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

Source: Reason Magazine- Comedian Mel Brooks and free speech defender Mel Brooks.

Source: The Daily Review 

"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."  

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

From Wochit Entertainment

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.

Reason Magazine: John Stossel & Lilly Tang Williams: '100 Years of Communist Disaster'

Source:Reason Magazine- Happy B-Day, you freakin Commies!

Source:The Daily Review

"This year marks communism's 100th birthday. Its horrors should remind us of the value of freedom."

From Reason Magazine

China is a good example of a communist disaster as far as their economic system, until they started their privatization program about 40 years ago and moved to a more capitalist private enterprise economic system.

But China is still a communist, unitarian, one-party, state, that happens to have a private enterprise economic system, while still maintaining some state-owned enterprises. Their political system is still a one-party communist system and there’s still no free press, free speech, right to privacy, fair trial, etc, things that liberal democracies like America have.

And yet I don’t think anyone at this point would argue that the People’s Republic of China is a failed state. Just a little push back at John Stossel’s broad point here that communism has failed in China.

I’m more interested in the somewhat rebirth if not of communism, but certainly socialism and what I call Neo-Communism. Which is a very illiberal (not liberal) form of socialist-collectivism which is somewhat undemocratic, while still leaving in some democratic principles.

For example, non-socialist parties are still allowed to technically run for national office in Venezuela. The Center-Right Liberal Democrats did win control of the National Assembly there a few years ago. But then what the so-called Socialist (Neo-Communist) Maduro Government does there is say that those elections were not valid and the opposition is now a threat to the country (meaning the Maduro Government) and the Maduro Government starts their own brand new National Assembly where only members of the Socialist Party there are allowed to serve.

Which is a big reason why we’re seeing so much chaos in Venezuela there because the economy is collapsing in a country that is energy independent and yet they can’t produce enough affordable energy for most of the country. But rising inflation and interest rates, shortages of other basic necessities in life including food. Because Big Uncle Nick (meaning President Nicolas Maduro) believes his state is more capable of producing the goods and services that the Venezuelan people need better than the people themselves.And that Venezuela is a country of 25 millions morons essentially who are too stupid to manage their own affairs. And they need Big Uncle Nick and his army of Neo-Communists (his government) to take care of them for them.

Venezuela is the perfect example of a failed Neo-Communist state and disaster. Cuba would be another great example, add North Korea. Anyone seen or heard from the Soviet Union lately or seen any Soviets? Almost like they’ve disappeared from the face of the Earth.

But to bring it back home back to America where no one who isn’t an alcoholic or drug addict actually believes communism will ever takeover America and run this country. But there is a new socialist movement that has two wings in it.

One American Socialist win, is a democratic socialist wing led by Senator Bernie Sanders and Dr. Jill Stein, who by enlarge are both peace-loving Hippies from the 1960s who perhaps occasionally enjoy a joint every now and then who do live on cloud nine politically in the sense that they both have this warped fantasy that perhaps you could only get from smoking too much pot, that government services are free.

Democratic Socialists believe that if American taxpayers just gave up most of their income to Uncle Sam, or perhaps Uncle Bernie and his wife Aunt Jill, (assuming that we wouldn’t allow them to just take our money from us) that America would turn into some beautiful socialist utopia. With no one ever going without not enough or enjoying too much, because the U.S. Government would collect our wealth for us and then manage for us and decide for us what we need to live well.

Besides, in Bernie and Jill’s view Americans tend to be stupid anyway and aren’t capable of making our own complicated decisions anyway that you would probably need a masters degree from an Ivy League or some other great Northeastern or West Coast university to be able to manage properly.

Democratic Socialists believe that such complicated decisions like where we should get our health insurance, health care, how to invest for our retirement, where to get our childcare for our kids, who to take care of our kids when they get older, etc, basic decisions that only New York, San Francisco, and Washington yuppie intellectuals are capable of making. And therefor according to Uncle Bernie and Aunt Jill and other Socialists, should have this decision-making power over everyone else and given the power to run our lives for us.

But wait, it gets a helluva a lot worse than that. Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein, are the good Socialists for the most part. Other than having a hard time telling the truth about the costs and consequences of their economic policies. Its much worst than the Sanders-Stein factions of American socialism.

Move over to the American Neo-Communists the people who hate free speech so much that they’ll use their free speech rights to try to shut up people who disagree with them. Even use violent tactics and terrorism to try to shut people up. We saw this at Berkley during this winter.

The Neo-Communists are people who say they hate capitalism even though they own almost every form of new technology there is and claim they can’t live without their smartphones and iPads and other devices. Who are always up to date on the latest fashion trends and own all of them. And yet they say they hate capitalism.

Neo-Communists are people who claim to love animals and are for animal rights and put people down for the eating cheeseburgers and other meat and call that animal cruelty as they’re wearing leather jackets. Again, hipster-leftists say they hate capitalism even though they spend most of their time when they’re not protesting against free speech, at coffee houses on their laptops and iPhones. Who claim our Founding Fathers (the original Liberal Democrats) were evil racists who created this evil American empire. As they wear t-shirts of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro and support those two men who are both responsible for the murders of thousands of people. In Fidel’s case perhaps millions.

Communism will never make it to America at least as a governing philosophy where we would see some communist regime installed and running the U.S. Government. Because Americans tend to be too individualist and once we are educated, we tend to know what doesn’t work and what does work and are able and want to make our own decisions in life both personally and economically.

Besides, the examples of failed communism and failed communist states are widely known. At least outside of the Millennial Generation and once the Millennial’s finally grow up I believe they’ll come to realize that the pot fantasies that they had in their twenties and even thirties about how like totally awesome socialism and communism is, was nothing more than a social fad and an attempt to look cool with their generation.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Frank Furedi- 'College Students Think Freedom is Not a Big Deal'

Source:Reason Magazine- Author Frank Furedi, with a book abut college students.

Source:The Daily Review

“Sociologist Frank Fruedi and Reason’s Nick Gillespie discuss the decline of free speech on campus and his new book, What Happened to the University: a Sociological Exploration of its Infantilisation.”

From Reason Magazine

As someone who didn't even graduate college I'm probably not the right spokesperson for this, (to say the least) but I've always believed that college is supposed to be a place to learn and and even learn news ideas.

College should be a place where new ideas and things that people didn't hear much if anything about in high school or anywhere else and not to automatically take those new ideas and philosophies on face value and automatically, but to learn about them and then decide for themselves on the best available evidence possible on the worth of those ideas and philosophies.

That it's not the job of college to tell people how to think and what to think, but how to learn and then the students can figure out for themselves the worth of what they're learned and what it means on the best available evidence possible.

Call me naive if you want, but that is what I believe. I think what we're seeing at college now is sort of the opposite of that. That you have professors who don't teach their students about ideas and philosophies as much as they try to teach their students what to think. That this is what you should believe because this is what is right and wrong. Instead of giving their students the freedom to learn and experience and figure out what works for them and in society for themselves. Again on the best available evidence possible.

Today what we're seeing at college with young students like millennial's and soon to be the so-called Z Generation, is that the opposites are being taught and learned as far as what makes America great and what makes our diverse vast liberal democracy work so well.

According to too many millennial's freedom and free speech are bad. They seem to believe that free speech is nothing more than the right to offend someone and because of that we should eliminate free speech because someone might be offended by what is heard and believed.

That personal freedom is nothing more than the right to make mistakes and screw up that the rest of society will have to pay for.

That capitalism and property rights are racist and selfish. Because African-Americans and Latino-Americans, haven't done as well as European and Asian-Americans economically in America and because of that capitalism is racist and unfair.

That allowing people to keep what they own and have earned simply by purchasing it with money they've earned, that is somehow selfish for people to be able to keep property for themselves. And as a result some people will have to go without because you have these selfish people keeping their own property and not sharing it with people who have little.

That Fidel Castro and Che Guevara were great men because they took on the man (so to speak) and that Tomas Jefferson is evil because he owned African slaves. Even in a time when almost all European men in America with means owned slaves. Forgetting the facts that Fidel and Che were both Marxist-Communists who killed people simply because they disagreed with them politically and would lock people up simply for dissenting.

As I said the opposites are being taught to young people in and outside of college in America. And one can just say: "Hey, look at those stupid young people. Don't worry, they'l grow up and be forced to go to work in order to support themselves and learn how the real world works, even if they end up bashing the American system that they've benefited from their whole lives."

One could say that young people being so ignorant is not important  and perhaps these Millennial's as they reach their forties and fifties at worst will end up being like these fake Hollywood Socialists like the Jane Fonda's and Mike Moore's of the world, who end up bashing capitalism and freedom in general, even as they collect their millions and continue to take advantage of a system as they should, that they've benefited so much from.

The thing with socialism is that it's much easier to practice as long as you don't have to live with it. It's a much better system hypothetically than in practice and having to live with it. Because at the end of the day whether you're an Ayn Rand Objectivist-Libertarian, or a Marxist-Socialist, we're all Americans. And we all tend to want to be successful in life and live comfortably. I believe that is the best hope that we can have for the Millennial Generation at this point.

Reason: Zach Weissmueller & Jim Epstein- 'Comedy, Outrage and College: What We Saw at The Can We Take a Joke?'

Source:Reason Magazine- comedian Gilbert Gottfried at Can We Take a Joke.

Source:The Daily Review 

"The documentary feature Can We Take a Joke? premiered at the film festival Doc NYC this Friday, and Reason TV was on the scene at a pre-party being held at the Comedy Cellar's Village Undergound, where filmmakers, comedians, and free speech advocates were eager to sound off about free speech and comedy following a week of high-profile anti-speech protests on college campuses like Yale and Mizzou.

"Maybe the events of this week signal that we're reaching peak crazy and that people are going to say, 'Whoa, this is a little too nutty,'" says director Ted Balaker. "But on the other hand, the outrage mob could just keep plowing ahead."

Follow @canwetakeajoke on Twitter or Facebook to learn more about the film and when and where you might see it.

Approximately 3 minutes. Shot by Jim Epstein. Edited by Zach Weissmueller. Music by Latche Swing.

Scroll down for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this." 

From Reason Magazine 

"The documentary feature Can We Take a Joke? premiered at the film festival Doc NYC this Friday, and Reason TV was on the scene at a pre-party being held at the Comedy Cellar's Village Undergound, where filmmakers, comedians, and free speech advocates were eager to sound off about free speech and comedy following a week of high-profile anti-speech protests on college campuses like Yale and Mizzou.

"Maybe the events of this week signal that we're reaching peak crazy and that people are going to say, 'Whoa, this is a little too nutty,'" says director Ted Balaker. "But on the other hand, the outrage mob could just keep plowing ahead."

Approximately 3 minutes. Shot by Jim Epstein. Edited by Zach Weissmueller. Music by Latche Swing." 

From Reason Magazine 

"Comedian and magician Penn Jillette on being offended. This is an outtake from the FIRE-supported feature documentary "Can We Take A Joke?," a film about when outrage and comedy collide."

Source:FIRE- comedian Penn Jillette.

From FIRE

One of the comedians up there, I think it was the female comedian there said and I'm paraphrasing that people have to realize what humor and a jokes are. Unless you're a Socialist, or something humor and entertainment is exactly that. 

You're not trying to change the world simply with entertainment, but comment on in a humorous way what you see in the world. And a smart comedian will use their humor to also inform people about what is going on, because they follow the news. And in a lot of cases talking to people who know everything about Hollywood and who is sleeping with who and what shoes someone wore when they went out to lunch, but perhaps not even sure what the capital of the state is let alone the United States. So someone like that could actually learn a lot from a smart comedian, if they bother to listen can stay off their smartphone for more than five-minutes at a time.

Without free speech, bloggers and comedians might as well sell life insurance door to door. Perhaps park cars, or get some other jobs that is not nearly as much fun as parking cars and selling insurance door to door. We shouldn't have to worry that if we say this and make fun of that, then this oversensitive group or that one, will be offended. Because their blood pressure is already as high as a skyscraper, because they don't smoke pot and simply don't know how to relax. 

We also shouldn't have to worry about if we make fun of this or that politician or that movement, that somehow we let whatever movement that has been just offended down, setting back fifty-years or whatever. That if we make jokes about labor unions, then people will have a harder time organizing. Or if we make fun of corporations, that will damage Wall Street, or whatever.

We have a very liberal First Amendment and constitutional right to free speech in America. Without it, again comedians and bloggers might as well go work for the state, or something and retire with their pensions after twenty-years or whatever. And because little things like free speech, Right to Privacy and property rights. And because of these great liberal individual rights Americans have a lot of individual freedom in America. Even the freedom to say and do things that others may not approve of. 

But the people who disagree with us can privately and publicly express their disagreement with us, as well as do and say things we don't approve of. That is called liberal democracy and freedom and with what comes with those great things is also responsibility. 

So yeah, we have the right even to be assholes, but people have the right to tell us how big of an asshole we really are. Or even think we're assholes when the only thing we're guilty of speaking the truth or being honest.

Reason Magazine: Matt Welch: Is Free Speech Under Attack in America?

Source: Reason Magazine-

Source:The Daily Review

If there is one place in the world where you want people to be free to think for themselves and learn new things and hear new ideas and be able to learn and develop their own views on the issues, it would be college and I would add high school to that. For democracy, especially liberal democracy to mean anything people have to be free to speak and think for themselves. Instead of creating some collectivist board of so-called experts who are only experts in name only and perhaps in actuality only being experts on the nonsense that they believe in. Telling the peasants the people they rule over what speech is appropriate and what isn't. Rewarding people for speech that they agree with and punishing even through governmental force when people say things that offends the so-called experts.

We don't have a liberal democracy without Freedom of Speech. And Free Speech is exactly that. Not the right to be nice, or be mean , or be correct, or lie, but the right to speak freely. To express yourself and even say things that someone might view as offensive. Even if they have such a big foot stuck up their ass tight ass that they can't even handle criticism that is correct. Imagine if you were doctor, who wasn't allowed to give your patients bad news. So you end up telling your obese patients that they don't need to exercise and cut down on their 5-6 meals a day and not have to eat stuff other than fast food, because not all obese people suffer heart attacks and develop diabetes and all of the other diseases that are related to obesity. That doctor would end up being useless, because they wouldn't be able to treat any of their unhealthy patients, because they would never be allowed to give bad news. For fear of hurting their patients self-esteem.

That is what political correctness is. It is not only a form of fascism, leftist fascism when it comes from the Left and a form of Marxism. But it is an attempt to hide people from negative truths for fear of hurting and oversensitive person's self-esteem.

"We can't call Joe fat, because that might not only offend Joe, but fat people in general. And fat is used to put down fat people. And even though I'm Joe's doctor and I've seen men like him die from heart attacks and from diabetes, because they didn't even know what exercise was and didn't eat properly. I'm not going to tell Joe that he's overweight and too fat. Because I'm more interested in his self-esteem than his physical health."

That is what practicing medicine would become like if doctors weren't allowed to tell their patients the truth. And that is just one example of the dangers of political correctness in America. Free Speech, is not the right to not be offended, but to express yourself and hear what others have to say as well.
Source:Reason Magazine

Reason: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Greg Gutfeld- The Joy of Hate: Illiberal Speech Police

Source:Reason Magazine- Right-wing political satirist Greg Gutfeld. 

Source:The Daily Review

I agree with practically everything that Greg Gutfeld said here about the police speech. That perhaps Salon Magazine should be the chief of. But I would just replace the word liberal with illiberal when it comes to police speech. Free speech, liberal. Fascism, illiberal, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. People when talking about the Left and the Right, should be specific about who they're talking about, because not everyone on the Left is a Liberal and not everyone on the Right is a Conservative. If you don't believe in free speech, you're not a Liberal, but illiberal. If you don't believe in private enterprise, you're not a Conservative. Anti-Conservative I guess.

People who think that Christians and Caucasians in general, should be targets and if anything made fun of any chance there is, but that anyone who is not Caucasian, especially if they're also not Christian and don't come from a blue-collar, rural, Southern background, should be under special protection from the Federal Salon Police Speech, are Fascists. And worst they are partisan Fascists. They think they can get away with saying anything that they want and put down the Right for partisan political gains. While at the same time labeling the Right as bigots when they make fun of, or criticize minorities. Racial, religious, ethnic, gays and so-forth.

Anyone who seems somewhat off and perhaps under medication and even off their medication, whether its Ann coulter on the Far-Right, or Islamists, also on the Far-Right, at least in a religious sense, or Melissa Harris-Perry on the Far-Left, who believes kids don't belong to their parents, but the state, are going to get made fun of. But generally not because of the race, ethnicity, or religion, but because they're stupid and crazy. When we are no longer allowed to make fun of stupid crazy people, that is the day we'll see humor essentially outlawed in America and go out of business. And become a country of straight-faced (no offense, gays) tight asses. Who look like they haven't had a laugh, or a drink, perhaps a joint in ten years. And America will become a very depressed country as a result. With lines all over the country of people waiting to be able to jump off the bridge.
Source:Reason

Reason: Nick Gillespie- Interviewing Ted Balaker: 'Can Americans Still Take a Joke? Comedians Say No'

Source:Reason Magazine- Comedians being interviewed for: Can Americans Still Take a Joke.

Source:The New Democrat

"We've all seen it a million times: a comedian tells a joke, someone else gets offended, someone else blogs about it, and then 'boom!,' outrage spreads across the land," says filmmaker Ted Balaker who is currently finishing up his latest documentary, "Can We Take A Joke?." The film, which features comedians Gilbert Gottfried, Jim Norton, Lisa Lampanelli, Adam Carolla, Karith Foster, and Penn Jillette, examines the role of comedy in our culture of constant outrage.

"Comedians don't even have the freedom of conscience to just be neutral on something," Balaker told Reason TV's Nick Gillespie. "[They] have to affirm what the cool kids believe."

From Reason Magazine

Can Americans still take a joke? That is really what this is about and for Americans who believe in political correctness, the answer is no. Doesn't mean they can't get a good joke and understand it. It just means they can take it.

Today's so-called social justice warriors are kind of like boxers with both a glass jaw and a beer belly. Sure! They can see the punches coming and know what they are, they just can't take them. For political correctness fascists, humor is only humor when the humor is directed at the opposition. When its directed at your side of the isle, or your team, crew, clique, whatever the hell you want to call it, the person delivering the humor is a racist, xenophobe, sexist, homophobe and many times all of those things at the same time.

I believe two big cultural problems that we have in America, is that we're no longer just divided politically, but culturally as well. It is no longer Left and Right, but cultural as well. The types of entertainment that you're into as well as entertainers also tends to define your politics as well. And a lot of the entertainers, have become very partisan as well.

Partisan entertainers make fun of the opposition all the time, but when someone takes shots at their side, they'll act like that person is the biggest bigot since Adolf Hitler. And that they should be deported to Siberia, or some place. And when you have entertainers who clearly come from one side of the isle ideologically, take shots at people their crew is supposed to protect, that person is considered a bigot and a traitor. Bill Maher comes to mind.

American politics and politicians, are so messed up right now, that you possibly can't blame just one side, or the other. This blog is called The New Democrat for good reason.

We are New Democrats ideologically and have a very strong liberal viewpoint, but this idea that Democrats and people on the Left are Einstein's and full of perfect genius's, who are completely unflawed, while Republicans and people on the Right are useless bigots who should be put into one giant time machine and sent back to the 1500s or something, is as believable as saying Pat Buchanan, is a gay, immigrant loving zen hipster, who embraces all cultures and loves all Americans. Who now says same-sex marriage should not only be legal everywhere, but we should invade countries where its currently illegal. Who would believe that?

Political correctness fascists, can't have it both ways. If making fun of Hillary Clinton is sexist, just because she's a woman, but taking shots at Michele Bachmann are perfectly legitimate, then neither is sexist and neither is legitimate.

If racial jokes about one group of Americans, generally Caucasian is not racist, then racial jokes about Asians and Africans are not racist either. If you're going to live in a liberal democracy, you need to be able to put up with all sorts of thoughts and ideas and ways of expressing one's self. Otherwise you'll end up in the nut house and perhaps have Michele Bachmann as your roommate. Or end up on Donald Trump's next reality show: Who Wants Donald Trump For President? Wait, that reality show is already playing. The only current hit show on CNN. Learn to take a joke and you'll live a lot longer and better.

CNN: Penn Jillette on Indiana RFRA- 'You're Not Being Forced to Have Gay Sex'

Source:Reason Magazine- Penn Jillette, on CNN Tonight with Don Lemon.

Source:The New Democrat 

"Via Mediaite comes footage from CNN last night in which hardcore libertarian and atheist Penn Jillette weights in on the Indiana RFRA hoohah.

Given his libertarian bona fides, many folks in the blogosphere have been surprised that Penn has come out in favor of anti-discrimination laws that would force business owners to bake cakes and shoot video at gay marriages even if they didn't believe in such things. Part of his contribution... 

From Reason Magazine

This whole so-called religious freedom law debate (which is really what this isn’t about, but about creating some new right for people who are lets face it, are homophobic and hate homosexuality) is not about expanding religious freedom, or protecting religious freedom. It’s about creating a right for people who are so against homosexuality to the point they view gays as second-class citizens and not deserving of the same rights as straights, to discriminate against people simply because they are gay.

When business’s go public and are open for the public, they are exactly that. Whose the public? It’s all of us and all of our races, ethnicities and yes even sexualities. If you don’t want to serve the public, then open a private club and have it open for private membership only. 

And with your club you could only allow Christians, or Anglos, or Caucasians in general, or men, or straights of whoever you want your club to be open to, to serve. But if you run a store or a restaurant or some other business that is open to the public, then that is what you are. And you can’t deny service to people simply because you don’t like their race, color, ethnicity, or sexuality.

Protecting gays equal access to America is not about creating new rights for people. Since they already have the same rights as straights anyway. Fundamentalists Christian men aren’t being told that they have to bang men, or go to jail! And fundamentalist Christian women aren’t being told they have to bang women, or go to jail! 

If they want to continue to believe that gay sex and homosexuality is immoral and should be illegal, but people banging their cousins, or aunts, or uncles is perfectly legitimate and if anything should be expanded, then they are more than welcome to continue to believe in those things. And be looked down upon as the crazy idiots that they are. But a public business can’t deny access to people simple because of who they are.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie: ‘Everything’s Awesome & Camille Paglia is Unhappy!’

Source:Reason Magazine- talking to Camille Paglia.

Source:The New Democrat

“Growing up as “a gender nonconforming entity” during Eisenhower’s America wasn’t easy for cultural critic and best-selling author Camille Paglia. Her adolescence in small-town, upstate New York was marked by rejection, rebellion, and cross-dressing—all in reaction to the stultifying social norms of the 1950s and early ’60s.”

From Reason Magazine 

Give Camille Paglia five minutes to talk and two days later she might still be speaking and about the same subject. She seems very pissed off and energized in this interview. But I actually agree with a lot of the points that she’s making here about feminism. That she’s a feminist in the sense that she believes in equal rights and equal opportunity. That women or men shouldn’t be denied access simply for being female or male. I believe in the same things accept that as a man and a straight one at that, (ha, ha) I’m not sure that I can qualify as a feminist. But maybe that is a subject or debate for a different time.

But perhaps Camille Paglia’s larger point or the one these stresses more is that women or men shouldn’t be judged better simply for being a woman or man. Her critique about Feminists is not about mainstream Feminists who believe in equal rights and equal opportunity. But against people who are called militant Feminists. People, women especially who believe that women are superior to men and therefore should be treated better and should be running the world. And those are the Feminists that I break away from not as a man, but simply as a Liberal who believes in equal rights and opportunity.

Reason Magazine: Author Jeremy Lott On William F. Buckley's Faith & Politics

Source:The New Democrat

William F. Buckley is someone who I at least call a Classical Conservative, as well as Libertarians and even Liberals such as myself should definitely respect, if not like and I believe like as well. Because he was a very intelligent and honest man who gave his views based on facts and evidence. And someone who went with the evidence and not a pure ideologue in the sense that he kept a position no matter what even when the facts and evidence changed. And that he was also a real Conservative. Not a big government supporter on the Right, but someone who believed in both economic and personal freedom.

Bill Buckley is not the father of American conservatism. But he’s the father of the American conservative movement as far as making it a national movement and something big enough to the point that it could compete with Liberals and Progressives and people further left then that by the 1960s. Richard Nixon becoming President of the United States by 1969 has something to do with Bill Buckley and his National Review and other writings. To go along with Barry Goldwater and the Goldwater Conservatives of the mid and late 1960s.

Bill Buckley I believe is the first of the likable Modern Conservatives. Someone with strong center-right conservative to conservative-libertarian leanings and someone who could and would defend his position to any point. But do it in a way where he didn’t make his positions and rhetoric disrespectful and personal. He would attack and critique his opponents case and views. But not attack them personally and make his positions based on facts and solid evidence. And not simply just throw things out there and demagogue the other side. Which again are reasons why Conservatives, Libertarians, Progressives and Liberals should respect if not like him.

Reason Magazine: Elizabeth Nolan Brown: Montana Bill Would Ban Some Tight Clothing

Source: Reason Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

Montana is sort of known for being part of the Libertarian West. People who don’t want big government in their bedrooms or wallets, or schools. That they just want to be left alone and allowed to live freely and enjoy and live off the land in their vast beautiful state. Before this new Congress Montana’s two U.S. Senators were both Democrats. And neither one of them could be accused of supporting big government and wanting to empower big government over the individual. Their new Republican Steve Daines seems to fall in that same category.

Which is why I’m surprised that one of their legislatures one of their state senators would propose a law outlawing certain outfits that can be worn in public. A clear violation of personal freedom and freedom of choice. We are not talking about men and women going naked in public in Montana. Just about what they actually wear in public. Having to do with tight pants like biking pants. They stopped short of banning skin-tight skinny jeans for women and skin-tight jeans for men. And that might have to do with their cowboy and cowgirl industry that they have out there.

You would think even a Montana state senator who represents maybe twenty-thousand people would have better things to do than try to play the state father. And dictate what adults who I’m guessing he views as his daughters and sons what they can wear in public. Again we’re not talking about indecent exposure and men and women showing up naked or something, just tight outfits. You would think this senator instead might have things like, gee I don’t know the state budget, public education, taxes, law enforcement, just to use as examples on his mind to worry about instead. But no, he’s worried about how free adults dress in public.
Source:Just Kidding News

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing P.J. O'Rourke- Millennials & Baby Boomers

Source: Reason Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

I feel kind of strange talking about the Baby Boom Generation since I'm a Gen-Xer born in the mid-1970s the tail end of even my generation and come from parents who aren't Baby Boomers born in the 1930s. So I didn't grow up with boomers in my family, at least in the household, even though I have uncles who are Boomers. So what I know about this huge generation the Baby Boom Generation, is what I've seen from talking to Baby Boomers as an adult and what I've read and heard about this generation. What I've seen from the news and movies.

But here's what I like about the Baby Boom Generation. The 1960s generation which is really what I call them, is the generation that freed Americans to be Americans. Pre lets say 1963 or so America was in long extensive era from the early teens or so and on where the country didn't seem to change at least culturally. Where the idea of what it meant to be an American was universal. Guy grows up goes to college, gets a good job, marries a young woman. They have kids, the woman stays home and raises their kids. No romantic couples living together pre-marriage and certainly no pre-marital sex.

The Boomers finally blew up the 1950s and moved America away from that with the Cultural Revolution and created an era where Americans became free to be Americans. And what I mean by that is that we are supposed to an individualistic society where Americans are supposed to be themselves and live their own lives. But we really didn't become that society until about fifty-years ago. Which in the grand scheme of American history is a fairly short period of time. Since then if anything Americans have been.
Source:Reason Magazine

Reason: Nick Gillespie- 'The 2000s, Worst Decade Ever'

Source:Reason Magazine- Gore V Bush.

"Hands down, the '00s were the worst political decade at least since the 1990s.

Reason.tv celebrates the (lack of) personalities, the scandals, and the screw-ups that made us all want to forget the first 10 years of the 21st century.

Approximately 2.10 minutes. No politicians were hurt in the making of this video.

Produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie."

From Reason Magazine

I'm going to try to get through this blog without sounding like a partisan hack which will be difficult. Because if you're on the Right and ideologically disagree with me, you're probably going to disagree with this blog. Call it a hunch, but think about these facts for a minute, I know thinking for a whole minute thats like 60 seconds how do you get through that sober, but think about these things for OK 60 seconds and then take a deep breath.

When we close out the 1990s (and yes you're correct if your thinking 20th Century) America was at peace, we had a booming economy of something like 5% economic growth and a 4.5% unemployment rate, record low poverty level in the United States of around 13%, we just balanced three straight Federal budgets. The first balanced budget since 1969 and we haven't balanced one since. Our Federal Government only spent around 18-19% of GDP, instead of 25% like today. (A number I would like to get back to in a future blog)

The stock market hit 10K for the first time in American history I believe in 1998 and as powerful as Monica Lewinski was, she wasn't able to stop any of that success. We got through a Gulf War, the Balkan Wars, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 by an Anglo-Saxon Christian man, not by a Middle Eastern terrorist that was stereotyped. The 1995 Federal Government shutdown, deficit reduction, two East African embassy bombings and America remained the Land of the Free, unless you were gay or smoked or sold pot.

Now lets move ahead to a completely new century and decade which sounds like forever right, actually move ahead from December 31, 1999 to January 01, 2000. You can literally get their in a second where we have a presidential candidate whose famous thanks only to his father in George W. Bush and the other presidential candidate who on paper looks like has the qualifications to be President of the United States. But can't beat the guy who had to cheat off the person who could barely speak english to graduate high school. (Paper doesn't win elections candidates and incumbents do)

Better known as Bush V. Gore or Gore V. Bush you get the idea and we were treated to new phrases like hanging chads, dimple chads, over-votes, under-votes, not knowing who the next President was going to be a month after the election. A 50-50 Senate in 2001 basically favoring Senate Democrats, a divided Congress with a Democratic Senate and a Republican House from 2001-03. Two unpaid for tax cuts, two Middle Eastern wars where we've borrowed all the money to pay for them now 2T$ and counting, a 500B$ Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit again all borrowed money.

Kerry-Bush in 2004 where again a schmuck for a President who locks himself out of his own Oval Office who declares Mission Accomplished and Victory in Iraq, just one problem there. President Bush was 8 1/2 years early, ah damn I forgot about 9/11, the Republican Party losing Congress in 2006. Thanks to the Afghan and Iraqi Wars all this happening in ten years and there's more. I disagree that the 2000s are the worst decade of all time or either in my lifetime, I believe the 1970s was worst even though I was only alive for four years of it. And actually only remember 1978-79 parts of it because I started nursery school then.

But the 2000s if I wasn't a political, current affairs and history junky I wouldn't want to relive or go through another decade like that because we've paid a heavy price for it and have had some of our individual liberty taken away from us. With things like the Patriot Act and is a decade that we'll be paying for at least another decade if not two decades with all of the money we've run up on the national debt card.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Reason Magazine: Tax Day is Coming- Game of Thrones Edition

Source:Reason Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat 

The taxes are coming! The taxes are coming! The taxes are coming! Everybody grab your wallets and bank accounts and, if you have a lot of money, be prepared to send it to your Swiss bank account because this is the time of year that makes everyone excepts Socialists cry. That's right, it's tax season, when we have to give Uncle Sam a big fat check so he can spend our money, on our behalf (supposedly), and, if we are lucky, we get that some of it back in a refund.

While 85-90% of the country right now is crying about how much they are going to have to pay in taxes, there are big wine and cheese parties in New York, Boston, greater New England, and San Francisco where Socialists are celebrating the payment of their taxes with smiles on their faces. The person who paid the most in taxes, with the biggest smile about paying them, gets to drink and eat free, during the party.  Government will hit them all again later with sales and income taxes but the winner is a Socialist and that will just make them smile.

To be serious for a second, and then I'll get back to being an asshole, I'm really not anti-government or anti-tax.  I'm anti-big government and anti-bad government.  Millions of Americans have to pay for a government that they wouldn't wish on their worst enemies.  With all of the corruption, tax money funding pork barrel projects, political contributions coming God knows where because we don't have full-disclosure,  the vast majority of the electorate doesn't have a damn clue as far as where the money flowing into politicians' pockets comes from, leaving millions of Americans to ask a good question, "Why do I have to pay for this?"  If I wanted to pay for corruption I would hire a lawyer or buy a used car.

Source:Reason Magazine

Reason Magazine: Sharif Matar Interviews Christopher Kay- What's Wrong With American Politics?

Source: Reason Magazine- A Christopher Kay documentary about American politics. 

Source: The New Democrat

There's an old saying about the American political system that goes something like this:  It is the worst political system in the world except for all the rest. Not exactly a high bar to shoot for, kind of like a football team that only wins one game all season and says, "Well at least we didn't go winless." And even if that saying about our political system is true, it's simply not good enough when you think about the power that is centralized in Washington with all that money coming into the city, buying influence, with most Americans not knowing how the money is spent and where it came from.

Not trying to make a libertarian anti-big government argument here, but they have a point that when so much power is centralized in one city and one government and when the two political parties are not even in favor of full campaign disclosure for all political incumbents, candidates and third-party campaigns, it is easy to see why you have such a corrupt political system, because regardless of what Washington politicians do for the most part, good or bad in a lot of cases, very few people know what they are doing, who they are talking to, where they get their money, and what their donors expect in return.

No wonder we have a United States Congress with an approval rating somewhere around 10 percent, with the people who do approve either no longer living or in mental institutions and who can't tell the difference between a good Congress and a bad Congress. Because this is why the word politician is equated with conman or scammer, "Oh, he is an elected public official, he must be up to no good," instead of applied to elected public officials as public servants. Because who are you really serving when your reelection depends so much on a few donors?
Source:Reason Magazine

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie: Jonathan Rauch: '20 Years of Political Correctness'

Source:Reason Magazine- an anti-free speech protest against author Salmon Rushdie.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The great advantage of a society that embraces robust and often-angry debate, "is not that it does not make mistakes," says Jonathan Rauch, "it's that it catches mistakes very, very quickly." For Rauch, such dialogue is at the heart of what he calls the "liberal science" of producing and refining knowledge.

A National Magazine Award-winning journalist and author, Rauch's path-breaking study of politicial corrrectness, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, has just been released in a 20th-anniversary edition by the Cato Institute. The new version includes an introduction by George Will and a powerful afterword by Rauch about how calls for censorship and regulation of speech have changed over the past two decades.

Nick Gillespie sat down with Rauch to discuss why free speech cannot and should not be abridged, even when it causes pain and discomfort. Rauch talks about how the weak defense of Salman Rushdie after receiving Islamic death threats radicalized his views and the inspiration he draws from figures such as Frank Kameny, a pioneering gay rights activist who never called for the censoring of hate speech." 

From Reason Magazine

I’m not a fan of political correctness myself, because I am a Liberal not because I’m not a Liberal. I’m against all racial and ethnic slurs and all other types of slurs that try to paint one group of people as they are all the way. But again as a Liberal I believe in the First Amendment and the ability for people to speak freely, as long as they aren’t threatening or libeling people in a negative way or inciting violence in public. And those are really the only exceptions we have to our First Amendment in the United States.

Just because people have negative, bigoted and ignorant views about others, doesn’t mean they do not have a right to express those opinions. As long as they aren’t calling for those people to be harmed physically or economically in any way. 

If you really are a Liberal, you believe in the First Amendment and are in favor of it. And you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. Because liberalism is about one’s ability to speak freely and assemble in public and in private. And you take away free speech, you do not have much if any remaining of what can be called a liberal democracy. Because you are taking people’s freedom away from them.

So when I hear these political speech codes from people who are supposed to be on the Left, because someone or a group of people are saying things that these leftist groups find offensive, because it offends people they support, generally racial or religious minorities, or political minorities on the Far-Left, like Communists and Socialists: One, I disagree with them because we all as Americans including the Far-Left have the First Amendment right to express ourselves and have our own opinions. Including the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Two, it gives me the impression that some at least on the Far-Left do not believe in free speech, or at least free speech that they disagree with. But the other thing that gets me as a Liberal is when I hear supporters of what is called the political correctness movement, people who are supposed to be Liberals, when of course they are not, because they believe in a form of fascism: "You can say what you want and believe in what, until you offend us. And that is when we are going to try to shut you up." And there is nothing actually liberal about that.

It is pretty simple: if you are a Liberal, you believe in free speech and the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. But perhaps a Fascist either from the Far-Left or Far-Right. 

Bigotry is an awful thing and in many cases illegal in the United States when it is put into action. But that doesn’t mean Americans do not have a right to be stupid. It just means they do not always have a right to act on those stupid beliefs when they hurt innocent people with them. Like denying people jobs based on race, ethnicity, gender. (To use as examples) The cure for stupidity in America is good education, including more free speech. Not trying to lock everything that you don't like about America, including other Americans into some closet hoping no one ever hears from or sees them again.

Reason Magazine: 'LA to Pet Stores: You Can't Sell Animals Unless They're Rescued'

Source:Reason Magazine- a local Los Angeles TV newscast talking about pet mills.

"Washington DC might pull a Bloomberg (as in soda ban) and Florida officials have put the kibosh on the latest in kiddie shindigs (alligator pool parties). But top dishonors come from the City of Angels. 

The once mighty city now teeters on the brink of bankruptcy. It suffers from double-digit unemployment, awful schools, ridiculously bad traffic, and ambulances that have a deadly, decades-long habit of showing up late. Yet city officials never fail to find new ways to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. The latest example: banning pet stores from selling cats, dogs or rabbits that come from breeders. We all want more pets to be adopted, but c'mon LA. 

This month we highlight the councilman who spearheaded the effort that will almost certainly make Los Angeles the largest US city to command its pet store owners to sell only rescue animals. 

Presenting Reason TV's Nanny of the Month: Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Koretz!" 

From Reason Magazine

You would think with double digit unemployment, that Los Angeles would be looking to increase business and unemployment, rather than restricting how pet stores make money. I believe this is an example of why California and perhaps Los Angeles as well, being the largest city and metropolitan are in the state, is behind the national average when it comes to job creation and business creation, because they say no to new business's because they don't exactly like what they do, or how they run business's. 

So-called pet farms that should be shut down. Places that abuses animals and potential pets and are essentially animal concentration camps. But telling pet stores that they can't sell animals, animals that would otherwise end up at the pound, or going to some concentration camp, or being put to sleep, is not the way to go. 

When you have regulations like this you might as well put a sign up in your city that say: 

"Closed for business! We don't want your business and jobs here. We rather be on Welfare instead! A pleasure not doing business with you.

Reason: Anthony Fisher- Jessica Blake & Erik Jenson on The Exonerated: 'True Stories of The Innocent Sprung From Death Row'

Source:Reason Magazine- Talking about "The Exonerated."

"This play is neither left-wing nor right-wing. We don't have an agenda, our job is to stay out of the way and just let the people tell their stories," says Erik Jensen, co-author (with wife Jessica Blank) of The Exonerated, a one-act documentary play depicting the true-life experiences of exonerated Death Row prisoners. The Exonerated is celebrating its 10th anniversary with a limited run at the Culture Project in New York City.

Jensen and Blank talk with Reason TV's Anthony L. Fisher about how the play influenced former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute the sentences of Illinois' Death Row prisoners to life imprisonment, the support of the Innocence Project, and what life is like for freed prisoners upon returning to society.

The play is directed by actor Bob Balaban and runs through December 2nd, 2012. The Exonerated features a rotating cast including Broadway regulars and well-known performers such as Stockard Channing, Brain Dennehy, Steve Earle, Marg Helgenberger, Christine Lahti, Delroy Lindo, Lyle Lovett, Michael McKean, Joe Morton, Chris Sarandon, Martin Short, and Trudie Styler. The cast also includes two exonerated prisoners playing themselves: Kerry Max Cook and Sunny Jacobs.

About 4.30 minutes. Produced by Anthony L. Fisher. Camera by Jim Epstein."

Source: Reason Magazine

Anyone whose pro-death penalty and I’m one of them, should be in favor of a long appeals process. To make sure that we get the right people, so to speak and not rush to put to death the wrong people. Not an appeals process that extends the process indefinitely, but that allows inmates and lawyers to bring new appeals, as long as they can bring new evidence that suggests that they may be innocent. So we are always executing the right people and not putting to death the wrong people.

That is the only way to make sure that the death penalty can be applied fairly. Putting the wrong person to death even by accident, whether you’re talking about manslaughter, or giving the wrong person the death penalty, is not a mistake that you can take back. I would be fine with a short appeals process without the death penalty. Because if the convicted murderers lawyers truly believe their client is innocent, they can still work on the case. And if they find evidence that proves their client is innocent, they can always present that evidence and open that case back up.

Every pro-death penalty person, especially if they consider themselves to be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time, should be in favor of a death penalty case like this. Because it makes their case for the death penalty better. That there isn’t a rush to put someone to death. Because they know if the person is guilty they’ll never leave prison anyway. And it gives opponents of the death penalty less evidence and a smaller case to use against the death penalty. And they would have a harder time saying that innocent people have been put to death because of the death penalty. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.  

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

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

Reason Magazine: Lisa Kennedy- 'The Cast of Atlas Shrugged: Talks Film's Impact'

Source:Reason Magazine- talking about Atlas Shrugged The Movie.

"The book was incredibly informative for me," says actress Samantha Mathis who plays Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged Part II, "in terms of figuring out [Dagny's] backstory and where she came from, and why she believed what she believed, and what her relationships were."

ReasonTV correspondent Kennedy spoke with Mathis and other cast members at the film's Hollywood Premiere on Oct. 5 to find out how they connected with their characters and the themes portrayed in the movie.

Atlas Shrugged Part II, the second of three films based on Ayn Rand's controversial 1957 novel, hits theaters nationwide on Friday, October 12, 2012. (For more information on the film, go to:Atlas Shrugged Movie." 

Source:Reason Magazine

Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand) reminds me of someone who I guess knows the world is about to explode and they're going to die anyway and basically says: "What the hell, I have nothing to lose at this point. I can do whatever I want, because I'm going to die anyway. So thats exactly what I'm going to do." The world is literally on fire and I'm writer and I can write anything I want. Because no one is going to read it anyway. And even if someone does read it, no one is going to remember it, because everyone is going to be dead." 

Atlas Shrugged, is a complete and total fantasy with really no base in reality in it. And looks like something that was written by someone who perhaps had months to live, who was a writer and decides to write whatever they want at this point. With no editor to answer to, because no one is going to read it anyway.

Atlas Shrugged, is essentially a fantasy about what can happen when the private sector and a capitalist economy is regulated. It's not about what can happen when a developed, or highly developing country with a strongly growing an educated middle class, where poverty is shrinking, is taken over by Marxist revolutionaries, that decides to outlaw political parties, private property, starts detaining people who oppose them and nationalizes industries. We already know that story because we've seen it before. Lebanon comes to mind and perhaps you could make a case for Cuba as well. That would be a good book and movie and it would sell well if was done right. 

Atlas Shrugged (written by Ayn Rand in 1957) there hasn't been an example of a regulated private enterprise economy that has collapsed just because it is regulated, since that book was written.

Atlas Shrugged, which I'm sure is very clever and well-done and written by Ayn Rand, that shouldn't be a surprise. But as a movie it sounds like bad sci-fi movie from the Sci-Fi Channel. Every developed country in the world operates under some form of rule of law. That government is not there to tell people who to live their own lives and control our movement's, or anything like that. 

There isn't a single developed country in the world that is a Marxist state, or some type of authoritarian state from the Far-Right. But all developed countries do regulate how people interact with each other and regulate the economy. Not to run business's, but to protect customer's and workers. 

Economies can be over regulated and when that happens they struggle. But they all have some type of regulatory state that is there to protect workers and consumers from predators. And Ayn Rand lived in a great developed country like that for a very long time, that being America. 

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

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