investigation into Burisma's owner Zlochevsky, and removed him from the most-wanted list. The oligarch then returned to Ukraine after years abroad.

Then, Poroshenko lost election in a massive Zelinsky landslide. Zelinsky came in as a reformer, and brought in a new prosecutor.

Yesterday, Ukrainian MPs leaked a document at a press conference they say is a new signed draft indictment of the oligarch

The new Prosecutor General confirmed he is reviewing 13 cases related to Burisma oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky

This included suspicion of embezzling state funds

Zlochevsky is now suspected of the “theft of government funds on an especially large scale" according to the Ukrainian Prosecutor General


World's most valuable whisky collection revealed

A Vietnamese businessman has been revealed as the owner of the world's most valuable whisky collection.
Mr Viet Nguyen Dinh Tuan's collection was estimated to have an auction hammer price of nearly £10.8m by valuation experts at Rare Whisky 101 (RW101).
The Ho Chi Minh City resident's collection comprises 535 of the world's rarest, oldest and finest bottles of Scotch and Japanese whisky.
The record was confirmed by Guinness World Records.

The collection includes one of the world's only complete Macallan Fine and Rare collections, including the iconic 1926 "Fine and Rare".
Only 40 bottles of the Macallan 1926 were ever released. Mr Viet owns three.
A bottle of The Macallan 1926 sold recently for nearly £1.5m, including buyer's premium.
Mr Viet's collection includes one of only 12 bottles of the oldest Bowmore ever released. A similar bottle fetched £300,000 at auction recently.
He also owns one of only 24 bottles of the 1919 vintage Springbank.

Mr Viet has been collecting rare and vintage bottles of whisky for more than 20 years.
Having amassed more than 500 bottles, which are locked securely in a bespoke whisky lounge at his home, Mr Viet said he would continue to build on his collection.
He said: "For me, whisky collecting has been my life's passion. Every spare I moment I get, I'm searching auction sites and trading websites to find famous and rare whiskies from around the world.
"As for my collection, I have no intention of selling any of it. Not one bottle. In fact, I'll continue to hunt for more old and rare bottles and add to and enrich it."

RW101 arrived at the collection's valuation by determining what it could realistically be expected to fetch if sold at auction in the UK in the current market.
The valuation was subsequently submitted to Guinness World Records, who confirmed the feat by certification.
RW101 co-founder Andy Simpson said: "We were somewhat gobsmacked, not to mention a little envious, when we realised the breadth and depth of Mr Viet's collection.
"It's a truly stunning example of one person's 20-year passion and desire to seek out the finest, rarest bottles of whisky in the world."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-50516099

‘Ok, boomer’


Why I Don't Say “OK Boomer"

At the end of the day, “OK Boomer” isn’t really even about boomers, it’s about how we choose to carry ourselves.

If you spend any time on the internet or time with those who do, you’ve probably heard the phrase “OK Boomer” by now. Perhaps you’ve been OK-Boomered yourself, or maybe you’ve OK-Boomered somebody else. The meme is one of the most popular things being discussed right now, and for good reason.

“OK Boomer” is a retort to elders who claim to know better than the young. “Boomer,” of course, refers to the baby boomer generation (people born between 1946 and 1964). It’s meant to be cutting and condescending, mostly because younger generations feel it’s a return of the treatment they get from boomers.

Generation Z and millennials feel like they’ve been given short shrift for not buying homes, getting married, and having kids. They are “psychologically scarred” and their habits are killing countless industries, they’re told; they spend too much time on their phones and are socially progressive.

“OK Boomer” is a response to all of these judgments. It’s a meme born out of frustration with those who tell them just to “work harder” when confronted with concerns over the environment, inequality, cost of living, cost of housing, cost of health care, and a lack of jobs.

For these reasons, the “OK Boomer” meme has exploded. Although I understand the concerns of those who use it (I am a 23-year-old Gen Zer after all), I choose not to use the phrase. Here are three reasons why.

“OK Boomer” Is Lazy and Dismissive

When engaging in an argument or conversation with anyone, it’s not a good idea to use an ad hominem (personal attack). This is essentially what “OK Boomer” amounts to. It’s an attempt to invalidate or dismiss someone’s opinion because of their age, which is a big no-no if you ever want to win hearts and minds.

Let’s say there is a situation where you’re just itching to “OK Boomer” somebody. It’s Thanksgiving dinner at Aunt Karen’s house, and all your favorite cousins, aunts, uncles, and grandparents are there. Dinner is ready and you all gather around the table and start feasting. Right as you dig into the turkey, Uncle Bob starts complaining about “all them illegals stealing good American jobs” and wanting to “build the wall 10 feet higher” to reduce crime.

Instead of saying “OK Boomer,” you have an opportunity to engage Uncle Bob in dialectic conversation. Thanks to the glory of the information age, you pull up FEE’s article “3 Common Immigration Myths Debunked” and rebut your Uncle with logical pointedness.

“Uncle Bob,” you say. “Since 2012, Mexican workers have been leaving the US at a higher rate than they are arriving. This drop in immigration has negatively affected our economy, in fact, the National Association of Homebuilders estimated the number of unfilled construction jobs in the US almost doubled from between 2014 and 2016.”

Uncle Bob is befuddled at your calm, fact-based, non-hostile response. He’s never heard a 20-year-old treat his political opinions with respect before!
Treating others with respect and engaging them in reasoned argumentation is always a better method than disparaging them.
You continue, “Also, dearest Uncle, research shows immigrants and illegal immigrants are less likely to be criminals than native-born Americans. In addition, you are more likely to win the lottery or die in a plane crash than be murdered in a terrorist attack by an illegal immigrant.”

Uncle Bob isn’t totally convinced, but he responds, “Well junior, I’d have to look at those facts.”

If you “OK-Boomered” Uncle Bob, he might have responded, “Did I trigger you, little snowflake?” (You might think I’m joking, but this is a real headline: “Hey Snowflake, don’t ‘OK, boomer’ me at work”)

Granted, this is a hypothetical and I get to make up all the answers. But treating others with respect and engaging them in reasoned argumentation is always a better method than disparaging them.

If you do happen to argue calmly to the boomer at your Thanksgiving table, and your cranky uncle still spouts off nonsense or becomes hostile, at least you tried. Take pride in the fact that you carried yourself better than your elder.

Some Elders Are Wise

In addition to respectfully arguing with older folk, I choose not to “OK Boomer” them because I do believe they have wisdom to impart—well, some of them do, anyway.

To be fair, boomers can give some bad advice, especially when dealing with emotionally turbulent situations. “Just suck it up and get over it!” (As if past psychological repression implies others should suffer in the same way.)

Not all advice should be taken, of course, especially unsolicited advice. But the benefit of being young is that you can ask older people questions about their life-experience and find out how they dealt with some of the same issues you are currently going through.

There have been many times in my life where I’ve tried to figure out problems on my own, without asking for help, and suffered longer because of it.

Some of the best questions I’ve asked are the following:
  • How do you know you’ve found "the one"? 
  • How do you know what to do with your life? 
  • What things are you grateful for that you didn’t have growing up?
  • What things have changed for the better, and what things have changed for the worse? 

By asking questions about life-experience, you can’t get a “wrong” answer. You simply observe people’s guiding philosophy and how it’s helped or harmed them. After listening, you can make a decision for yourself whether to take any advice that was given. Worst case, you have more information than you did before to help you make a decision.

Things Are Getting Better

The third and final reason I don’t use “OK Boomer” is not related to the boomer generation at all, but for reasons why others use the phrase.

“OK Boomer” subtly places blame on boomers for making the world worse for millennials and Gen Z. Boomers are blamed for student loan debt, ruining the housing market, and ruining the economy in general.

Student loan debt is an issue, but is it fair to blame a whole generation for the problem? Maybe the problem is government-backed loans, which give colleges no incentive to lower prices.

Housing prices are astronomically increasing, especially in major cities in New York and California. But why? I would argue that restrictive zoning regulations make it harder and more expensive for developers to build housing. It should be no surprise that when housing is made more scarce, it becomes more expensive.

As for the economy, things might seem bad, but in fact, things have never been better. All over the world, poverty rates are rapidly decreasing, and few seem to notice.

The Wall Street Journal reports,
The global population living in extreme poverty has fallen below 750 million for the first time since the World Bank began collecting global statistics in 1990, a decline of more than 1 billion people in the past 25 years.

The data is almost too hard to believe. Between 1990 and 2015, more than 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty each day. And, it’s the world’s poorest who have been getting richer faster than everybody else.

So, when people my age complain about how terrible things are and blame it on the boomers, I just don’t buy it. I don’t laud the boomers for making things great, mostly because I tend not to think of these things collectively.

If I were to analyze the innovations and progress that has made the world better off, I would find an orchestra of individuals trying to make their own corner of the world a little better, not people of a specific generation making it worse.

A Better Way

For all these reasons, I choose not to say “OK Boomer.”

Sure, it’s a funny meme, but if we let this slip into common vernacular, we’re in for a world of hurt. Being reasonable, polite, and mindful is a much better alternative. It’s easy to be dismissive and snippy toward those who claim they know better than you, especially if they hold age and experience over you.

But, this doesn’t mean boomers are right about everything. They’re not, and nobody is. At the end of the day, “OK Boomer” isn’t really even about boomers, it’s about how we choose to carry ourselves.

Do we have the integrity and composure to engage in reasoned argumentation? Can we maintain a mindset of gratitude, even when it seems like we have every reason not to? Are we able to faithfully articulate our ideas? Can we show a little intellectual humility even when others do not?

Of course, these things aren’t as easy as they sound. But identifying proper modes of conduct is the first step in actualizing them—knowing is half the battle. And just by striving to improve ourselves, others take notice, and that has a ripple effect on the environment around us.

And who knows, if a boomer takes notice, they might even have some restored faith in your generation.

Fake News is a Real Thing

Associated Press Deletes Tweet About Trump and Impeachment, Issues Correction 


The Associated Press deleted a tweet that pushed false information about President Donald Trump on Nov. 20, the second time in two days the wire agency has been forced to significantly amend its reporting on Trump.

The agency, also known as the AP, wrote in a post on Twitter: “Contradicting the testimony of his own ambassador, President Trump says he wanted ‘nothing’ from Ukraine and says the #ImpeachmentHearings should be brought to an end.”

But Trump was quoting from what ambassador Gordon Sondland said during testimony to the House Intelligence Committee.

“I finally called the president… I believe I just asked him an open-ended question, Mr. Chairman,” Sondland told Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). “What do you want from Ukraine? I keep hearing all these different ideas and theories and this and that. What do you want?”


“It was a very short abrupt conversation, he was not in a good mood, and he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing,’ something to that effect,” Sondland added.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Trump repeated Sondland’s words.

“Here’s my response that he gave—just gave. Ready? You have the cameras rolling? ‘I want nothing.’ ‘That’s what I want from Ukraine.’ That’s what I said. ‘I want nothing.’ I said it twice,” Trump said.

“Now, if you weren’t fake news, you’d cover it properly,” he added.

The AP later deleted its incorrect tweet.

“An earlier tweet that didn’t make clear that President Trump was quoting from Gordon Sondland’s testimony in which he was quoting Trump has been deleted,” the agency wrote.

It did not apologize for the error.

The Trump 2020 campaign highlighted the false reporting, writing that the AP’s tweet was “quite simply false and blatantly ignores what Sondland actually testified Trump said.”

The situation unfolded one day after the AP, wire agencies Reuters and AFP, and a slew of media outlets, deleted or significantly revised stories that reported a claim by a supposed expert that the Trump administration had detained 100,000 migrant children.

The media outlets took their figures from a U.N. report published Nov. 18, the author of which has since admitted the numbers are from a U.N. refugee agency report citing data from 2015.

That was during the administration of President Barack Obama.

The AP also did not apologize for circulating the number and attributing it to the Trump administration.


Media Acknowledged Ukrainian Election Meddling Until It Hurt Their Impeachment Efforts


As the endless impeachment hearings drag on, congressional Democrats and the mainstream media are pushing the narrative that Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election is a fictitious theory. But that’s not what they said just after President Trump won the election.

“It’s not just that [Trump] subverted U.S. policy for this fictitious theory about Ukrainian meddling in the election. Which, by the way, the absolute, unanimous conclusion is it was Russia, not Ukraine, is a conclusion based on fact.” CNN’s Andy McCabe said.



However, the corporate leftist media were the ones that initially reported on Ukraine’s meddling in the 2016 election. Now, those facts contradict their narrative, which means we must ignore them.

Lucky for us, the internet doesn’t scrub their former reporting away. So, here are five times these outlets reported on Ukrainian meddling as fact.

1. Financial Times, 08/28/2016

The Financial Times reported Ukraine attempted to intervene in the U.S. election.
“The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election,” Financial Times reported.

2. Politico, 01/11/2017

Politico reported the Ukrainian government tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump.

“Ukrainian government official tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election,” Politico reported.

They also reported that a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, D.C. in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.

3. Financial Times, 12/22/2016

The Financial Times reported Russia used Ukrainian technology to hack the DNC server in the 2016 election. Based on the reporting, it appears the technology used to hack the election was operated in eastern Ukraine.

4. Politico, 02/23/2017

In 2017, Politico reported that a Ukrainian parliamentarian attempted to contact Manafort claiming to have politically damaging information about Manafort as well as Trump.

“The undated communications, which are allegedly from the iPhone for Manafort’s daughter, include a text that appears to come from a Ukrainian parliamentarian named Serhiy Leschenko, seeking to reach her father, in which he claims to have politically damaging information about both Manafort and Trump,” Politico said.

5. New York Times, 12/12/2018

Ukranian courts ruled that releasing information to Manafort about the 2016 U.S. election was illegal interference.

“Both lawmakers asserted that if the release of the slush fund information broke the law, then it should be viewed as an illegal effort to influence the United States presidential election in favor of Hillary Clinton by damaging the Trump campaign,” the New York Times reported.
The mainstream media that is today claiming Ukrainian meddling is a “fictitious theory” is the same mainstream media that reported on Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election just a few years ago. It appears the only thing that can account for this change is the question: What narrative can we use to get Trump?