Category: Blog

Home / Category: Blog

You Should Never Order Lo Mein At A Chinese Restaurant. Here’s Why

Lo mein may be the perfect Chinese comfort
food, slightly sweet, a little bit sticky, not too spicy, but oh-so-satisfying. If you can’t eat a whole plateful in one sitting,
the leftovers seem to taste even better the next day, even if you eat them straight from
the carton and cold from the fridge. Still, as tempting as lo mein may be, it’s
really not something you should order from a Chinese restaurant. For one thing, lo mein in most American restaurants
isn’t even remotely authentic. Unlike the totally-American General Tso’s
chicken, lo mein can easily be found in China, but the Chinese version is quite different
from the one Americans are familiar with. “Lo mein” actually means “stirred noodles”
and refers to a method of preparation rather than a specific dish. According to My Great Recipes, the Chinese
method involves stirring noodles into a soup broth just before it finishes cooking, so
the noodles become soft and absorb the flavor of the broth and its seasonings. ChowHound further explains the differences
between lo mein as it might be served in Boston versus Beijing. In the U.S., lo mein noodles are tossed in
a hot wok with a thick brown sauce. Chinese lo mein noodles are also stir-fried
in a wok, but the sauce is lighter and thinner, perhaps made with soy and rice vinegar with
just a tiny bit of thickener. Despite these differences, we realize most
people won’t pass on lo mein just because it’s not entirely authentic. “I gotta have a lo mein.” However, most people should pass on lo mein
because it’s so unhealthy. Lo mein is basically a heaping helping of
carbs and a whole lot of oil. If you order it from P.F. Chang’s, even the veggie version has 630 calories,
10 grams of fat, and 114 grams of carbs. By adding pork, your meal will hit 920 calories
and 32 grams of fat. Also, if you’re watching your sodium intake,
you might want to look away from lo mein, soy sauce boosts the sodium content to 3,540
milligrams for the veggie dish, and a whopping 4,170 for the shrimp version. “Mmmm, salty.” The sugar content isn’t looking good, either,
20 grams for each type of lo mein except veggie, which tops out at 23 grams. If you’re wondering how this compares to the
recommended daily values based on 2,000 calories per day, pork lo mein will deliver nearly
half of your daily allowed 78 fat grams, and all the lo mein entrees offered will give
you more than one-third of your 275 grams of carbs. You’ll be nearly halfway to your permitted
50 grams of sugar, but way over the top on sodium, since you should really only be consuming,
at most, 2,300 milligrams a day. Lo mein also isn’t the best choice when it
comes to your budget. CheatSheet lists lo mein as one of the top
Chinese restaurant menu items that are a waste of money. At most places, the dish consists primarily
of noodles, which is one of the cheapest items in a restaurant’s kitchen. What’s more, they can be bulked up with inexpensive
veggies such as cabbage, while you’ll find fewer pieces of more expensive proteins, like
shrimp or beef. It’s a simple way for restaurants to skimp
on serving anything that’s actually going to cost them too much money. Plus, they can get rid of any veggies they
may have overstocked. It’s a nice arrangement for restaurant owners,
but you won’t be getting the best meal for your money. “Well, that place was a rip-off.” If you want to enjoy a healthier version of
lo mein for a lot less cash than it will cost you in a restaurant, it’s actually a really
simple dish to make at home. If you don’t have any Chinese egg noodles,
Epicurious points out that you can easily use any type of round noodle instead. Also, you won’t need any complicated ingredients
for the sauce. You should be able to find everything at your
local grocery store. Then just add veggies and, if you like, some
pork or other meat for the protein. Even the wok is optional, as chef Jet Tila
points out, almost any large pan will do. “A simple pan with high sides that gets hot
is totally fine.” It will take about 15 or 20 minutes from the
time you start boiling the water to cook the noodles to the time dinner is done. Plus, it will be healthier and much cheaper
than if you ordered it in a restaurant. Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus, even more Mashed videos about your favorite
dishes are coming soon. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the
bell so you don’t miss a single one.

Why Batman’s New Costume Could Be Made From A Gun

Damn, Bruce…that’s metal. Footage from a camera test for The Batman
featuring Robert Pattinson in the Batsuit has officially been unveiled, and fans are
already picking it apart. Among their more fascinating discoveries:
Batman’s chest plate appears to have been made from repurposed materials. Although the footage is bathed in red light,
it does reveal a pretty sweet-looking Batsuit with a solemn Robert Pattinson demonstrating
that, at the very least, he has the right jaw for the part. The chest plate really turned heads, though;
at first glance, it simply appears to be mechanical, possibly made from a pair of Batarangs or
some other gadgets of the type that the Dark Knight is inclined to utilize. At second glance, though, it looks like something
much more hardcore: pieces of a gun. “Bob? Gun.” Now, we know what you may be thinking: Batman
doesn’t use guns. Heck, he hates guns. Why on Earth would he have pieces of one embedded
in his costume? Fans think they know the answer, and if you
haven’t guessed it yet, prepare for a big ol’ explosion inside your cranium. The theory is that it isn’t just any gun that
Batman may have used to construct his chest plate. Fans believe that the possible gun in question
will serve to remind Bruce Wayne, every single time he goes to put on that suit, why he’s
putting himself in danger to protect the citizens of Gotham. The gun that can prod him to think of the
innocent lives that might be lost if he should lose his focus the gun that set him on the
path to becoming the Batman in the first place. That’s right: the idea goes that protecting
Batman’s heart in the new Batsuit could be the gun that was used to kill his parents. Fans weren’t the only ones to jump on this
possibility. Filmmaker and comic book writer Kevin Smith
was among the first to notice that the insignia on the new Batman costume could be made from
a gun because if it’s indeed true, he’s likely the one that gave the film’s team the idea. Smith was among the many writers to participate
in the creation of Detective Comics #1000, a 2019 tome that featured a plethora of intriguing
Batman tales. In Smith’s story, Bruce Wayne melted down
the firearm that was used in his parents’ murder, fashioning it into a plate that was
hidden under the logo on his chest. If this is true, it could be a very savvy
move. The murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne is a
well-known and oft-depicted element of Batman’s story, and it’d be easy to make the case that
The Batman would do well to avoid revisiting that particular plot point. Using their murder weapon as an element of
Batman’s costume could serve as a compelling visual signifier of the Dark Knight’s origin
a way to ensure that even if they’re never even seen onscreen, the Waynes’ presence will
loom large over The Batman’s narrative. The gun that killed Batman’s parents also
appears in an arguably even more significant way in the pages of the wondrously loony Batman:
Year Two. At a tense point in the first issue’s narrative,
Bruce Wayne decides that the proper way to avenge his parents’ deaths is to take the
gun involved in their murder and fire it at someone else. Circling back to the new Batman costume, fans
have pointed out that it seems to be something of an amalgam of a number of Batsuits past. Among its more prominent features is a popped
collar, which calls to mind the design of the cowl in Gotham by Gaslight, the 1989 comic
and later animated film that posited an alternate version of Batman operating in the Victorian
era. “I need your files on the Ripper.” The shoulder pieces and overall aesthetic
of the new Batsuit also seem to owe a lot to Batman’s design in the Arkham video game
series particularly 2015’s Arkham Knight while the mask is reminiscent of nothing so much
as the classic design from Tim Burton’s original 1989 flick Batman. If the Batman team was going for a best-of-all-worlds
kind of feel with the new Batsuit, then so far, it’s looking like they pretty much nailed
it. The Batman is scheduled for release on June
25, 2021. Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus, even more Looper videos about your favorite
DC characters are coming soon. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the
bell so you don’t miss a single one.

I Paid My Girlfriend For Every Kiss She Gave Me

February 24, 2020 | Articles, Blog | 100 Comments

I Paid My Girlfriend For Every Kiss She Gave Me

Hi everyone, my name is Terrence and I’m 17
years old. I depended on one girl so much, that I stole
for her. Let me tell you one thing at a time… Six months ago, I met a girl named Elizabeth
on Instagram. Of course, at first I only saw her Instagram
page, but she was incredibly beautiful in her pictures. She’s 17 too, and she lives a couple of blocks
away. I liked these coincidences… and I talked
to her for a week, and realized that we had a lot in common. For example, we both thought I was a great
guy, and most importantly, a good friend… This is my way of telling you guys that she
totally had me friend-zoned… it was a shame, but regardless, I believed that it was necessary
to fight for a girl, so I continued to talk to her, hoping for something more. I wrote to her often, but she ignored most
of my messages. Elizabeth didn’t tell me what had happened
to her parents, but she lived with her grandmother. According to her stories, they never had much
money, and over time, things got even worse. At some point, her grandmother started having
heart problems and most of their money was spent on medicine. Then it wasn’t just new things that Lisa couldn’t
afford, but also food. I wouldn’t say that I was happy about this
situation, but it helped me come up with a cool idea for how to help both Lisa and myself,
and even her grandmother. I asked Lisa to date me for money… (20 bucks per date). I know what you’re thinking, it sounds strange,
but I was tired of just seeing her online. She had doubts, but when I made it clear that
I did not expect for her to have feelings for me, and that I could only hope for them
to appear, she agreed. So we started “Dating…” This was one of those times where a girl is
even more beautiful in real life than in her Instagram pictures. I was glad that I had finally gotten the opportunity
to meet her in person. But unfortunately, our dates were very weird. Elizabeth felt like she was at work. I took her to the movies and cafes, and gave
her little gifts, but it was all in vain. Of course, I was very upset. My money was going to run out at some point. A week passed, and there were still no results. One day, after watching a movie with my parents,
I had another idea. In the movie, a frail man (just like me),
beat up a bad guy who insulted his girlfriend and won her heart – and the whole situation
had been set up by this guy in the movie. I decided to do something similar. One night, when I was walking Elizabeth home,
the “bad boy” – played by my friend Jason – began to harass us. Everything looked very realistic, the harassment,
and the fight. So the plan worked. When Jason “ran away in terror” from my strong
fists, Elizabeth was very impressed and even kissed me on the cheek. And even though I was really happy, that kiss
ended up not really changing anything. I stopped caring about classes and spent all
day trying to figure out how to make Elizabeth fall in love with me. At some point, I decided to ask my father
for some advice. I became interested how he had won my mother’s
heart. It turned out that they had experienced a
similar situation, except for the money aspect, of course. My mother also did not want to be with him
for a long time, but according to him, everything changed after a magic kiss. When she was about to blow him off again,
he just kissed her on the lips, and then it all started to spin… and at that moment
I thought, ” So this is what I’ve been missing.” I thanked my father for his advice, and went
over to Elizabeth’s house a couple of hours later. I want to clarify, at that time the idea “money
=dates” was firmly stuck in my head. So on one of our dates, instead of doing it
unexpectedly or romantically, I just asked how much she would expect for kissing me on
the lips… I am still surprised that I did not get slapped
in the face for asking… but apparently, she was also used to me paying for everything,
so she offered her price. It was 500 dollars… Man, I really wanted to kiss her, and I really
wanted to be with her. But $500 was out of my budget. It was too awkward to ask her for a discount
on this, but I could definitely have used one. Anyway, I assured myself that this kiss, as
my dad said, would change everything, so I started thinking about ways to get the money. I had some savings, of course, which I used
to pay for Elizabeth and I on our dates, but by then, it was almost gone. That’s when I remembered my parents ‘ savings… They kept most of their money in a Bank account,
but I knew for sure that they had some of it in a drawer in their room, and that they
also don’t look in there very often. I decided to steal it for the sake of love. Especially since I was still going to put
that money back after I got a job. So, when my parents were not at home, I looked
in that box and saw that there was much more than I needed, but I obviously only took $500. I closed the drawer and made it look like
I had never been there, and then I ran to Elizabeth. I was so excited about the kiss that I almost
fell as I was running. When I met her, I gave her the money, and
the truth hit me. I had already kissed girls before, but this
time… I’ll remember those 10 seconds for the rest
of my life … unfortunately, as you may have already realized, it was only amazing for
me. Elizabeth’s face showed almost no emotion
after the kiss… But at that moment, I was still fooling myself
that everything would change. After the kiss, we went for a walk. I reached out to kiss her goodbye, but…
but she didn’t want to kiss me again… When I got home, my parents were in some kind
of fight. As far as I could tell, mom suspected that
dad had a mistress. They were screaming, but to be honest, I didn’t
really get into it, because I had had enough of my own drama. Ah… But the worst was yet to come. Elizabeth and I went out much less often,
because, as I said, my savings were gone. Surprisingly, over time, I even began to think
about her less, but unfortunately not enough time had passed for me to forget her completely. One day, when I was walking with Jason (my
friend who played the bad guy in our “fight”), I noticed Elizabeth at a cafe with some guy. I was not about to jump to conclusions, you
never know who it could be. But at the same moment I went inside to say
Hello, she kissed him. I instantly forgot that I was with Jason. I felt dizzy. I thought it was only girls who get sick from
love. But as it turns out, thats not true. Elizabeth saw me and took me aside to talk. Basically, she told me what I was afraid to
admit… I listened, with tears in my eyes, when she
said that the guy she kissed was her real boyfriend. And she only sees me as a friend, a friend
that pays her to hang out with him. Why didn’t I end it after that kiss that didn’t
lead to anything?! It would have been much easier. But there in the cafe, being shocked and extremely
jealous, I did something stupid. I asked her how much money she would need
to leave her boyfriend and finally love me for real, without paying for dates and kisses. I was so naive to think that I could buy love
for money… She said she wanted $3,000, and as far as
I understood, if I could not pay it I was supposed to just leave her alone. But, I was ready to act… I told her to wait for me in that cafe… And she grinned, agreed, and sat back down
with her boyfriend… I ran home to get the money. My parents were at home, but in the kitchen,
so I managed to quietly sneak into their room for the money. I quickly counted out $3,000 and left, but
not before covering my tracks. When I returned to the cafe with the money,
Elizabeth was shocked. She thought I might have done something illegal
to get the money, but she didn’t ask about it. And maybe it was just because of the money,
or maybe it was because she saw what I was willing to do for her, but she broke up with
that guy. After that, we had a great date. She knew that I no longer had any money, so
she paid for me everywhere we went. It surprised me, because she had never done
this before… I was just so happy, that I blindly believed
that everything would change. What a jerk I am. My problems continued and my parents noticed
that the money was gone. When I got home, my mother asked me if I had
taken the money. Of course, I was afraid, so I said no. But my mother believed me. Her main suspect was my dad. Ever since she’d been paranoid about him having
a mistress, she’d been suspicious of him. Well, the disappearance of three and a half
thousand dollars confirmed her version… Dad also wondered where the money had gone
and asked me several times about it, but I just shook my head no. So a week passed and they were fighting all
the time, but I was hoping that I would have enough time to get a job, earn the money,
and put it back as if nothing had happened. To be honest, I don’t know what I was thinking
at the time. I’m a complete idiot… You might have already guessed, but my love
story was over as fast as that $3,000 ran out. We basically dated for a week after that,
but then she broke up with me. The dumbest thing is that I was surprised
by what happened back then. I’ll never get tired of calling myself a naive
fool… but the story with my parents wasn’t over yet. After they could not find the reason for the
disappearance of the money, my mother accused my father of spending it on a mistress, and
they decided to get a divorce. At that moment, my conscience was fully awake,
and I confessed. Of course, my parents were very angry that
I almost drove them to divorce, and that I stole their money… They did not kick me out of the house, but
they said that they would no longer help me financially. And of course, that I should get a job and
pay them back all the money I had taken… That’s my story… Have you ever been as far in the friend zone
as I was? Tell me in the comments how it was for you. And, of course, share this video with your

How To Find Your PASSION In Life In 2020 | Find Your True Purpose ft. Tom Bilyeu

No one is born with a passion,
right? You would
imagine me saying that Steve Jobs was born with a passion for technology,
what if he’d been born 7000 years ago? 50 000 years ago?
Would he still have that, would he be dreaming of the iPhone?
No, of course not. So,
where you grow up is going to influence your outcomes
far more than who you are. Like,
this is terrifying, the greatest predictor of your future success
is the ZIP code in which you grow up, it’s not your IQ.
It’s all about like, what are you going to build?
Like at what point do you look inside the brain
and go: “Ohhh,
this is how it works”. And so,
I’m going to build desire.
So, building desire is one of the most misunderstood
things in the world.
It’s like when people say, “Oh my god I’m in love with this woman”
and they think it’s gonna be like that forever and when that wains
and they break up and they keep chasing that initial high
without recognizing, that’s just not the truth of human
neurochemistry. It’s never gonna be like that.
So, it starts with that just all-consuming drug-like
quality and then it smooths out into something
that’s long term pair-bonding and you have to know how to ride those waves.
So, desire is very much the same, you have to learn how to fan those flames,
to take an ember of interest and turn it into a raging inferno.
So, when I was at Quest, my raging inferno,
my reason for existing, was to end metabolic disease.
Well, now I’m doing Impact Theory and I’m not thinking about metabolic disease
anymore, I’m thinking
about the poor mindset
and I’m trying to save people from their ZIP code
is an easy way to think of it. And so, I
fan those flames,
which is something I wasn’t even thinking about when I was at quest ,
so it’s like, you can very much pivot,
you can decide. But it has to be something real,
like these are real things, I really did care
about ending metabolic disease because of my family,
I really do care about the ZIP code being a predictor
because of people I’ve loved in my life who have succumb to that,
my inability to help them up to this point. So it’s like,
you take that initial spark and then you cultivate it like you would a
fire. So,
“techne” is an ancient Greek word that is a set of skills,
that matter to you, that you work extraordinarily hard to build
so they are unique to you, that allow you to serve not only yourself,
but other people. So, we are a social creature.
So, I always want people to understand,
there are certain things in you, hardwired into you,
that if you ignore, you ignore at your peril,
and if you leverage, can really propel you forward.
Such as helping other people. It feels good.
It’s so immediate, when you do something nice for somebody,
you feel that right then man,
it feels awesome, and like when you see people,
like really, like fighting
and just like, think of
hurricane Katrina to use an American
disaster where people flew from all over to come and
help and save people,
and it’s like, dude,
people working more than 24 hours without stopping,
working until they collapse, it’s crazy!
But, when you feel like you can help another human
being alleviate suffering,
people go all in man. That is innate to us,
we want to do that! We’re gonna get this neuro-feedback loop
of, “This feels awesome”,
“I feel good”, “I feel urgency”,
“I can not stop myself, I have to help”.
And that’s so powerful. And if you can make your business about that,
now all the sudden like, the thing for me I hate:
working with my hands. I hate it.
I hate grease on my hands, all that.
And I was having to repair equipment
which is something I absolutely hate. So, when I was under equipment,
and I’m talking about, you’re working,
it’s 2AM on a Friday and your knuckles are bleeding from like
trying to fix something, and you’re thinking,
“What am I doing?” I kept saying,
“I’m here to save my mom and my sister” because they were morbidly obese.
And I knew if I couldn’t give them food they could choose
based on taste that happened to be good for them,
that I would literally lose them too soon. And so, I was like,
“That’s what this is about, that’s why I’m here,
I’m not here to get rich, I am here to save my mom and my sister”.
When people say, if you just want it
and you’re going after it, it’s gonna happen.
I will tell a very different story. So the struggle is guaranteed,
the success is not. The money may never come.
So, every great success story
has a certain element of timing, there’s certain amount of luck that goes
into it, now you have to prepared to be able to capitalize
on that, like the inhuman amount of work
that we did to launch Quest, to launch Impact Theory,
most people just are definitely not going to work that hard,
that tenaciously for that long, or get that good and face their inadequacies
day after day, but at the same time,
for it to be the kind of success that it was there was timing involved.
So, it became readily apparent to me
that I may never get rich,
but I could definitely do something that I loved every day.
And so, what I know is,
even if I lost my money, that
through simple things like being grateful, being willing to build from the ground up
again, putting in the work,
doing something that’s meaningful, serving not just myself,
but other people, I can live a life that’s fulfilling
and since that’s the only thing that really affects your neurochemistry,
cause I’m always telling people, look,
the punchline of life is not wealth, it’s not fame,
it’s not admiration, it’s how you feel about yourself
when you’re by yourself. That doesn’t require wealth,
in fact wealth can’t touch that. So,
now becoming a badass, like that will make you feel good about yourself,
and that’s something that nobody can take away.
We all have the ability to change. And if people really knew who I was before,
because they have a hard time believing it, when they see me now,
but I’m like, go ask my mum,
who was surprised that I succeeded.
Ask my father-in-law who did not want me to marry his daughter.
Ask my best friend. All the people who knew me the most,
were like, “We did not expect you to be successful”.
My mom recently told me that when I told her I was going to get rich
that, her and my aunts and uncles used to laugh
at me behind my back,
cause they were like, “Bless this kid, he’s, you know, just
a.. a dreamer, but he’s never actually going to get rich”.
So, when you realise,
there is a process to go from hopelessly average to accomplishing something
really extraordinary and that any human who meets what I call minimum
requirements, so if you do that and you put in the work,
you can get the result. And I’ll say that the result is fulfillment,
you’re not necessarily ever going to achieve wealth,
but you can achieve deep fulfillment, do amazing,
serve yourself, serve other people,
like you can do some really really incredible stuff.
I think that’s far more open to people than they think,
going back to my original… what I was talking about is,
I don’t want people focused on the money, cause the money’s not gonna change how you
feel, but if you focus on the fulfillment,
of “techne”, building up this rad skillset
that’s letting you serve yourself and other people
and then marry it to business savvy, your odds of becoming financially successful
skyrocket! That’s, where I hope people get their heads
around, that fulfillment really is the punchline,
but if you wanna express that in a way that generates wealth for yourself,
it is very
very real!
That is a very real possibility.

Is This Viral TikTok Actually the Best Way to Carry Chicken McNuggets? | Lifehacker

– I think so. – Like, I could see myself
walking around downtown (laughing) eating my
chicken nuggets like this. – You think you would
walk around SoHo like this and everyone would be like, “Oh, look at that cool guy.” – So, Joel, today’s
“Hack or Wack” come to us from our managing editor, Virginia Smith. She came across something
called a “tok-tok”? – A Tic Tac. – Tic Tac, that’s it. – [Pablo] McDonald’s Hack Check! Grab a 10 piece nugget. There’s a little opening right here in between the little nugget box. Place it over your drink. Add some fries and then you’ve got your little cocoon or whatever. (laughing) – It’s so good. – I think we should make
the cocoon or whatever. So we have here our chicken nuggets. There is in fact the seam. – Yup, yup, right here. – So the seam that is in
the video is really there. These are large drinks cause I figured you needed the surface area to balance it. – [Abu] Exactly. You
need the stability here. So far so good. – I think so. Okay, first off, if your
straw is all the way down, you can’t really get to it. – Straw length is a factor, definitely. But at least on the large drink, it seems to be pretty stable. I could see myself walking around downtown (laughing) eating my chicken nuggets. – Shall we add some fries as in the video? – Yes. The lovely part
of this is that there’s a whole other side now to this container. You could throw sauces, ketchups, whatever you want in there. I got to do a walk test with this. Okay. I could picture it. You can’t picture me walking
around SoHo like this? (laughing) – If you do go to take a sip, you do get a face full of fry. (laughing) And you definitely feel
the warmth from it. – You do have to commit
to the large cup I think. I don’t actually think a
smaller cup would be as stable. And you certainly couldn’t
walk around with it with a small size drink. – What do we say? Hack or wack? – 100% hack. Hack through and through. I’m going to start implementing this in my fast food lifestyle. – And you’re going to start
walking around downtown. (laughing) – I feel like fast food
containers are ever-evolving and you get so many of
them with each order. So there must be other
ways you can use them creatively or efficiently. – Right. There’s got to be a
way to put them to use. – So we got two orders of fries. One we took out of the bag immediately and one we left in the bag. Taking it out of the bag is supposed to make it crispier. You leave it in the bag
it might stay warmer but they’re going to get soggy. – So those have been in the bag the entire time we’ve been filming. – Oh. Definitely soggier. Yeah. – But you can see one is already like… As soon as you get your fries, take them out of the bag. Keep them fresh, keep them crunchy. Don’t eat soggy fries. – I would say, if they give you an option, don’t put them in a bag. Say, “I will carry the fries.” Or, if you already have your cocoon. – Present your cocoon
to them and tell them, “Fries directly in here, please.” – This is the double hack. – This is the double hack. Cocoon plus fries out of the bag. – This next hack is that if you have a fast food
container that’s like this, that’s white on the inside, and you needed to take
a picture with flash or something with a light, you could use it, the white cardboard, to reflect the light
and make your skin glow. – I’m so not sold on this. – Well, we are video professionals. – The flash doesn’t stay on when you are in the camera app. So you need two phones to
also make this hack work. – This is the wackest
hack we’ve tried so far. This is the light on my face. And then with it, did that do anything? – It doesn’t do a single thing. Let’s try it in complete darkness, then. – Okay and now we put the
chicken nuggets over it. – Should go into the box
and then it bounces off. – Oh, is that soft? Santi, am I beautiful yet? – [Santi] Not, not really (laughs). – We’ve given this hack
more time than it deserves. – And I think we can absolutely agree this is wack. – Definitively wack. – And this hack is that if you keep ketchup packets in the freezer, and then you get a boo-boo, a bruise, (Abu laughing) you can use them as very
directional ice packs. Very small, directional ice packs. – It’s hard to consider this a hack considering it’s just
taking some sort of liquid, making it cold, and holding it up to
a bruise or an injury. – The thing I will say though is these have been out of the freezer for a few minutes, and I’ve been holding them and they’re still pretty cold. – Yeah, they’re retaining
their temperature. – But you know what is
the not-wack part of this? Is that these match my outfit and those match your outfit. – Wow. – Frozen ketchup packets, hack or wack? – Total wack. They “work” technically
but they just are not a reasonable use of packets in any way. – I guess if it is frozen it doesn’t leak. I don’t know why I’m
scrutinizing this hack so much. – Joel, I think you’re
grasping at straws here to really make this work. – This is me grasping at straws.

How GOOD Was Peja Stojaković Actually?

February 23, 2020 | Articles, Blog | 100 Comments

How GOOD Was Peja Stojaković Actually?

Peja Stojaković was one of the greatest shooters
in NBA history. From all areas of the floor he was a sniper,
incredibly accurate with a smooth quick release on his jump shots. He was up there with Ray Allen when it came
to shooting. During the 2000s both of them were at the
top of their games but unlike Allen nobody really talks about Stojaković anymore even
though in my opinion Stojaković would be a perfect fit for this modern era of basketball. How’s it going fellas? My name’s Andy and today we’re gonna take
a look at Peja Stojaković. How good was he actually and what kind of
play style did he have? Peja was drafted in the legendary 1996 NBA
Draft. Selected right between Kobe Bryant and Steve
Nash. But unlike the other stars from that class
paisa did not play in the NBA until two years later. In those two years he was still playing basketball
overseas in Greece. In 1997 and 1998 peja was an all-star in the
Greek league and also won MVP in 1998. Fun fact, in the 1998 season in Greece Peja’s
team would play Panathinaikos in the finals. Coincidentally in that series a 20-year-old
Peja will play against his future coach Byron Scott. At that time Byron Scott’s NBA career just
ended and he spent his last year playing professional basketball in Greece. Unfortunately for Peja he would lose the series. However, shortly after the loss he announced
that he was coming over to the NBA. In his first couple seasons he was mainly
coming off the bench as a backup small forward to Corliss Williamson but even at a very young
age he showed flashes of star potential. Early on he was primarily a jump shooter who
stood at the three-point line and waiting for the ball to come to him. Occasionally he would pull out some moves
off the dribble and some cool passes that came out of nowhere. Eventually after Corliss Williamson was traded
in the summer of 2000 Stojaković became the full-time starter. The 2000 to 2001 season would be his first
full season as a starter and he instantly proved that he was a star. He averaged over 20 points a game and hit
40 percent of his threes. Over the next few years he would continue
to improve in every aspect of the game. His shooting, his defense, his passing and
his ability to finish at the rim which was surprisingly a very strong part of his game. For his career he shot 67 percent at the rim
between zero and three feet’s. Back then that was a great percentage for
a small forward especially for a guy like Peja, who is not exactly a super athlete. Peja’s success over the next few years resulted
in three straight All-Star selections, one All-NBA third team selection and he won the
three-point shootout twice in 2002 and 2003. However, despite Peja’s incredible play
during the regular season there were many times when he struggled in the playoffs. The most notable instance was in the 2002
Western Conference Finals. This was the series that’s you know, maybe
the refs were favoring the Lakers a little bit but what was swept under the rug was Peja’s
ridiculously bad performance. Yes, I do know Peja just recently came back
from injury and he probably was not 100% but still he returned for the last three games
of the series and played horribly. In the closing seconds of the fourth quarter
in game 7, Hedo Türkoğlu passed the ball to a wide-open Stojaković and he air-balled
the shots badly by like three feet over the rim. He finished the game with 8 points, shot 3
of 12 from the field and missed all 6 of his three-pointers. Even if we don’t look at the series there
were other times when Peja underperformed when the team needed him the most. 2 years after the series against the Lakers,
the Kings would face the Minnesota Timberwolves in the second round of the 2004 playoffs. This year Peja had the best season of his
entire career averaging a career high 24 points a game. As he finished second in the entire league
in scoring. But in the playoffs, he laid another egg. His scoring and shooting dipped across the
board and in the deciding game 7 against the Wolves it was Deja Vu or Peja Vu. Once again, he capped off an underwhelming
game 7 with 8 points on 3 of 12 shooting in 46 minutes of playing time. The Kings would lose the series and that was
the last chance they had. That was the end of that era as they would
blow up their team after the loss. Although Peja had his difficulties I don’t
want to call him a playoff choker. He did have some great playoff series as well. There were a couple reasons for his playoff
struggles. The main one was because defenses started
to focus on him more. The best player on those Kings was Chris Webber
but just like Peja he had some injuries and whenever Webber was injured Peja became the
focus of the other team. It didn’t help that Peja himself always seemed
to have some nagging injuries whenever the playoffs rolled around. While he was a very versatile scorer, he still
had trouble creating his own shot against great defenses. This is what separates great shooters like
Peja from a guy like Steph Curry for example. If the defense shuts down Peja’s open looks
he wasn’t good enough to consistently create off the dribble and attack the rim. So, instead he had to settle for a lot of
difficult contested jumpers. Teams would always focus on preventing shooters
from getting open looks and with the way the Kings offense worked everybody was cutting,
everybody was making passes and running around trying to get open. But this type of ball movement does not work
well in the playoffs because the game slows down, and it becomes a half-court game. This kind of exposed Stojaković since a large
part of his offensive game was because of the Kings ball movement. Anyway, as the years pass by Stojaković would
be traded a couple of times. He would spend four years in New Orleans playing
alongside a young Chris Paul and David West. Unfortunately, this was when his injuries
really started to pile up. He missed most of the 2006 to 2007 season
because of back problems and eventually he had to get back surgery to fix the issue. You guys know what happens when people have
back problems. Unlike a broken leg or a broken hand, back
problems never go away, and it was clear that Stojaković could no longer maintain his all-star
level play. But despite the injuries he was still a solid
role player in New Orleans. Occasionally he would show flashes of his
former self. One time he even scored 20 straight points
for his team. His time in New Orleans had his highs and
lows and the injuries were the lowest points of his career. Overall, those Hornets teams had other injuries
that prevented them from reaching their full potential. On paper those teams actually looked amazing. You had Chris Paul who was very young, but
he had the best seasons of his career when he was there. He was an MVP caliber player. You also had David West who was an all-star. Tyson Chandler was the guy in the middle and
with Peja on the wings they had a very good team from top to bottom. If it weren’t for the injuries, they could
have done a lot more than just a second-round exit. To cap off his NBA career he played a crucial
role in helping the Mavericks win their first-ever championship. After the 2011 season Peja felt that his back
problems and the soreness in his knees were too much for him to continue playing. He retired right after winning the championship
at the age of 33. During that championship run he stated that
“Being part of this run is something special. Having injury after injury you don’t always
have the same strength to work and get back, but patience is the key word. I’m happy everything worked out”. So, how good was Peja actually? Well, he’s hard to evaluate because he’s one
of those guys whose impacts goes way beyond his box score numbers and even then, his numbers
are great too, but it was way more than that. In his prime the spacing he provided for those
Kings teams allowed the entire system to work. That team played like a prototype version
of the Warriors using ball movement and a lot of screens to set up all their plays. With that being said I’d say in his prime
Peja was probably somewhere between top-10 to top 15 in the league. In my opinion he also made the greatest pass
of all time. You can see it right here. Even though he averaged fewer than two assists
per game he was a much better passer than those numbers indicate. It’s just that his role on his team was to
shoot and score not pass. Additionally, patient impact on the transformation
of the NBA. As one of the most efficient scorers in his
prime he and the Kings in general had a major impact on the current day offenses. In fact, in today’s game at 6 foot 9, 230
pounds Peja could easily play power forward and he would be a matchup nightmare. Up until this day he’s still the greatest
NBA player to ever come out of Yugoslavia. Nobody can challenge him for that title and
that’s because well, Yugoslavia does not exist anymore. Anyway, that’s all folks. That sums up the story of Peja Stojaković,
one of the greatest European players of all time. Let me know your thoughts on Peja, what would
be the best comparison for him? Let me know in the comments. Thank you all so much for watching and as
always, I’ll see you next time. Peace.

Does liberalism have a future? (1996) | THINK TANK

Ben Wattenberg: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg.
As we head into the 1996 presidential election, some issues already seem to have been settled,
at least rhetorically. It’s not whether to balance the budget; it’s how soon. It’s
not whether the government should be shrunk; it’s how much it should be shrunk. It’s
not whether welfare should be reformed; it’s how. Now, these are conservative ideas in the saddle.
Is liberalism in retreat? Joining us to sort through the conflict and
consensus are E. J. Dionne, author of “They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate
the Next Political Era”; Ronald Walters, chairman of the political science department
at Howard University and author of “Black Presidential Politics in America”; Todd
Gitlin, professor of sociology at New York University and author of “The Twilight of
Common Dreams”; and Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute. A few weeks ago on this program, we looked
at the future of conservativism. The question before this house: Does liberalism have a
future? This week on “Think Tank.” Ben Wattenberg: This is not the first time
that liberalism has been declared dead. Listen to this. Quotes: “Liberals meet in Washington
these days, if they can endure to meet at all, to discuss the tragic outlook for all
liberal proposals, the collapse of all liberal leadership, and the inevitable defeat of all
liberal aims.” End quotes. Does that sound like 1995 or 1996? Archibald
MacLeish wrote those words in 1944. Well, so where is liberalism today? Since
World War II, a central idea of liberalism was to strengthen the role of the federal
government. But here is what President Bill Clinton, a Democrat and often described as
a liberal, has to say about that. President Bill Clinton [from videotape]: The
era of big government is over. [Applause.] Ben Wattenberg: Affirmative action, another
hallmark of recent liberalism, is unpopular and under attack. In California, a statewide
referendum seeks to ban it entirely. And critics, like our panelist Todd Gitlin, argue that
some liberals are so hung up over issues of race, ethnicity, and sex, the so-called identity
politics, that the broader liberal coalition has been fractured. And finally, economics. Liberalism promised
that government intervention would result in growth and job security. But in an era
of global competition, high technology, and downsizing, economic problems seem immune
to liberal remedies. Union membership, for example, is sinking. Economic insecurity is
rising. The government seems paralyzed. Well, that’s a nice picture. Let us go around
the room once, starting with you, E. J. Dionne. Is liberalism dead, or does it only look dead,
which is almost the title of your book? E. J. Dionne: I think liberalism is coming
back to life, almost precisely for the reasons you said: that when people are going through
a period of economic insecurity and uncertainty, they look for some new rules and they look
for some help to seize the opportunities of a new era. In the past, that’s when they’ve
turned to liberal progressive politicians, and I think they’re going to do so again. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Will Marshall. Alive,
dead, moribund? Will Marshall: Well, a certain kind of liberalism,
New Deal liberalism, interest group liberalism, I think is moribund, or at least we should
regard it as being in an honorable retirement. The question then is: How does liberalism
adapt itself to a whole new set of national challenges? And the good news for liberalism
is that the alternative today, anti-liberalism, doesn’t address those challenges, either. Ben Wattenberg: Ron Walters. Alive, dead? Ronald Walters: Well, I think that it can’t
die. I think also it depends on how you actually define it. You can’t have a liberalism which
is dead with respect to interest group politics because this country is multicultural-izing,
so is the globe, and so you really do have to have a philosophy which looks for the expansion
not only of government, but for the expansion of opportunity. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Todd Gitlin. Todd Gitlin: I think liberalism has hopes.
And what is going to make the difference in terms of whether it converts its hopes into
actuality is whether it convinces enough people that if they don’t get serious about finding
some common dream, that they will just lapse into the arms of big business and all of the
reasons why big government came into existence in the first place. Ben Wattenberg: Your common dreams, as I understood
what Ron Walters said, are not Ron Walters’ common dreams. Todd Gitlin: We have to have a discussion
about what common dreams are. I mean, I think there will be a debate. Republicans will say
the common dream is that everybody gets to be an entrepreneur. I think that’s ridiculous,
but that is an idea about what people have in common. My idea and many other people’s idea is
that what people have in common is that they have certain obligations to the maintenance
of a society that’s whole and certain needs, which include life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, but also a right to a decent livelihood, a right to security of person,
a right to public institutions, like schools and public transportation, that people need
to live. I don’t know if we disagree on that, but
I think a lot of people do agree on what’s happened in the recent years. Ben Wattenberg: Ron goes beyond that. Is that
correct? Ronald Walters: I would certainly go beyond
that. I think he’s right in terms of the dream, but I think the difference is between
the dream and the reality. When you look at the reality — we share the dream, but the
reality is that some people are much closer to the dream than others, and therein lies
the problem. Are you going to have a definition of liberalism which only gives us sort of
an intellectual vision of that dream, or are you going to have a definition of liberalism
which is functional? And if you do, you’ve got to run up against the ability of government
to provide expanding opportunity. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but you are saying,
on a race-specific or gender-specific or ethnically specific grounds, is as a way to measure? Ronald Walters: I would say yes. Otherwise,
you really don’t have a measuring rod. You can’t define it, I think, only by economic
opportunity. You’ve got to look at these groups that are coming into society, immigrants
included, and say to yourself, if the demographics are right, by the year 2050, only 52 percent
of this country is going to be white. So there is a tremendous continuing discussion about
the nature of America, about the changes that are going to go on, and therefore the basis
of liberalism. Todd Gitlin: Excuse me, but those demographics
aren’t right. There’s no way to predict how people are going to feel about who they
are two or three generations hence. What will it mean to be white? What will it mean to
be Hispanic? There is a tremendous amount of intermarriage already. The confidence with
which these claims are made by the Census Bureau I think is scientifically invalid. E. J. Dionne: What I’d like to say is if
you go back to — Ben Wattenberg: I think you’re right. E. J. Dionne: If you go back to sort of what
the liberal idea has been on these subjects, the issue is not: Are we going to be an all-quota
society or a color-blind society where we pretend there’s no such thing as racism?
Liberals have always asserted that cultural pluralism is a good thing, recognizing the
enormous contributions of all groups to this country, that that’s a good thing, that
racism is a particular problem that we continue to have. That’s very different from saying that we
want to racialize every question, that every issue, whether it’s public schools or public
transportation or how you’re going to get a job, that these are all racial questions.
Most African Americans don’t think that way. Most white people don’t think that
way. Most Hispanics don’t think that way. Now, I think liberals have always asserted
that we respect the fact that we’ve got to do something about racism, which is a particular
problem. We also respect the fact that we are one country that has always had a common
dream, as Todd has said. Will Marshall: I agree that that’s a traditional
view of liberalism and one we desperately need to get back to, but it’s not the current
view. Liberalism today is bound up with the notion of biology is destiny and the politicization
of all issues around this corralling of people into racial, ethnic, and gender categories. And I think that’s a tremendous liability
to contemporary liberalism because what it does is it prevents us from having the kind
of civic empathy that we need to have, prevents us from looking beyond our group identity
toward some broader community. And I think before we get back to that, it’s going to
be impossible for Democrats and liberals to reconnect to the economic anxieties and aspirations
of the middle class. And that, after all, is the big political challenge we’re facing. Ronald Walters: But you know, I think that
will only happen when you really do address the issue of groups. You can’t leap over
groups because groups were the basis of a certain sense of subordination in this country.
Slavery was based upon groups. At the time of the manumission of slaves in 1865, 90 percent
of all blacks were in slavery. There was a group basis of that subordination. And so if you look even down as far as 1960
and ask how many blacks made the average family income, it was only 5 percent. Ninety-five
percent, as the basis of subordination of blacks, didn’t make even the average family
income. So you can’t then leap over, 30 years later, to start talking about individuals
unless you deal with that basis of group subordination, which is part of the legacy of this country. Ben Wattenberg: Let me just go back to what
we said in the setup piece and just see if we are in agreement on that, that the current
consensus in the country is that we do want a balanced budget, that we do want to reduce
the size of government, that we do want serious welfare reform, and that in fact those ideas
and many others that we could all list are in fact — have their roots in the conservative
ideology, and that seems to be the way the country is going. E. J. Dionne: Yes, Americans in principle
think we shouldn’t run a big deficit. But we just had a controlled experiment in 1995.
And the Republicans said, okay, we want to cut back the growth in Medicare, Medicaid,
education spending. We want to cut back on environmental regulations. And the electorate
quite clearly said, wait a minute, that’s not what we think we voted for in 1994. So
the public — sure, the public wants fiscal sanity, but it also believes that a lot of
these things, including things you helped fight for when you worked for LBJ, have been
successful programs that they want to save. Todd Gitlin: The thing about it is Americans
want everything at once. They want all these things. They want apple pie, but they also
want — they want pie à la mode. They also want health care. They also want raising of
the minimum wage. They also want a lot of things that they think they’re entitled
to get. Will Marshall: It’s so important that we
don’t let this notion that any attack on bureaucratic liberal programs is a conservative
one. Take welfare, for example. Fundamental welfare reform is something that 80–90 percent
of the people of this country are for. It cuts across all racial and class lines, and
it doesn’t — you don’t have to be conservative to want to reform the welfare system. Daniel
Patrick Moynihan and other notable liberals have been trying to do it for decades. Ben Wattenberg: Yeah, but the notable liberals
who ran the Congress in 1993 and 1994 were not anxious to reform welfare. You know that
better than anyone. Will Marshall: I do. E. J. Dionne: They didn’t pass health care
reform, either. They failed in Congress. Will Marshall: I’m not saying that liberals
are not defending failed bureaucratic programs. They are, and that’s one of their principal
— or another liability. My point is that the alternative all too often is simply kind
of a mirror image agenda on the right that says let’s tear down the liberal achievement
edifice that they built over the last 60 years, but they don’t have any idea about what
they’re going to replace it with. And that’s where they keep failing. It’s a dismantling
agenda, not an agenda that replaces programs that aren’t working with approaches that
hold out more promise. Ben Wattenberg: Let me ask a tactical question.
As we have this discussion in mid-April, for all the moaning about how poorly liberalism
is doing, Bill Clinton is beating Bob Dole in the polls by about 12 to 15 points. Is
Clinton riding high because there is a resurgence of liberalism or because he has, at least
cosmetically, made a U-turn? E. J. Dionne: How about neither? I mean, I
think in one sense, Bill Clinton defined himself first with a — he had a fight with the Republican
Congress, and he said, “Look, I stand for this, this, this, and this. I disagree with
them on that.” Wherever you stood on the issues, I think that helped give him a presence
in this country. It was something people respected. He could define himself against the Republicans. I think secondly, a lot of these things he’s
talking about — for example, throwing criminals out of housing projects, talking about the
family — he’s done that since 1992. Ben Wattenberg: You don’t feel that in 1993
and 1994, when you had a Democratic president, Clinton, and an all Democratic Congress, that
he went substantially to the left of what he ran on? Because he believes that. E. J. Dionne: See, I don’t think the voters
— if you look at Clinton’s first two years, I think a lot of voters did not say he went
too far to the left or too far to the right. They say, “Gee, the Democrats failed. They
said they’d give us health care reform, and it failed. They said they’d give us
welfare reform, and it failed. They said they’d give us political reform, and it failed. They
said they’d help give us job training and education, and that kind of got shrunk in
the budget.” So I think a lot of voters pull back not because of the ideological stuff,
but because they sense, “Gee, we expected more from these guys.” Ronald Walters: Let me just say, these were
the seeds of 1994, too. That accounts for the election of 1994. But in seizing a conservative
mandate as a reaction to that, what happened is I think that the Newt Gingrich politics
hit a wall. And I think that’s what the American people are responding to. Will Marshall: What the polling shows now,
interestingly, is that Republicans are down. There’s no question about it. Something
in their rush at the budget and this array of programs, many of which are still popular,
scared a lot of folks, and they are down. But Democrats have not gone up correspondingly.
I mean, that’s the era we’re in now. We’re in a three — you know, it’s a three-way
split now. There’s a huge group of unaffiliated, nonaligned voters who hold the balance of
American politics. That’s why I would be most unconfident if I were a Democratic strategist
now about this temporary uptick in Bill Clinton’s popularity ratings. But let me go back to the point E. J. made.
I mean, E. J.’s right about the failure of Clinton and the Democratic Congress to
deliver, but the problem is much more fundamental than that. The Democratic Party and contemporary
liberalism is defending a regime that’s dying. It’s defending an old top-down, bureaucratic
way of solving problems that people simply lack confidence in. It’s the same problem,
I think, of parties of the democratic left in Europe, which is why many of them have
been out of power for a long time. We’ve got to think through what governance
means in a new era and find new ways of solving problems. That’s what the public’s looking
for. That’s the kind of — [Cross talk.] Ben Wattenberg: Wait. Hold on a minute. Todd Gitlin: Parts of the government work
well. You know, you call Social Security for advice, you are going to get it much faster
than if you call a lot of private corporations. People want the government to be active. They
want the government to get results. They’re pragmatic about where the results come from. I think that what liberalism has to make sure
it doesn’t do is to sacrifice its soul, and its soul has rested on a matter that we
haven’t really talked about yet, which is a real conviction about equality, equality
of persons, equality in access to opportunity, equality in an absolute rejection of discrimination.
And I think it’s extremely important, whether Bill Clinton wins or not, that that side of
the liberal vision not be sacrificed. Will Marshall: That’s very true, and I agree
entirely, but I want to make a distinction between ends and means. You’re exactly right
about equality. That’s the soul. That’s — we have to maintain that commitment. But
it doesn’t follow that there’s one monochromatic way of going about that. Todd Gitlin: Right, but let’s say we want
to make sure that it’s absolutely intolerable to discriminate in employment or housing or
lending. How are you going to do that without calling a government agency in to enforce
the law? Will Marshall: Well, of course no one’s
saying repeal antidiscrimination laws. That’s not what I’m — Todd Gitlin: No, we have laws, but they’re
not enforced. We need enforcement. Will Marshall: They should be enforced. I
agree with stepped-up enforcement. But my point is there are lots of things that we’re
trying to do in government, some of them under the rubric of equality. Let’s take our social welfare policies,
which we know now — the evidence is overwhelming — that they’ve been failing. They’ve
become dysfunctional. They’ve begun to underwrite problems in inner-city communities. And yet
we’ve been unable to come to grips with those problems and reimagine the way we try
to lift people out of poverty. Todd Gitlin: See, that — Ben Wattenberg: Let me just interrupt here
for a moment. You know, there’s an old saying, “If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be
a bus,” okay, “but she doesn’t have wheels.” You guys, particularly you, Will,
but many of you, certainly you, E. J., just now, are saying, oh, if liberalism would just
change this and just change that and just recognize that you really have to do welfare
reform and you have to do this and you have to do that, then they would be back — but
that’s not what liberals have been doing for 30 years. They’ve been going bananas
by my light. Yes? E. J. Dionne: But we’re not talking about
years. We’re talking about, I think — Ben Wattenberg: They wouldn’t be liberals. E. J. Dionne: — a real reform in the way
— look at Todd’s book, for example. Take Todd’s book, “The Twilight of Common Dreams.”
Todd wrote a very good critique of a certain style of multiculturalism. And it was a critique
from the left because he said, “The problem with this is not just the things the conservatives
say about it. The problem with this is that in fact it takes our eye off the ball of a
genuinely fair and equal society.” That’s — Todd’s book is an example of this. I think some of Will’s ideas have been accepted
by large numbers of liberals about the need to — I mean, for example, all the stuff
Will has written about civic life and the importance of strengthening our civic sense
and third sectors in society. Some of those ideas started on the right. They didn’t
all come from the right. Actually, some of them came from the new left, but this notion
that you need a strong civic life, that’s popular, too. Ronald Walters: But you know, you’ve got
an intellectualism of both the left and the right here, which I think is wrong, because
so much of this really is spinning without the people who are really affected. When you
come to assess things like poverty, yes, you’re right, Will, a lot of people want changes
in the welfare system. But the fact is you cannot say that it didn’t do what it was
designed to do. The fact that people want to change it now is quite another discussion
altogether. They want to turn it into a jobs program. Now, we had a jobs program, and Reagan
killed it, so that now they want to turn the welfare program into a jobs program. That’s
fine. But we really have to be honest about the
ideological currents which come through and change things. We can’t say that everything
failed because these things haven’t. We have to talk to the people who came through
welfare and who made an honest living today out of a welfare system that worked for what
it was designed to do. Ben Wattenberg: If Sen. Dole wins the election
in November of 1996, you will have for the first time in at least 70 years a Republican
conservative — mainstream conservative president, a Republican conservative Senate, House, sympathetic
Supreme Court, control of the governorships, and probable control of the state legislatures
and state legislators, as well as the mayors of Los Angeles and New York. This is unheard
of in contemporary American politics, unheard of. If that happens — and that’s just
on the election of Dole — is liberalism really in the ditch for a long time to come,
because won’t the other guys really get their shot? E. J. Dionne: Well, first of all, that’s
like, “If my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a bus.” I mean, you are positive — Ben Wattenberg: Oh, no. That’s just one
election. That’s who’s going to win the election. Todd Gitlin: If one of her wheels falls off,
she’ll be in a ditch. E. J. Dionne: No, but two things. One, that
scenario you just described is actually Clinton’s ace in the hole, because what all the polls
show is the country really is uncomfortable with the prospect of this kind of unified
conservative government because they think they’ll go too far. To go back to your history, you worked for
LBJ. A lot of the stuff you guys did worked for the country. Medicare worked, food stamps
worked, civil rights worked, voting rights worked. This is a good legacy. Ben Wattenberg: I agree with that. E. J. Dionne: There’s nothing to be ashamed
of in this legacy. Ben Wattenberg: I agree with that. Don’t
you think that many of those programs were carried by liberals over the edge too far? E. J. Dionne: Well, how too far? I mean, has
Medicare gone too far? Is it too expensive? Sure, all — the whole health system is.
Has it gone too far? I don’t think so. Todd Gitlin: These programs were popular at
a time when the country felt rich, the country was unrivalled, and Americans felt, “Well,
let’s do more of the same. There’s no bad price for it.” Today people feel you
can’t have everything at once, but this doesn’t mean that these were not great achievements.
It also means that they have to be reformed. But nobody’s willing to get rid of them. Ronald Walters: That’s what I mean by change
in the intellectual mood, and I think we have to look at the forces that were responsible
for that. I mean, you had — in two or three decades, you had a downturn in the economy.
You’ve got people now who are very afraid, and I think that when people get afraid, they
start changing their evaluation. It’s not that the programs changed; it’s that the
evaluation has changed. Ben Wattenberg: What would you — if you
had to — if you had a paragraph to tell liberals how to govern and recapture the mainstream
of American thought and action, what would you tell them to do? E. J. Dionne: I think the main concerns for
Americans right now are both economic and moral. The economic is a sense of economic
insecurity and worry, as President Clinton said, that people who work hard and play by
the rules aren’t going to be rewarded. That in turn is a moral question. Now, I think liberals have to be unabashed
about saying that economics and morality are linked and that if we want liberalism to revive,
it’s going to have to do what it did for about a hundred years in our country, which
is tell people to use government not to make people dependent, but to enhance people’s
opportunities, to let them seize the chances in this new era, and to create a sense that
the rules are fair that they’re competing under. Ben Wattenberg: Okay. Todd. Todd Gitlin: I would say liberalism has to
support the fiber of the country. It has to be committed to those institutions which increase
the access of all people to their common human heritage, and that includes reinvented government,
government that works, and it also includes unions and it includes public schools and
it includes metropolitan government and all of those forces that enable Americans to live
in a world with each other. Ben Wattenberg: Ron Walters. Ronald Walters: You’ve got to show people
a vision of the future. You’ve got to show them that this country is becoming more diverse.
I don’t think you can roll that back. I don’t think we need to be frightened of
it. I think we need to have a rational vision of what this country is going to be like,
and I think that we have to locate somewhere the source of our economic fears, I think,
because you can say that the white males are leading a conservative revolution, but at
the end of the day, someone has to explain to them in nonracial terms, nonimmigrant terms,
what is happening to them. And I think that once we get some of these explanations right,
I think then liberalism can show the path to leadership, and government has to play
a role. Ben Wattenberg: Will Marshall, you’re batting
cleanup. Will Marshall: I think liberalism has to adapt.
It’s got to identify itself once again as the party of innovation and new thinking.
For about the last 20 years, we’ve been in rearguard positions, defending the old
achievements, unwilling to admit criticism of them, and unwilling to offer something
better. Until we get into the arena and fight, you know, the battle of persuasion with the
American people that we have better ideas that are updated to new circumstances, we’re
not going to be competitive electorally. Ben Wattenberg: If it had wheels, it would
be a bus. Thank you very much, E. J. Dionne, Will Marshall, Todd Gitlin, and Ron Walters.
And thank you. And now we would like to announce part two
of our bumper sticker contest. In part one, we asked viewers to make up bumper sticker
slogans for or against President Clinton. For example, the anti-Clinton winning entry
was: “Clinton: 99 percent fact free.” A pro-Clinton entry was: “Clinton sax beats
Dole-drums.” This time we are looking for bumper stickers
for or against the Republican nominee, Bob Dole. So please send your entries plus any
other comments or questions to New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20036.
We can be reached by email at [email protected] or on the World Wide Web at For “Think Tank,” I’m Ben Wattenberg. Announcer: This has been a production of BJW
Inc., in association with New River Media, which are solely responsible for its content.