The New Yorker: William Brennan: 'The Night Bernie Sanders Was President'

Source:The New Yorker- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) "The President Sanders Film Festival, in Williamsburg, was for movies that imagined a world in which Bernie won. But the event didn’t quite turn out that way.Photograph by Ralph Freso / Getty." Talking about this photo about Senator Bernie Sanders.

"On a recent evening, about two dozen Bernie Sanders supporters and assorted bons vivants crammed into the World Money Gallery, a boxcar-size events space on Montrose Avenue in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. The occasion was the President Sanders Film Festival, at which four films would be shown. The gallery’s walls were decorated with glittery paintings of Sanders. “Better With Bernie—Baruch Hashem,” one read. Red and blue balloons floated at the ceiling, election-party-style; above the drinks table hung a large banner advertising “Bernie Sandwiches.” Amanda Mercado and Zachary Darvish, the festival’s organizers, stood beneath it, greeting people as they arrived. When attendees crossed the threshold, Mercado explained, they were stepping into an alternate universe, “where Bernie Sanders is President of the United States.”

From The New Yorker 

"Best buds! Don't miss The President Show, every Saturday night at 11pm on Comedy Central." 

Source:Comedy Central- Real Donald Trump? LOL

From Comedy Central

How about we all go to Colorado and load up on marijuana: cigarets, cookies, whatever it might be and just get as high as New York skyscrapers and Elvis fans thinking they just saw The King. Because that might be the only way an honest, sane, intelligent person, can imagine a Democratic Socialist from New York City, who has represented the Socialist Republic of Vermont in Congress for now almost 27 years, as President of the United States. The George McGovern of the post-World War II generations.

Looking back at it now I believe the only reasons why Bernie Sanders who isn't even a registered Democrat, but self-described Democratic Socialist (which is a little different) became the number one alternative to Hillary Clinton, who really was the most qualified presidential candidate at least since George H.W. Bush, has to do with how screwed up the Democratic Party is, as well as the broader American political system. 

Americans are fed up with the establishment and and fed up with establishment political candidates, to the point that they will look at any candidate, especially who is an official Democrat or Republican who doesn't come from the establishment.

Bernie Sanders whatever you think of him doesn't come from the establishment, at least in a political party sense. I would argue that at least in the sense that anyone who has worked in Washington and has served in Congress for now 27 years when January comes in a couple of months, is as establishments as oranges are, well orange, or politicians lie. But Bernie's politics are certainly not establishment. 

I mean, a Democratic Socialist who promises all of these so-called free services from government, because he doesn't trust the private sector to provide them and doesn't even believe in capitalism, is as anti-Washington as Libertarians are anti-socialism.

And again Bernie Sanders runs for President at a time when American hate politicians and hate how their government is being run and how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent. Also at a time when you have roughly hundred-million Millennial's who don't like capitalism, or at least that is what they say, even though they buy and love all the products and services that come from capitalism. And not just with new technology and Hollywood, but fashion and everyone else that our capitalist system produces.

But Millennial's seem to believe that they're being screwed by capitalism. They have college degrees and yet they can't seem to find jobs that moves them out of their parents basements. They're drowning in college debt. And here you have at the time a 74 year old Jewish Democratic Socialist who was originally from New York City (perhaps the capital of American Socialism) come in and say: "Capitalism and the rich, are screwing Americans. And we need to destroy the capitalist and two-party establishment and do something else."

The reason why someone like Bernie Sanders (the George McGovern of today) who would be as mainstream in Sweden or Britain as soccer is popular, but in American politically stands out as badly as pornographers at a Southern Baptist Convention and seems to have landed in America from the Planet Utopia and playing Santa Clause (I guess a Jewish Santa Clause) with all of these gifts from Uncle Sam saying that all of these services are free, with a fat bill in the mail later on that most of us call taxes. 

The reason why a Bernie Sanders can make a strong run for the presidential nomination for the largest and oldest political party at least in America, is because he came down from Planet Utopia and saw a perfect political storm.

The anti-establishment of anti-establishment political candidates running at a time when the establishment in America is as unpopular as New York Yankees fans at an Irish pub in Boston. With millions of Americans essentially jumping on the Bernie bandwagon and saying they hate the establishment too and they also love socialism (even though most of them don't know what it is) and are going to work hard for Bernie Sanders for President. And cheering and loving everything that Bernie says, because he's always promising free stuff and gifts from Uncle Sam. Apparently Socialists don't believe taxes are fees and bills that taxpayers pay for government services.

I'm not sure I can imagine a Bernie Sanders for President in America. I think it would have been interesting to see Democrats give him the nomination just to see how the Donald Trump Campaign would have played him, which is exactly what they would have done. 

Part of Donald Trump's rigged system theme was all about Bernie and how he believed the Democratic Party was treating Bernie. They wanted to run against Bernie regardless of what the polls were saying, because of what Bernie represents ideologically.

They could've run commercials essentially saying that America can't afford Bernie. Under a Bernie Sanders presidency, America wouldn't be able to defend themselves, because Bernie would gut the defense system.

You would see commercials like: "North Korea wants Bernie Sanders as President, so they can attack us when our defense is down."

Another commercial like: "Under President Bernie Sanders, Americans would now have to work three jobs instead of 1 or even 2: one job to pay the taxes and two jobs to try to support themselves."

And these ads would work because you have millions of Americans who don't follow politics very closely and have a tendency to believe what people tell them without even considering the source of the information and whatever motives the person might have for saying what they're saying. Which is how you get the political system that we have in America where politicians are essentially in office to stay in office and get elected to higher office. Because if they even bother to try to govern they could risk losing political support.

I can't imagine a Bernie Sanders as President simply because I'm an American and I'm smart enough to know that Americans might say they like free government services, but only until they find out that those services aren't free and that their real taxes that come from those services. 

And even if a Bernie Sanders gets to the White House, that is probably as far as he would get. Because he would have a Congress even if Democrats control the House or Senate or even both chamber's, telling President Sanders, no. Because they believe government is trying to do too much here, but also because they don't want to raise the taxes on people that they need in order to get reelected. But in a country that invented Hollywood Americans can imagine anything. Including a Socialist as President. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

John Birch Society: John F. McManus: 'Hugh Hefner and Moral Decline'

Source: John Birch Society- Playboy Hugh Hefner: known as The Devil to the Christian Right and Far-Left in America.

Source:The Daily Review 

“John Adams, our nation’s second president, famously stated the need for something beyond the Constitution to preserve the American dream. He insisted: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Approximately one and a half centuries later, Founder Robert Welch of The John Birch Society warned, “War always results in more government and moral decline.” Both stressed the importance of morality and, as history shows, they were hardly alone in doing so.” 

From The John Birch Society

"Hugh Hefner and a Moral and Religious People"

Source:Scott Bradley- on Playboy Hugh Hefner.

From Scott Bradley

Similar to Hugh Hefner like Ayn Rand, is an example of why the Far-Left and Far-Right in America are like an arguing fighting married couple who you would think are bitter enemies out the door headed for divorce when you see them, but who actually love each other. Similar to Al and Peggy Bundy, from the great sitcom Married With Children. Or Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, from the great movie Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf. The Far-Right and Far-Left have both Ayn Rand and Hugh Hefner in common, as far as people they both not just oppose, but hate.

Hugh Hefner represents what the Christian-Right and now Christian-Nationalists on the Far-Right and the Socialist-Left and in some cases now Communist-Left, hate about about America which is individualism and personal freedom. The ability for one to pick their own lot in life and live with their own decisions. Chart their own course in life and live the way they choose, not how Big Government decides for them, because they believe people are too stupid to make their own decisions. And that free adults are essentially children and mental patients, without the knowledge and judgment to make their own decisions in life.

I mean, H\ugh Hefner created Playboy Magazine. He didn’t create the lifestyle, but he made it mainstream, along with the Baby Boom Generation and the 1960s. Pre-Hefner and Playboy, America was still the 1950s Father Knows Best, honey, I’m home! America! Where Dad of course worked and where Mom stayed home. Women of course were allowed to work in America, but could be denied employment simply because of their gender, or lose their husband if they choose to enter the outside workforce.

Thanks to Hefner and others, in the 196os Americans finally saw the memo that America is about freedom and the individual. That Americans can actually make their own decisions in life and not have to live in Big Bother’s basement anymore and go out in the world and decide for themselves how to live and what the American Dream means for them.

That men didn’t necessarily have to get married, nor did women. That men and women didn’t even have to get married in order to have kids. That they could actually do those things together without getting married. Even if the Christian-Right labeled their kids as bastards. That women could build careers for them and then perhaps later on if they met the right man and wanted to, they could settle down and have kids. Instead of setting out to get married and have kids and soon as they’re out of college.

Not saying I approve of Hugh Hefner’s lifestyle and that lifestyle isn’t for men. But what’s great about America along with our diversity and equal rights and what actually makes America exceptional is our individualism. The right for free adults to be themselves. That even porn freaks and men who can’t get it up in a traditional way and fine just one beautiful sexy woman boring, have a place in America.

And of course the Far-Left hates Hefner not just because of his individualism and the personal freedom that millions of men and women in America finally felt that they had, but they believed Hefner was an exploiter of women because of the pornography that his magazine represented and even produced. Apparently unaware that American women actually have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to get involved, or in bed even with someone like Hefner and pose for playboy and other pornographic publications, or decide not to. I guess the Far-Left as much as they claim to be champions of feminism, apparently see American women actually as stupid and not able to make these decisions for themselves.

Hugh Hefner and Playboy, represent choice in America. The freedom for people to choose their own course and life and make their own choices. You don’t like pornography, don’t associate with it and keep your kids away from it. Freedom and responsibility, instead of Big Government making these very personal decisions for everyone else. Similar to guns in America, you don’t prosecute people for having guns, but shooting innocent people with those guns. Well similar to pornography and the playboy lifestyle, you don’t prosecute people simply for living a non-traditional lifestyle. You prosecute people when they hurt innocent people with what they’re doing. Rape being and sexual assault, being excellent examples.

And of course the Christian-Right would argue that Americans have a right to self-defense under the 2nd Amendment. And I agree with that . And they would also argue we don’t have a right to pornography and to live our own lifestyles as we choose. Well, we do have the First Amendment which covers free speech and expression, free press. And we also have a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, as well as property rights under the Fifth Amendments. All three of these amendments cover a lot of ground and give Americans a lot of freedom to make their own personal decisions in life. And with that freedom also comes a lot of responsibility. Individualism, personal freedom, and responsibility, is what I believe Hugh Hefner represents.

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

Source:TruthDig- The great comic writer Norman Lear. 

"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

"TYT Politics Reporter Nomiki Kons at Twitter 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."

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

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.

You can also see this post at The Daily Journal, on Blogger.

You can also see this post on The Daily Journal, on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState MD, on Blogger.

Vanity Fair: David Friend- Monica Lewinsky: 'Opens Up About The Year That Changed Politics & Her Life Forever'

Source: Vanity Fair- Former Clinton White House intern and President Bill Clinton's girlfriend, Monica Lewinsky.

"In a series of candid conversations, two decades after she was introduced to the world by Matt Drudge, Lewinsky recalls how 1990s culture, hardball politics, and the fledgling World Wide Web forever altered her life—and American political history. This piece has been adapted from The Naughty Nineties, published by Twelve."

From Vanity Fair

"In 1998, says Monica Lewinsky, “I was Patient Zero of losing a personal reputation on a global scale almost instantaneously.” Today, the kind of online public shaming she went through has become a constant. In a brave talk, she takes a look at our “culture of humiliation,” in which online shame equals dollar signs — and demands a different way."

Source:TED- Monica Lewinski, speaking to TED.

From TED

Looking back at it now twenty years later (think about that for a second) the difference between the 1960s especially the early 1960s with President John F. Kennedy and the 1990s with President William J. Clinton, has to do with the internet age and media culture. The personal scandals that Bill Clinton was involved both real and fake in the 1980s and 1990s, aren't that different in seriousness from the real scandals that President John Kennedy was involved with in the early 1960s.

President Clinton, had a short-term affair with a White House intern. President Kennedy, had affairs with mob girlfriends, women who were still involved with their mobster boyfriends and would then tell those men about their involvement with President Kennedy. Judith Campbell was one of President Kennedy's White House girlfriends. She was Italian mobster's Sam Giacana's girlfriend as well. Bill Clinton while as Governor of Arkansas in the 1970s and 1980s, had an extra marital affair with former model and now writer Gennifer Flowers. Jack Kennedy when he was Senator Kennedy in the 1950s and after he married his wife Jackie, had multiple affairs with multiple women, which continued while he was President in the early 1960s.

So what's the difference between the affairs that Jack Kennedy had in the 1960s and the affairs that Governor and later President Bill Clinton had in the 1980s and 1990s? Only one difference really which is the media.

If you wanted to watch TV back in lets say 1963, you had three channels to choose from. In some big markets maybe there would be an independent station that wasn't affiliated with CBS, NBC, or ABC. PBS didn't even come around until the late 1960s. Forget about satellite, there wasn't even cable. You wanted to read a newspaper of magazine, you had to subscribe to one and it would be mailed to you physically, not electronically and you would probably get it once a week. Same thing with a newspaper but it would be sent to you everyday. Or I guess you could actually leave the cocoon of your house and get some fresh air and go down to your local convenient store and pick up a magazine or newspaper.

You could also get news on the radio and have serval choices there. Cable TV and satellite, didn't come around until the mid 1970s. And probably wasn't universal until the mid or late 1980s. The internet, what the hell is that back in 1963. That didn't come around until the early 1990s and wasn't mainstream until 1995. Smartphones unless you include Blackberrys, have only been around since 2007.

My point here is (and yes I have a point) is the Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton affair of the mid and late 1990s, was not new at least as far as how serious it was. Yes, both people especially President Bill Clinton who is old enough to be Monica's father and of course was married, but then the fact that he's President of the United States having a White House affair with a 20 somethingWhite House intern, showed horrible judgment here and have been paying a price for it ever since. The difference being is that we knew about everything that Bill Clinton was involved with by late 1991 and certainly into 1992 and for his whole presidency, because of new technology and the information age.

No longer just network news, radio, and the newspapers. Not just 24 hour news networks, but online publications (that we call blogs today) Americans simply having the ability to find out everything that they wanted to find out whenever they wanted to by only having a laptop or desktop, or a smartphone. As well as a new media culture that instead is run by lets gets the truth before we put it out, even if that takes longer, is now about having to get something out there before their competitors do, or it will cost them money. Especially ratings and advertising. Not sure that attitude has dominated network news as much as cable news and online publications, but others probably know that better than me.

Not saying the Clinton-Lewinsky affair wasn't serious and shouldn't have been paid attention to. How serious it was and what should've been the consequences for it, are really up to the people involved especially the people who were directly hurt by it. Most notably Bill Clinton't wife and daughter. And to a certain extent President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky herself. Not by some religious cult thats from the 1950s and got caught in some Star Trek time warp and suddenly finding themselves living in the 1990s and deciding that since they're now in the 90s that they're going to not only bring their lifestyle and culture with them, but try to force every other American to live like them. And of course I'm referring to the Clinton haters that Hillary Clinton correctly labeled the vast right-wing conspiracy.

My point is what happened between Bill and Monica, is not much more serious and consequential if at all to the political and sexual affairs of the 1960s. What made Bill and Monica and different is the time and technology in which their affair happened.

Reason Magazine: Robby Soave- Mel Brooks: 'We Have Become Stupidly Politically Correct & Its Killing Comedy'

Source:Reason Magazine- The great comedian and free speech defender Mel Brooks. 

"Legendary filmmaker Mel Brooks unloaded on political correctness yesterday, blaming P.C. pressures for undermining comedians' abilities to perform social satire.

"We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy," he said on BBC Radio."

From Reason Magazine

"Mel Brooks, recently said in an interview that "political correctness" will be the “death of comedy.” Brooks, best known for comedies "Blazing Saddles," "Robin Hood: Men in Tights,” and “The Producers,” sat down with BBC4 recently to talk about his work. He said, “We have become stupidly politically correct, which is the death of comedy. It’s not good for comedy. Comedy has to walk a thin line, take risks." Regarding the portrayal of racial prejudice in his film “Blazing Saddles" from 1974, the director said, “Without that the movie would not have had nearly the significance, the force, the dynamism and the stakes that were contained in it." Brooks is currently developing “Young Frankenstein” into a West End stage show. Red State and Wochit."

From Wochit Entertainment

Source: Wochit Entertainment- The great comedian and free speech defender Mel Brooks. 

Mel Brooks is damn right here! Now, imagine if I said damn right in a movie or on TV back in lets say 1952, I probably would've been expelled from Hollywood back then for using the word damn, because it would have offended someone's religious and moral values. Which was a form of political correctness from a different time.

If comedians, writers, and other commentators, don't have the freedom to express themselves even if it offends someone who wears underwear that is way too tight for them, or is a coffee or Red Bull junky and is so wound up they couldn't fall asleep even if they watched a PBS telethon for 48 hours straight and simply does not know how to relax, who has a glass jaw for an ego and the slightest form of criticism like telling them they're 30 seconds late absolutely destroys their glass jaw, meaning to put it simply, that they can't take a joke. They can't even handle criticism that is fair and even accurate. If people with glass jaws become in charge of what is appropriate and inappropriate in comedy and other forms of communication, well yes we can then make the appropriate funeral arraignments for comedy in America.

Because it will die simply because comedians, writers, and other commentators won't want to take a risk and make fun of something or someone that can later sue them for it, put in jail, or risk losing their job because they're not politically correct. They'll simply find something better to do with their time and find another way to make a living. Perhaps instead of performing on stage, they'll perform in private clubs where you only get in by invitation. Perform at private homes. Perhaps write books and articles, but the only people who'll get to read them are people they approve of who won't turn them into the Political Correctness Police. Maybe they'll have and give private readings of their material.

You take away comedians ability to perform and express themselves, you're taking away comedy in America. And we'll be left with comedians making fun of the Christian-Right and what the Far-Left calls White people and White trash. Because anyone who understands political correctness in America knows that the Far-Left pretty much dominates it.

Which makes modern political correctness hypocritical and partisan , because jokes about fundamentalist Christians especially if they're also Protestant and of Southern English background, are considered acceptable, but you make a joke about fundamentalist Muslims especially people who believe in and practice Islamism, you're considered a racist by the New-Left in America. People who are Socialists and even what I would at least call Neo-Communists, because they believe in  a certain level of democracy, but where communication should only be limited to people who think and believe the way they do.

So if you make a white trash joke, you're considered progressive by this community. But you make fun of ghetto people, you're considered a racist. Political correctness from so-called social justice warriors on the Far-Left in America, is about as hypocritical as Donald Trump calling someone selfish, or accusing someone of being too self-centered, as consistent as one of Donald Trump's political positions.

Political correctness is kryptonite for comedy in America. One thing that you would think that could never die in America is comedy, because of our free speech rights that are guaranteed by our First Amendment and the fact that we have a lot of stupid people and dishonest people who tend to be our politicians that are elected by most of our stupid people. But the one thing that could kill comedy is political correctness.

And no, people will never be arrested for cracking a joke about someone that offends them, or perhaps not even sued for it because it would probably get thrown out, unless the Political Correctness Police takes over our judiciary. But what would happen instead is that people will be afraid to be funny and take risks, because they're worried about the aftermath from people who again wear underwear that is too tight, or drink too much Starbucks or Red Bull and simply can't handle criticism about themselves, or people they claim to care about.  The way you kill comedy even in America, is not just by having too many oversensitive tight asses in America, but actually having those people in charge and running things for everyone else. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at Real Life Journal, on WordPress.

Constitution Daily: 'Looking Back: George Carlin & The U.S. Supreme Court'

Source:National Constitution Center- The great comedian George Carlin.

"On July 3, 1978, the Supreme Court issued its historic verdict in the George Carlin “seven dirty words” case, a decision that still holds sway over the use of indecent and obscene language on television, and in a new era of mass communications.

George_Carlin

Carlin himself wasn’t involved directly in the case, which was called Federal Communications Commission V. Pacifica Foundation. He had already won a legal verdict in an unrelated case several years prior to the FCC decision when a judge threw out his arrest in for performing the comedy routine at a Milwaukee summer festival.

It was a New York radio station owned by the Pacifica Foundation that was in hot water with the FCC for playing a recording of Carlin’s “Filthy Words" monologue on October 30, 1973, at 2 p.m. in the afternoon. The broadcast was heard by John H. Douglas, who said he heard the words while driving with his young son in a car. Douglas then complained to the FCC, although the case wasn’t decided until almost five years later. FCC ended in a 5-4 split among the Justices, with Justice John Paul Stevens writing the majority decision.

Prior to the case, the FCC had warned Pacifica that the language in Carlin’s routine was indecent and prohibited by FCC statutes. The FCC didn’t fine Pacifica, but instead issued an order that threatened to take into account any complaints when Pacifica next sought to renew its broadcast license.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the decision in 1977 by a 2-1 margin, with each judge writing separate opinions. Judge Tamm said that the FCC’s order represented censorship.Chief Judge Bazelon said the FCC’s order “must be narrowly construed to cover only language that is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment.”

But Judge Leventhal argued the FCC correctly concluded that the content was indecent because it was broadcast during the daytime and the FCC had a legitimate interest in protecting children from hearing such indecent content.

Despite the humor in Carlin’s monologue, the Court was faced with a very serious question: Did the First Amendment deny the federal government any power to restrict the public broadcast of indecent language under any circumstances?

Justice Stevens agreed with Judge Leventhal from the District of Columbia appeals court.

“We have long recognized that each medium of expression presents special First Amendment problems,” Justice Stevens said. He stated that because “the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans” and “broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children,” the FCC had the right to impose an order on the radio station warning it about the consequences of the broadcast.

The FCC had the right to treat indecent speech as a nuisance, in this one instance, because the Court said that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a broadcast of words dealing with sex and execration.

Stevens then referenced a Court decision from 1926 and a quote from Justice George Sutherland: "Nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, - like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard."

The decision officially gave the FCC the ability to impose penalties on broadcasters who presented obscene, indecent, or profane language outside of certain time periods or in certain cases. It also limited the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.

Justice William Brennan wrote the dissent. “I find the Court's misapplication of fundamental First Amendment principles so patent, and its attempt to impose its notions of propriety on the whole of the American people so misguided, that I am unable to remain silent.”

“The Court's decision may be seen for what, in the broader perspective, it really is: another of the dominant culture's inevitable efforts to force those groups who do not share its mores to conform to its way of thinking, acting, and speaking,” he added.

In 2012, the Court had a chance to revisit the Pacifica decision when it considered three incidents where the FCC wanted to punish Fox and ABC for what it deemed as offensive content. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority decision ruled against the FCC, but for procedural reasons. Kennedy saw no need to revisit the Pacifica decision.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while concurring with Kennedy’s overall opinion, stated her objections to the FCC case ruling. “In my view, the Court’s decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation was wrong when it issued. Time, technological advances, and the Commission’s untenable rulings in the cases now before the Court show why Pacifica bears reconsideration,” she said.

As for Carlin, he said in his 2009 autobiography, “FCC vs Pacifica has become a standard case to teach in communications classes and many law schools. I take perverse pride in that. I’m actually a footnote to the judicial history of America.”

Scott Bomboy is editor in chief of the National Constitution Center." 

Source:Constitution Daily 

"George Carlin on his reaction to the Supreme Court case about his Seven dirty words" 

Source:Foundation Interviews- Comedian George Carlin, talking about his seven dirty words.

"George Carlin on his reaction to the Supreme Court case about his Seven dirty words."

From Foundation Interviews

The blog writes a lot about political correctness and fascism, because we write a lot about comedy and write comedy ourselves and without free speech which is what political correctness and fascism tries to restrict (obviously, duh, you don't say!) there would't be any comedy and even political satire. Which is why I'm always amused if not confused when so-called left-wing comedians and other entertainers make calls for political correctness because they think some material is offensive.

Because without free speech there wouldn't be any comedy. I mean, if political correctness ran this country instead of the First Amendment, comedians wouldn't be able to crack jokes about anybody. Especially the people who deserve to be made fun of. Like our politicians, just to use as an example. Entertainers attacking free speech is very ironic. Because speech is what fuels comedy, as well as self-awareness and what's going on around you in life. Even comedians have stood up for political correctness against free speech, like Michael Moore and others. Even John Oliver, Stephanie Miller, John Fugelsang, would be other examples.

A comedian attacking free speech, is like a race car driver saying oil and gas are bad for the environment and therefor should be outlawed. Oil and gas literally fuel that race car driver's career. Without it, he might be flipping burgers or selling lemonade. Or a pro football player saying football is too violent and therefor tackling should be outlawed. Who would go watch professional flag football? As the great comedian Mel Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy because comedians are worried about offending oversensitive tight asses, who think they're the only perfect human beings on the face of the Earth who don't deserve to be made fun of. Brooks has said political correctness is destroying comedy. The second part is my line.

George Carlin is not the first victim of political correctness when it comes to comedy. You could argue at least that Lenny Bruce back in the 1950s and 60s has that uthonorable title. But George and Lenny, are from the same generation. Lenny would literally go on stage using cuss words as part of his act and I'm not talking about hell or damn, but he would talk about sex and talk about how people would have sex with each other and put it bluntly. And then would literally be arrested on stage for using foul language. George has  a similar but different story.

George would go on stage and literally use words like shit, fuck, mother fucker, mother fucking fucking, and others and these were part of the so-called seven dirty words that comedians weren't supposed to use in Phyllis Schlafly's 1950s America, where you weren't even allowed to say God, Jesus, and hell, at least not on TV.

Liberal democracy which has a practically guaranteed right for free speech in America under are First Amendment. The only exceptions having to do with falsely libeling, inciting violence, or harassment, like leaving obscene message on someone's voice mail, to use as an example. This is not the place for oversensitive tight asses who look at the mirror and only see perfection. Or have a glass jaw for an ego and can't take the smallest bit of criticism without breaking out in tears and flooding their homes from all of their perspiration. I don't know, maybe Canada is a country for people like that.

If you don't like offensive material, then don't watch it or listen to it! Only watch PBS and C-SPAN if you can't handle criticism about yourself and groups you believe have constitutional protection not to be criticized that no one else has. With liberal democracy comes a lot of individual freedom, but with that comes responsibility and the fact that you're not the only one who lives here and you have the same freedom and responsibility that everyone else has. And might from time to time hear and see things that you disapprove of. But so will everyone else. 

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on Blogger. 

You can also see this post at FRS FreeState, on Blogger.

You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: The Confederacy

Source:Last Week Tonight- John Oliver, talking about the American Confederacy.

“Confederate symbols are still celebrated despite the ugly history they symbolize. John Oliver suggests some representations of southern pride that involve less racism and more Stephen Colbert.” 

From Last Week Tonight

I believe this is an example of where Britain is very different from America. In Britain, you basically only have one government because the United Kingdom is a unitarian government with most of the governmental power in the country rests with London in England which gets to decide how the rest of the country including Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and yes England which is actually a territory that is part of Britain, gets to live. Apparently too many people aren't aware of that and talk about England as if it's some independent country and talk about England as if they're talking about France or Germany.

America is very different where power is much more decentralized. We don't just have fifty states and those fifty states aren't Federal agencies. They are independent jurisdictions that are part of a nation state known as the United States and have jurisdiction over their own affairs in their state. So if Alabama wants to have confederate statues, thats their business. Even if it offends oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies that have nothing better to do with their nights like gee I don't know, studying, getting laid, and instead spend their nights protesting Halloween, Thanksgiving, and now confederate statues.

So if we were in Britain right now whether it was Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, and someone was offended by some statue, Parliament could just declare that statue offensive or the Prime Minister could just do that by herself and that statue would automatically be eliminated. Even if the people in Glasgow, Belfast, Cardiff, or Manchester, aren't offended by the statue themselves, at least not a majority of the people. But we're obviously not in Britain and neither is John Oliver.

If someone is offended by a statue in Birmingham, Charlotte, Richmond, Philadelphia, Boston, or wherever else in America, sure they could complain about it and even peacefully protest against it. But don't expect Congress to pass some law telling some city or cities that they have to remove a certain statue because it offends someone or a group of people. Perhaps especially a group of oversensitive over caffeinated college yuppies, who keep local coffee houses and Red Bull in business all by themselves.

 Because Congress would be out of their jurisdiction. And don't expect the President to even comment on it. Other than maybe President Donald Trump who will say that there's nothing wrong with having confederate statues. He might complain about having statues that honor African-Americans who fought for the Union in the Civil War, but thats a different issue.

"Mind your own damn business!" Is one of my favorite phrases. I'm not an indifferent person and I see bad things that happen to people all the time that make me feel bad because some innocent person had to experience that. But unless there's something that is really bad that is going on in Maryland, especially involving the State Government and Annapolis is trying to pass some law that I really don't like, I could really care less if Alabama or any other Bible Belt state tries to honor some Confederate figure. Or tries to pass some big government law that tries to outlaw homosexuality, or gambling, to use as examples.

We have a Federal Republic and as along as the states are passing laws that are within the U.S. Constitution, they are within their rights. Big government laws like banning homosexuality violate the Constitution and would get thrown simply because they violate the Fourth Amendment and our right to privacy. But as long as any state is within the Constitution and putting up statues and keeping older statues is certainly within the Constitution, states can honor anybody from the Confederacy that they choose too. And if people are offended by that, they can always vote with their feet (to quote to Ronald Reagan) and move to a state that is more politically correct with the times. 

You can also see this post at The Daily View, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The Daily View, on Blogger.