TruthDig: Robert Scheer Interviewing Norman Lear- 'Bleeding Heart Conservative'

Source:TruthDig- The great comedic writer Norman Lear.

Source:The Daily Review

"In the second installment of a two-part interview on KCRW’s “Scheer Intelligence,” television icon Norman Lear shares his political views with host and Truthdig Editor in Chief Robert Scheer."

From TruthDig

Source:Rebel HQ- The great comedic writer Norman Lear.

"TYT Politics Reporter Nomiki Konst spoke with legendary television writer and producer Norman Lear about Trump's America, where the Democratic Party lost its way, the NFL protests and more."

From Rebel HQ

As as Liberal myself I hate the term bleeding heart liberal, because someone who cares about others and people who are suffering regardless of their politics could be labeled bleeding hearts. Now, these different political factions will have their own ideas and approaches in how to help people who are suffering. But to care about the suffering of others all you have to be is a caring person.

But thats not my only problem with the term bleeding heart liberal. Because then there also the stereotypes that come with that term. Liberals all the time even though I believe that is finally starting to change with Socialists in America like the Bernie Sanders democratic socialist movement and the ANTIFA more communist or anarchist socialist movement on the radical Far-Left and not just Far-Left, but Liberals in the past at least have been labeled as soft, to put it lightly.

 I would add the term pussies, because so-called Liberals seem to believe that criminals shouldn't be put in prison, even if they're violent. As non-aggressive pacifists that even if the country was under attacked we shouldn't fight back and instead extend out hands to the people who are trying to literally destroy us.

Imagine if Dennis Kucinich was President of the United States during the Cold War and Russia literally attacked us and bombed Florida or some other big place in America. President Kucinich, "if we just talk to Moscow, maybe they won't bomb all of Florida and we'll only lose Miami. If we fight back, maybe they won't bomb Georgia as well."

There's nothing liberal or bleeding heart about pacifism about when your country is under attack and you choose not to defend yourself. No political label goes with that amount of irresponsibility and softness. Even Socialists have defended themselves and fought for their countries. And just like you don't have to be a Conservative or someone further to the Right to believe in self-defense and patriotism, you don't have to be a Liberal or someone further left to care about the suffering of others.

I guess this article is supposed to have something to do with the great Norman Lear. Perhaps the title of the piece has something to do with that suggesting that he's a bleeding heart Conservative. Norman Lear describes his politics as conservative because he believes in conserving the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution.  Which is what true Conservative is and actually believes. Not someone who believes in sending law enforcement agents to break into private homes to break up extra marital or homosexual affairs affairs, because the so-called Conservative believes that adultery and homosexuality, are not only immoral, but should be illegal.

Imagine if Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore ever becomes President of the United States and his able to get appoint and get confirm 3-4 Christian-Conservatives who are actually Christian-Theocrats, to the U.S. Supreme Court , then maybe adultery and homosexuality would get outlawed in America. If they were somehow able to get those laws passed out of Congress regardless if with party or party's are in control of the House and Senate.

But someone who is so fundamentalist with their religious beliefs to the point that they believe should be appointed Minister of the United States and be able legally punish people who disagree with them and have different moral values, is not a Conservative, but a theocrat which is different. Norman Lear's conservative politics represents conservatism, pure and simple. Roy Moore's politics represents Christian-Theocracy, which is very different, because Moore's politics aren't about the U.S. Constitution, but a very strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Norman Lear's writing and producing of comedy in America, is so cutting edge and his belief in the First Amendment is so fundamentalist (not that there's anything wrong with that) that I don't believe he could be writing and producing comedy today. Because people in and outside of Hollywood are so dominated by political correctness that if Lear created a modern Archie Bunker (perhaps played by Donald Trump) maybe Jon Voight, or Phil Robertson (from Duck Dynasty) you would see the Political Correctness Police and Army, marching the streets complaining about how bigoted the new Archie Bunker, All in The Family, and even Norman Lear is. Of course they would be wrong, but these protests and boycotts would have a big enough affect to keep that type of First Amendment comedy and programming from making it on the air or into the theaters.

The Politics of Writing: ‘The Value of Comedy’

Source:AZ Quotes- U.S. Senator and political satirist Al Franken.

Source:The Daily Review 

‘Comedy is often in our lives for reasons we don’t stop to think about. There’s comedic movies, stand up comedians,  television shows, and then there’s just those funny people we l…’

From The Politics of Writing 

“Bill Maher and John Cleese discuss the comedic value of human stupidity, political incorrectness and religious fundamentalism in this clip from November 21, 2014.” 

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- comedian John Cleese, making the case against political correctness.

From Real Time With Bill Maher 

I agree with most of what this blogger said. Who will go nameless simply, because the blogger doesn’t have a name. (My first joke) But I would put it different and I seem to be doing that a lot lately when I share other people’s pieces. The value of comedy is to make people laugh especially if they’re having a bad day or things aren’t going well for them.

I do that all the time to make people feel better. Someone tells me they lose their job and I’ll ask them: “Where did you lose it? Maybe you should try to look for it. Don’t worry, you’ll find another one and a better one. And will do a better job of hanging on to it.” And this is sort of extreme example, but that’s my point. Comedy should make people feel better even if it’s just for a moment before reality kicks back in.

I love comedy about life (as if there is any other comedy) but that is what funny people do. They share stories about what’s going on in their own life and what’s going on in the world and look for the comedic angle. Anyone whose spent more than five-minutes in America knows there’s always something to make fun of. Take our U.S. Congress to use as an example. The oldest comedy club in America and the National Comedy Club going back to 1776.

If you can’t find something funny about Congress, you either never drink, or are broth blind and death at the same time. Perhaps you live as a tomato with impersonating a human being and you’re simply not aware of the world that is right in front of your own face. Take the cloture rule in the Senate where 41 votes beats 59. Anyone familiar with math knows that 59 is more than 41. But not in the U.S. Senate and that is just one funny example about Congress.

I only thing about comedy when it comes to life and current affairs is that first it has to be funny and then it has to be accurate. Or at least not out of the ballpark where it doesn’t make sense. Like if you’re going to make a fat joke about someone, at least have the decency and intelligence to know that person is actually fat, meaning clearly overweight. And not just a large muscular person who is very curvy.

There are plenty of three-hundred-pound football players who are just very big, because they have huge bones and are incredibly strong and can probably bench press someone’s car. (Hey, Yugo and Beatles are still cars) If you’re going to make a joke a politician, it should make sense and be in the ballpark. Make fun of Donald Trump, because any joke about him is probably true at this point.

When I finally get off the computer and done at my office and have some time to do things that have nothing to do with writing and blogging, generally the first thing I do is eat and try to relax. But after that I’m generally looking for something funny to watch. Not looking to read a book unless it’s something that I’m about to blog about.

Besides half of my job revolves around reading other people’s material anyway. I just want to relax and laugh at something that had nothing to do with my day and job. That is the value of comedy. That little escape that tells you that there’s another world out there that’s much different from your reality. And a chance to just kick back and take a deep breath. Before I have to get back to work.

TruthDig: Jim Sleeper- 'The Blame The Campus Far-Leftists Campaign Aims at Yale'

Source:TruthDig- Welcome to Yale, which you would think would be an institution that promotes free thought and speech, since it's a college where people are supposed to learn.

Source:The Daily Review

"On February 7 The New York Times published two jaw-droppingly credulous and/or duplicitous accounts, linked below, of Yale childhood psychologist and student-residence associate master Erika Christakis’ supposed martyrdom on the altar of free speech by censorious liberal students and colleagues. The truth is that a national campaign to blame campus distempers on politically correct liberals had found yet another target in angry students and anxious administrators and an unlikely heroine in Christakis. The Times and too many well-meaning professors have gone along for the ride. If you think that our political commentariat has lost its compass along with our party establishments, wait till you see what writers about colleges are missing, as are the colleges themselves."

From TruthDig

"As part of a nationwide protest and discussion of what is acceptable on college campuses, a Yale professor sent a letter out asking is it ever okay to be provocative or even offensive. John and Hannah discuss if this letter led to her resignation from the university. Let us know what you think about her resigning and the current state of political correctness on college campuses."

From Think Tank

Source:Think Tank- Another victim of PC?

I swear to God (even as an Agnostic) that the technological revolution of the last 20-25 years has really made America a lot dumber. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that America’s public education system as fallen in the same time. And keep in mind America elected Dan Quayle Vice President in 1988 and Floridian Jews accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan for President in 2000. So that’s pretty stupid and then add America went to war with Iraq over bogus evidence in 2003.

But take that up more than ten years and we now have a generation of Americans who believe that minority Americans have a right to not be offended and critiqued. Even though they live in a liberal democracy that has a guaranteed constitutional right to free speech under the First Amendment. I guess they were too busy texting their classmate who was sitting next to them, or got lost at Starbucks when they should have been learning about the U.S. Constitution. What the hell are you doing at college and drowning in student loans (because you never learned how to swim) if you don’t like debate. If you can’t handle politics that go against your own.

God help us if any of these Millennial’s ever become constitutional lawyers. Because they’ll look at the Constitution based on how they want it to read. Where their political correctness is the law of the land and there’s no such thing as Freedom of Speech, if it goes against their politics. Where the Right to Privacy doesn’t exist if people are engaged in behavior they disapprove of. I mean if I’m in college right now and I know I’m in student debt somewhere around fifty-thousand-dollars or more by the time I graduate, I’m busting my own ass (not my professor’s) to graduate and to learn as much about America and how the real world actually is. Not how I want it to be so I don’t think everything is swell when I enter the world. That I know everything won’t be paradise for me when I leave college.

But that is not the attitude of these Millennial goody two shoes who I guess got lost at a Karl Marx convention and gobbled up everything that Mr. Marx ever wrote and said. And now believe that is how the world should work if not currently works. God help us all if these kids ever to bother to graduate. Because they may end up dumber than when they went in, but now they won’t be a threat just to themselves. But if they were to ever get into power they’ll be a threat to anyone who believes in individual freedom both personal and economic. But especially when it comes to Freedom of Speech. But at least they’ll always have the latest smartphone, or computer, I’m sure paid for by someone else. And everything will still be awesome in their little worlds.

TIME: Charlotte Alter- ‘Here’s What All Successful Student Protests Have in Common’

Source:TIME Magazine- 1960s civil rights demonstration.

Source:The Daily Review 

“Many college graduates have a story of marching in the quad, or holding signs, or gathering to chant slogans in front of a university building. Protest is as much a part of college as late-night pizza or last-minute exam cramming. But some movements make change, while others die down when midterm season comes or leaders graduate.

Students at the University of Missouri found themselves in the former category on Monday, when their protests over the University of Missouri president’s handling of racial issues on campus led to his resignation. Students had been ramping up pressure against Tim Wolfe for weeks, arguing that he had ignored or minimized problems including racial slurs hurled at black students and a swastika drawn in feces on a campus wall. On Monday, as a graduate student’s hunger strike stretched into its eighth day, and the school’s football team threatened to go on strike (which could have cost the university $1 million), Wolfe announced that he would step down and students celebrated.” 

From TIME Magazine 

“Six years in the making and with a cast of thousands, Berkeley in the Sixties recaptures the exhilaration and turmoil of the unprecedented student protests that shaped a generation and changed the course of America. Many consider it to be the best filmic treatment of the 1960s yet made.

This Academy Award-nominated documentary interweaves the memories of 15 former student leaders, who grapple with the meaning of their actions. Their recollections are interwoven with footage culled from thousands of historical clips and hundreds of interviews. Ronald Reagan, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mario Savio, Huey Newton, Allen Ginsburg, and the music of Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, Joan Baez and the Grateful Dead all bring that tumultuous decade back to life.”

Source:California Newsreels- protestors for free speech, unlike today.

From California Newsreel

Its reflective and insightful analysis of the era – from the HUAC hearings and civil rights sit-ins at the beginning of the decade through the Free Speech Movement, the anti-war protests, the growth of the counter-culture, the founding of the Black Panther Party and the stirrings of the Women’s Movement – confronts every viewer with the questions the 1960s raised, which remain largely unanswered.

What separates the student protest movements of the 1960s from today, is that the 1960s protesters were protesting for freedom. Protesting for civil and equal rights for all Americans. Protesting in favor of free speech on campus and in general. Protesting against an unjust war that they hated and so they wouldn’t have to go fight in that war themselves.

The so-called student protesters today are protesting in favor of political correctness over Freedom of Speech. They want a special new right for minorities: the Right Not to be Offended. No American currently has that right in the U.S. Constitution, but these New-Left protesters feel that minorities in America are entitled to it.

So you have the 1960s student protesters, the Baby Boomers the hippies, the real Liberals from this era who wanted the ability to be left alone, live their own lives and live in freedom, before the New-Left emerges in the late 1960s, that wanted to tear down the American establishment and our form of government and move to a socialist system.

The 1960s hippies marching for individual freedom for all Americans and not have to fight wars they think are immoral. And you have the sons and daughters, perhaps even grandsons and granddaughters of the New-Left of the 1960s and 1970s, protesting today against free speech. And create a new right for minorities that doesn’t exist for anyone else.

The hippies, we’re successful, because America was politically changing in the 1960s and becoming that country that we really are today of people who believe in the right to be left alone and be free to live our own lives and even freely express ourselves. While the New-Left, represented a fringe in the 1960s that believed capitalism was immoral and even racist, that our form of government was even undemocratic and completely wanted to change the American way of life and impose their socialist and even Marxist values on the rest of the country.

And today you have the New-Left still representing a fringe that sees free speech as dangerous and that minorities deserve the right not to be offended. The 1960s protesters were successful, because in many cases they had the country with them. The New-Left protesters today don’t have that.

Bob Newhart: 'On Being Politically Correct Comedy'

Source:B.V. Dahlen- Good job, Bob!

Source:The Daily Review 

"Bob Newhart on "Being Politically Correct", at the Bob Newhart Show, The Ferguson Center for the Performing Arts, Christopher Newport University, Newport News, Virginia. March 16, 2012."

From B.V. Dahlen

I like Bob Newhart's line about gays and straights implying at least that we're both funny and we just make fun of each other.

I swear to God (even though I'm Agnostic) that gay men especially, because lesbians tend not to be as sensitive, (ha, ha) could make all the butch masculine straight-men jokes all they want and straight men would probably just laugh at them. Because we know ourselves and know so many straight men and how we tend to act.

But if you make a feminine gay man joke and make fun of a queen, you're automatically viewed as a bigot and homophobe by the Illiberal-Left Political Correctness Police. Even if you believe that gays, men and women, should have the same rights and responsibilities under law as straights, male or female. And that you're even friends with gay men and are friendly with lesbians.

I mean that is the whole point, right: when you make fun of someone or groups of people and that is all you're doing and you're not throwing slurs and bigoted insults and that sort of thing, not that bigots don't have a right to their sense of humor as well, that is all you're doing. You're jabbing at characteristics and flaws of people and groups.

When you make a gay man joke, or do an impression, you're not saying that all gay men are feminine and sound like women and walk like runway models and the whole deal. You're just making fun of queens who are gay men with feminine characteristics. Like being oversensitive and not crazy about people knowing who they are.

If comedians can't make of people, they might as well become car insurance salesman. (And saleswomen, to be politically correct) Because that is what life would be like for a comedian who isn't allowed to make fun of people. Either through their writing, or performances. One dreary day after another where you're literally counting how many times someone slammed the door in your face. After you told someone about the great car insurance deal you could give them on their Ford Escort. Except that you're not allowed to make fun of it, because you'll be accused of being bigoted towards door slammers.

Comedy and humor, is exactly that: Not exactly a true story, but someone making fun of something, or someone who has done something. Not to be taken seriously and by the way, great comedians generally have a self-deprecating sense of humor. So how about everyone else as well.

Salon Magazine: Scott Timberg: 'Stop The Hand-Wringing Over Campus PC Culture'

Source:The New Democrat

Scott Timberg, in his column in Salon, which might be the Federal Chief of the Political Correctness Police, wrote the best piece I’ve seen from a New-Left generally pro-political correctness publication about PC. He basically said, “yeah we might do it. But so do they and they’re better at it than we are.” Which is sort of a childish sophomoric argument, but he least he admits his side believes in political correctness. And then he also goes onto say that comedians and other commentators should have free-will in what they’re allowed to talk about. Which is all I argue for in this debate. Free expression and personal responsibility for what you say.

I don’t see what political correctness warriors are fighting for. Do they want a world where everyone whose not male, Caucasian and Christian to not have to be subjected to criticism and humor, even when the criticism and humor is dead on? You’re not going to find that planet in the American galaxy outside of New York City, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco and parts of Los Angeles? Americans, believe in free speech and free expression. Regardless of political affiliation. That is all Americans between the Far-Left and Far-Right. Which is eighty-percent of us. Liberals, invented free speech, so of course they’re in favor of it. Conservatives in the real sense, support free speech. And so do Centrists and Libertarians.

When someone uses humor in an accurate funny way to describe the shortcomings of someone else even if that person is from another group, religion, ethnicity, race, whatever it might be, what do the targets of the humor and criticism have to complain about? It would be one thing if the people doing the criticism and humor, just target one group of people, while they defend their group, or groups to the hill. But even then the commentator is subjected to criticism and reaction about what they said. And if the person is inconsistently critical that will come out and be made public. Especially if a lot of what they say is inaccurate.

But don’t try to shut people up in a liberal democracy of three-hundred and fifteen-million people who has the most liberal guarantee of free speech in the world. At least among large counties and one thing that truly makes America the number one country in the world, our right to be heard, but also our right to listen and to hear what others have to say about what we’ve said. Political correctness warriors, really need to take up pot and vacation in Hawaii. Perhaps start smoking Cuban cigars since they’ll be legal in America again and learn to chill. They’ll live a lot longer and better for it.

AlterNet: Valerie Tarico- 'Why Do the Craziest Religious People Get the Most Attention?'

Source:FreeState MD- a woman who is perhaps out of this world.

Source:FreeState MD 

“There’s no question that religion can have some ugly moral and social consequences. The homophobic and misogynist attitudes of many American Evangelicals come straight out their sacred texts. So do the Islamic concepts of “dhimmitude” and jihad. So does the Jewish notion of favored bloodlines. So do Mormon and Scientologist recruiting practices. The Bible prescribes the death penalty for thirty six infractions, ranging from childhood disobedience to marital infidelity to witchcraft. The Quran contains over a hundred verses sanctifying the slaughter of infidels in one context or another. I’ve argued in the past that religion disinhibits violence rather than causing it, but in a world of complex causation, one where straws sometimes break the backs of camels, that may be a distinction without a difference. The fact is, putting God’s name on Iron Age morality contributes to Iron Age behavior.

There also can be no question that, in this regard, not all ideologies are created equal. Religions differ in their history, teaching, and priorities, and consequently in how readily they are leveraged to justify oppression or violence. To name this month’s most salient example, Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy, combined with a prohibition of images, means that some Muslims are uniquely likely to flare when testosterone gets ignited by blasphemous pictures. The Onion made this point recently with a graphic cartoon depicting Jesus, Moses, Ganesh, and Buddha engaged in sex, beneath the caption, “No One Murdered Because of This Image.”  

From the AlterNet 

“In his editorial New Rule, Bill Maher addresses Indiana’s new “religious freedom” law and calls on moderates of all religions to come out against fundamentalism.” 

Source:Real Time With Bill Maher- on religious fundamentalism.

From Real Time With Bill Maher 

Probably the same reason why the craziest Atheists who want to outlaw religion, because they are crazy and don’t understand the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t want to hear about someone, stop talking about them and you’ll hear less.

I like this article in the AlterNet, (perhaps the only article I’ve ever liked by the AlterNet) because Valerie Tarico takes on fundamentalists from all religions. Not just Evangelical Christians, which is what today’s so-called Progressives (the Far-Left really) only focus on:

“Christian-Conservatives, are evil bigots, because they put down women and gays. Conservative-Muslims, are good decent people, who are simply misunderstood. And when they do and say bad things, it’s America’s fault.” Which is generally the attitude that you get from the Far-Left. Which is what the AlterNet is, a clearly left-wing, if not socialist publication on the Far-Left. But with what you get with Valerie Tarico, is religious fundamentalism is bad, even it comes from non-Anglo-Saxon Protestant males.

If religious fundamentalism and bigotry that comes from religious fundamentalism, is a bad thing like gays aren’t real humans, or are mentally handicapped, or women’s place is in the home, etc, then religious fundamentalism is bad period. Doesn’t matter the religion, the race, ethnicity, or color of the people.

If you’re going to put down the Christian-Right when one of their members murders a man simply because he thought that guy was gay, because he had a feminine voice and demeanor, then you can’t defend that same behavior when it happens in Saudi Arabia. Where gays are put to death by their own Islamic government.

The debate about religious extremism shouldn’t be about race, ethnicity, color, or a specific religion. Unless you’re simply bigoted about one race, ethnic, or religious group. To coin a phrase from the great movie about Watergate All The President’s Men: “Follow the money.” Or in this case follow the bigotry. When the Christian-Right behaves badly, sure, go after them. But when Islamists behave badly, don’t call people who criticize that behavior bigots simply for criticizing bad behavior.

Stupid people, unfortunately come in all shapes, sizes, colors, races, ethnicities, religions and genders. Which makes them harder to deal with, because they can hit you at anytime from anyone. No race, ethnicity, religion or gender, has a monopoly on stupidity and bigotry. Which is too bad, because it would be easier to deal with and eliminate:

“Hey, now that we know what all stupid look like, lets just focus on them and put the bigoted morons away.”

You can’t do that with a mental disease like stupidity, simply because we don’t have enough prison and hospital space to house all of those morons. And given these facts when you just concentrate on the bigots from one religion and race of people, while you ignore the bigots from another religion which just happens to be the largest religion in the world, being Islam, you give away get out of jail free cards to a lot of people. Who are just as bigoted as the Christian-Conservatives you don’t like. Which is stupid in itself.