The first 10 minutes is amazing truth that needs to be heard.
Van Jones, a very liberal man, is directly criticizing (or issuing a call to wake up and change) many liberal posters on this board.
But, interestingly, right at the 10 minute point, he starts to drift into the very thing that he is warning his side against, when he starts speaking to conservatives.
For example, he starts talking about how conservatives have let their anti-liberalism put them in a position of choosing anti-liberalism over defending the country against the influence of a foreign power. Here, he is talking about the Russia conspiracy theory. It is not that conservatives won't defend their country against a foreign actor...they obviously would, and it is surprising that he doesn't see that after that first 10 minutes. Rather, it is that conservatives don't believe the narrative, and they believe that Hillary's campaign basically created that myth out of whole cloth, and the media ran with it. They believe that no defense of the country from a foreign influence was needed (especially not more than it was needed against Hillary who was being bought through their foundation, or the Bidens being bought through Hunter), and in fact, the real defense of the country that was needed was against those who would create a false narrative to weaken a duly elected president.
Van Jones goes on to talk about how the conservatives should embrace certain communities.
First, I will note that that "embracing communities" is a liberal way of thinking, whereas conservatives try to "embrace individuals" and "embrace fair policies to all individuals and families, without regard to their communities or groups."
He then talks about conservatives lumping all Muslims into Al-Qaeda, which, of course, conservatives think liberals do, because when a conservative wants a law to stop Al-Qaeda, the liberals accuse conservatives of being anti-Muslim...so it is liberals who do the lumping, not the conservatives. Oh, I'm sure it happens on both sides, but he doesn't see that, which is interesting, since he just warned us against that type of attitude.
I agree with him that blacks and hispanics are actually very conservative in many respects (the whole "church going thing"...although the religious aspect of the GOP is diminishing...family values does not necessarily equal church going, and Van Jones seems to gloss over that). He laments conservative news outlets not embracing black communities...and yet it is interesting that Democrats try to prevent that no matter what. It is Dems who define politics by race, saying, "You ain't black" if you vote Republican. So, the Left is doing its best to keep blacks from being embraced by both parties. Blacks are told by Dems that because they can't change their color, they have to stay Democrat.
Granted, conservatives often fall into that race language trap set for them by the Left. For example, when addressing inner city poor issues or inner city crime issues, conservatives may mistakenly talk about "blacks" (like Dems intentionally talk about blacks). But, conservatives should be talking about "urban poor" or just plain "American urbanites." Blacks in the suburbs and rural areas are not experiencing the same issues that blacks in the urban areas are. And, immigrant blacks aren't experiencing the same issues that American blacks are. That should tell us that the issues are not race issues, but cultural issues. So, why do our politicians want us to use race language when discussing non-race cultural issues? I think that is telling. If solving the problems were the goal, they wouldn't be doing that.
I suspect if I raised these issues with Van Jones, he would engage on them with me. But, the video is only a one way medium.
Great post, though. Van Jones makes a fair attempt at being thoughtful and introspective, something we don't see enough of in politics today. Many here on his political side would not like what he said.
Link: Youtube: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness | Van Jones | Big Think
rest?...personally, I agree with Van that Liberals are too dismissive of ALL conservatives, when they should focus on acceptance of "true conservatives"...sort of how I looked at all the Republican Presidents, Governors and other office holders I've voted for in the past...not the _______ that we have now running the party.
I've said multiple times on this board that we NEED both views, since that is 'Who We Are'...it's totally natural to have these two views or 'inclinations'...but BOTH being joined together in making sure that EVERYONE benefits in this country...i.e. INCLUSION vs EXCLUSION...right now, Libs do it better that Cons...however, they could be even more effective if they spoke to their "audience" more effectively...that was the message I got from the video.
Again, why can't you accept all of his comments instead of treating it in a 'cafeteria' manner of listening?...Van is clearly trying to build consensus for finding "common ground"...why would that not appeal to you?
I remembered it after i posted below.
Credibility is an issue with this guy imo. The left tries to spin what is before their very eyes. But it's obvious to anyone not brainwashed.
Link: https://youtu.be/l2G360HrSAs
He uses the "nothingburger" as an example of how deranged the Right is against the Left...all because the Right thinks it was a nothingburger. He agrees with the Right on this, but goes after the right anyway. Brazenly shameful.
He's clearly not in my group of favorite liberals, if I thought this would go this way, I probably would have brought out an ace, like say Sam Harris for example.
The point was supposed to be: Hey look, even Van Jones can see both sides of a debate, articulate an argument that is inclusive and mostly fair to both sides. It's meant as an example of constructive discourse. And I still think he exceeds expectations on these criteria.
The reason for highlighting Van Jones in particular here, is because he's someone I thought many of my lib friends here could identify with.
Conor couldn't keep that going for 10 minutes, even though I know he is smart enough to see the point.
He's basically only reading 1/2 of the WaPo OpEds and plugging his ears at other thoughts and ideas. Mailing it in, posting paid OpEds without commentary.
I mean, he could probably train Jim to do his bidding over a six week holiday on Nantucket at this point. That's how little the effort that's being put forth at this point.
(no message)
Whatever you do, don't click on the link below. Because if you do you're entire Sunday is lost.
Link: https://youtu.be/0NbBjNiw4tk
Newton was an intellectual badass...probably ahead of Einstein...he just didn't have as many giants upon which he could stand, as Einstein did. But, what he did was truly amazing for his time. Imagine inventing calculus as fast as we now learn it in college. Mind boggling.
Maxwell is very under-appreciated by society at large.
The story of Michio Kaku as a high schooler is amazing. A garage particle accelerator...totally insane.
The Higgs boson was initially discovered right around the time that video was published, and confirmed to exist 6 months later. (I remember people worrying that scientists would create a mini black hole here on earth during the search for the Higgs boson.)
Dark Matter and Dark Energy...I still have so much more to learn.
We, as a species, have so much more to figure out.
It was called Genius, and they only did 2, the other was Picasso, which is also really good.
The idea that Einstein essentially just dreamed all this science up through thought experiments is baffling, inspirational and spooky at the same time. His second wife did all the math, BTW. I almost came away from it thinking this guy wasn't even a real scientist, he was tapped into the conciousness of the universe (panpsychism). It's nuts.
Now Newton on the other hand was a real scientist and I agree he's underappreciated.
Mitchio Kaku has long been one of my favorite scientists. He is essentially what AI would create as the persona to teach quantum physics to the evolved apes, us. If I learned tomorrow that he isn't actually human, it wouldn't be shocking at all.
In total agreement that we have so much to learn. If we somehow manage to navigate the precipice (great book by Toby Ord, BTW) and manage to still be around in 1000 years, or a million years?!?! With a few more Newtons, Einsteins and Kakus, what could we know?
Mind blowing.
is probably spreading exactly the narrative that Bezos supports. It’s nice to hear that isn’t entirely the case. It sounds like it is worth a listen.
Nice post by the way on your part. Good observations.