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

Source:TIME Magazine- a 1960s civil rights protest.

Source:The Daily Review

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

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

From TIME Magazine 

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

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

Source:California Newsreel- protestors for free speech.

From California Newsreel 

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Carol Burnett Show: Disaster 75

Source:The Chick in The Middle- Carol Burnett & Harvey Korman: Disaster 75.

Source:The Daily Review

"Here's a classic spoof of the "Airport" series and other disaster films of the period, with guest stars Ken Berry and Carl Reiner. Carol Burnett also reprises her character of Nora Desmond, parodying Gloria Swanson's role in "Airport 1975" (1974).

I do not own any of the footage or music featured. All rights are reserved and belong to their respective copyright owners. No copyright infringement intended. For entertainment purposes only."

From The Chick in The Middle 

“Here’s Part 2 of “Disaster ’75”. Keep an eye out for a meta-referential Q & A session, a textbook example of meta humor, now commonplace in comedy."

Source:The Chick in The Middle- Carol Burnett: Disaster 75

From The Chick in The Middle 

“Highlights of this program with guests Ken Berry and Carl Reiner include: “Disaster ’75” (a parody of “Airport 1975”) with Carol as both the airline stewardess and silent film star Nora Desmond; Ken performs in a late 1800’s barbershop number; and a musical spoof of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”, with Harvey as both host Alistair Cookie and King Claudius, Ken as the title character, and Carl as the ghost of Hamlet’s father. Written by W.B.” 

Source:IMDB- Carol Burnett: Disaster 75

From IMDB 

Any guesses to what movie this is a spoof from? I’ll give you a clue: you need to be familiar with movies from the 20th Century and at the very least have heard of the 1970s decade. If that era seems like the Civil War, or old school, or whatever to you, then you’ll have no idea what this is from. And you’ll probably have no interest in this piece.

Carol Burnett, of course is playing off from Airport 1975. I at least believe is the best of the 1970s disaster movies and perhaps the best disaster movie of all-time. Where you have a mid-air collision in it and you have the head stewardess flying the plane for a few hundred miles at least and getting help from the tower in order to do that.

Watching Nancy (played by the great Karen Black) fly and airplane and watching that little beautiful baby cutie fly that huge 747, was all the motivation I needed to see that movie.

I saw it for the first time when I was 18 and it quickly became one of my favorite movies. This movie combines I believe the best of soap opera, with all the side stories, humor and people going through rough times, with how professionals react when they’re put in the worst possible situation possible with hundreds of lives depending on them.

Carol Burnett, not as cute as Karen Black, but who is and she’s a lot funnier and perhaps just as good an actress. And it was great to see her flying a jumbo jet as well. Especially with I don’t know, Carl Reiner (just to throw out a name) talking her through the experience.

The 1970s, was a depressing can’t wait to get to the nearest ledge to jump off of Niagara Falls decade. But the movies were great and the genres and what people were interested in seeing from Hollywood was great. America, was interested in disaster movies, terrorism, cop movies, detective movies, soap operas, especially if the movie was well done with great casts and was also funny. And Airport 1975, was an example of that and perhaps the best movie from that genre in this decade. 

Lifetime Network: Intimate Portrait Ava Gardner

Source:Drew David- North Carolina & Hollywood Goddess Ava Gardner.

Source:The Daily Review

I don't know of another actress other than maybe Lana Turner, (speaking of drama queens) who lived her real-life as close to many characters she played on the big screen than Ava Gardner. She was a real-life drama queen and I don't mean that in a negative sense. But nothing was ever boring with her. Starting with her gorgeous baby-faced adorable looks. Very similar to Elizabeth Taylor and her great voice as well. Also similar to Liz Taylor. Her beautiful black hair, again Liz Taylor. And that she was this incredible real-life character with a great sense of humor and the ability to play almost anyone on the big screen. With the best and most interesting character that she ever played being the one and only Ava Gardner. Perhaps the prettiest and most interesting drama queen of all-time.

You put Ava in soap operas in the 1950s when they came out on TV and she would've been the queen of soap. Susan Luci, would've had nothing on Ava. Because Ava was almost not acting when she was playing very dramatic roles especially women with quick-witted sense of humors. She was just playing herself, this beautiful, adorable, sexy, intelligent brunette, who was also one hell of a great actress. She lived her personal life the way the played many roles in the movies. A women who always did things her way, (to paraphrase Frank Sinatra) who wasn't alive, but always living life and enjoying every moment of it that she possibly could. Perhaps why she and Frank didn't work out, because he might have been too much and too much fun for him.

And the other thing that she had in common with Liz Taylor, is that they both lived life to be alive. Not simply to try to get through it like you're in prison, or serving in combat and simply trying to survive. She was free as a squirrel who lived her whole life the only way she knew how to, which was to have as much fun as she possibly could. And she paid a heavy price for that with the alcoholism and having several different male relationships that never worked out. But it was her life to live, to enjoy and make mistakes with. Not someone else's to live for her, or for her to live in someone's else's image of what kind of life she should have. Which takes a lot of guts to literally be that free in life and that I have a lot of respect for her.

TruthDig: Kasia Anderson: Former U.S. Representative Barney Frank Gives His Take On Campaign 2016

Source:Truth Dig talking to former U.S. Representative Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts)

Source:The New Democrat

Campaign 2016, will be another opportunity for Americans to sober up and make a big decision by sending the escaped mental patients back home to their institutions, or retaking control of the prison and putting the administration back in charge of the prison, or whatever analogy you want to use, or stick with the status-quo. Where you have people who don’t believe in government even as much as new Speaker Paul Ryan might be an optimistic pragmatist, who don’t believe in government. Letting the Tea Party run the House of Representatives, is like putting an alcoholic in charge of a bar. The alcoholic would never make any money, because he never has anything left to sell, because he always drinks everything. Or putting a serial rapist who hasn’t been convicted yet in charge of a rape counseling group. Or a sexual harassment class. It makes no sense, because you end up pointing your gun at your own two feet instead of your enemy.

I think in a normal election year with normal American voters, the Democrats should win back the House. Having said that I might as well hope for the elimination of world poverty. We don’t have a normal electorate right now and instead have a country that pissed off at everyone who is not them and who is doing better than them. Instead of looking at why government doesn’t work and why government can’t meet its basic needs and responsibilities for the country. Because you have one party who now controls both chambers of Congress and not just the House, who don’t believe in government. Who hate President Barack Obama so much, that they rather try to make him look worst than they do. Assuming that is even possible when President Obama is in the fifties and the Republican Congress is like at ten-percent. Depending on if everyone you ask in your poll is both sane and sober.

That is just the House elections. The Senate, should go Democratic just because it’s a presidential election year. Where we’ll have huge Democratic turnouts with African and Latin-Americans perhaps turning out in record numbers with new voters coming out. With so many new women and not just Caucasian women voting for Hillary Clinton. The most likely Democratic nominee for president. And then throw in that 24-34 Senate seats that will be up for reelection in 2016 will be Republican. Democrats other than Nevada, don’t have any real vulnerable members up and vulnerable open seats other than Nevada. Also a lot of those Republican seats that are up like Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, are all states that voted Democrat for president in 2008 and 2012 and voted Democrat in huge numbers. So Senate Democrats, won’t need a sane sober electorate to win back the Senate. They just need to get their own voters out and for the Democratic presidential nominee to do fairly well.

As far as the presidential election. Hillary Clinton against who? After perhaps Iowa and New Hampshire and Vermont, where does Bernie Sanders have any shot at beating Hillary? Martin O’Malley, my preferred candidate, is still in single-digits and not raising any money. And then go to the Republicans who go by the campaign slogan, “vote for us if you hate government!” In other words vote for people who don’t believe in government to govern. Unless you’re an Anarchist, why would you take that seriously. And that is before I get into Donald Trump and Ben Carson. If the Republican campaign was mostly about Marco Rubio, who should be the future of the GOP and John Kasich, who by far is the most qualified Republican presidential candidate, if not candidate period for president, I might be worried. Because not leading a non-suicidal Republican Party, Senator Rubio and Governor Kasich, could both give Hillary a long run for her money.

Predicting presidential elections twelve months in advance, is probably about as smart as going bike-riding without a seat, or with only one tire. How far you think you would get? But doing stuff that is fun is not always smart. Just ask people who get drunk every weekend, if not more often and ask them how they feel the next morning and how much work do they lose from doing that. But its fun and they feel its worth it. I think we already have a pretty good idea what the 2016 presidential election will look like. And unless the Republican Party is cleared sane between now and in the next twelve months and nominate someone like Marco Rubio, or John Kasich, they have nobody who can beat Hillary next year. Unless she starts shooting her own two feet off to see how it feels to be a Republican right now. 2016, leans Democratic at the presidential level and for Senate. And we’ll see what if anything changes within the next year.

Woody Allen The Atheist

Source:Atheism is Unstoppable talking to Woody Allen.

Source:The Daily Review

I don't have a problem with actual Liberals being religious and actually if I had to guess just at looking at the Democratic Party, Liberals tend to be religious. But as a Liberal myself, I have a problem with being both religious, or an Atheist, because I simply don't know if there's a God, or not. Liberalism, is based of reason and evidence, not faith. And if you take the position that God doesn't exist, but you can't prove it, because no one actually knows, if we were all real about this, you have faith even as an Atheist that God doesn't exist.

I just don't work that way as a non-religious person who generally doesn't go by faith. I trust people, sure, because they've given me reason to trust them. But again that is based on actual evidence. Not having some grand vision and beliefs that there is some higher power out there watching over everyone. There isn't some Liberal God (at least that I know of) giving Liberals all of their powers and ideas. We developed them based on knowledge and evidence from what works. Education, freedom, responsibility and let people make their own decisions.

And because I don't have faith in whether there's a God or not, I'm neutral on the subject. I'm an Agnostic and I take strong positions on issues where there's clear evidence one way or the other. Which is how I have my liberal principles that are built around individuality, choice and responsibility. Because that is where the evidence suggests that I should be. Put out all of the facts and information about all of the issues on the table. (Just don't eat them) Educate everyone as best as possible, but at the end of the day let people make their own personal and economic decisions and hold them responsible for them.

I don't hold these values, because I have faith that they will work, but because there's clear evidence that they will work and have worked. Religion, is the opposite of that at least as it relates to God. "We can't see God personally, but we know he's there looking after us, because we have in faith in them." That doesn't mean anything to me and I'm not impressed by that. But others of course can make their own decisions. Which is what I believe in as a Liberal. It is one thing to have strong moral religious values about how you look at life. It is another to say, "this is what is right, because God told us that." How would you know that, did you ask him? Did you see him write that down somewhere? How do you know that God is a man? I don't have to answer these questions, because I don't believe in God, because I don't know if one, or many exist, or not.

Bob Newhart: Being Politically Correct Comedy

Source:B.W. Dahlen- Good Job, Bob!

Source:The Daily Review

I like Bob Newhart’s line about gays and straights implying at least that we’re both funny and we just make fun of each other. I swear to God (even though I’m Agnostic) that gay men especially, because lesbians tend not to be as sensitive, (ha ha) could make all the butch masculine straight-men jokes all they want and straight men would probably just laugh at them. Because we know ourselves and know so many straight men and how we tend to act . But if you make a feminine gay man joke and make fun of a queen, you’re automatically viewed as a bigot and homophobe by the Illiberal-Left Political Correctness Police. Even if you believe that gays, men and women, should have the same rights and responsibilities under law as straights, male or female. And that you’re even friends with gay men and are friendly with lesbians.

I mean that is the whole point, right. When you make fun of someone or groups of people and that is all you’re doing and you’re not throwing slurs and bigoted insults and that sort of thing, not that bigots don’t have a right to their sense of humor as well, that is all you’re doing. You’re jabbing at characteristics and flaws of people and groups. When you make a gay man joke, or do an impression, you’re not saying that all gay men are feminine and sound like women and walk like runway models and the whole deal. You’re just making fun of queens who are gay men with feminine characteristics. Like being oversensitive and not crazy about people knowing who they are.

If comedians can’t make of people, they might as well become car insurance salesman. (And saleswomen to politically correct) Because that is what life would be like for a comedian who isn’t allowed to make fun of people. Either through their writing, or performances. One dreary day after another where you’re literally counting how many times someone slammed the door in your face. After you told someone about the great car insurance deal you could give them on their Ford Escort. Except that you’re not allowed to make fun of it, because you’ll be accused of being bigoted towards door slammers. Comedy and humor, is exactly that. Not exactly a true story, but someone making fun of something, or someone who has done something. Not to be taken seriously and by the way, great comedians generally have a self-deprecating sense of humor. So how about everyone else as well.

LA Progressive: Lawrence S. Wittner: Democratic Socialism: More Democratic Socialists Than You Might Think

Source:LA Progressive- U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democrat Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

Source:The New Democrat

To add to Lawrence Wittner’s list of American Democratic Socialists. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, that includes Senator Bernie Sanders and sixty or so Representatives in the House. The Congressional Black Caucus, eighty or more members in the House. A lot of the CBC are also part of the CPC. It is not that Democratic Socialists are not common in America and that democratic socialism doesn’t have a real movement. It’s that Democratic Socialists tend not to self-describe their politics that way. They prefer to be called Progressives, or what pisses me off as a Liberal, they go by Liberal. Not that I hate democratic socialism, but as a Liberal, I believe there is a real limit to what government can do for people. And I would like to see more public services for moving people off of public assistance, instead of leaving them dependent on them.

Go to the entire MSNBC talk lineup and tell me who over there if anyone, other than Chris Matthews, disagrees with Bernie Sanders on anything? If anything, MSNBC is to the left of Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Especially as it relates to issues of free speech, middle class tax hikes. And are to the right of them at least in Ed Schultz’s case when it comes to marijuana legalization. Big Ed, is opposed to marijuana legalization. Who takes more of a progressive big government nanny state position on marijuana. But how about RT America and not just Thom Hartmann. How about Al-Jazeera. Again networks that are pretty Far-Left and tend to take a democratic socialist view on the issues. Who if anything are even further left than Senator Sanders.

But if cable talk is not enough for you, how about Salon, The Nation, The AlterNet, TruthOut, TruthDig, LA Progressive, Gar Alperovitz, Paul Krugman, who at the very least leans in a democratic socialist direction. As Bill Maher has said several times, it is not that there aren’t Socialists in America, because of course there are, but there’s an unwilling for Socialists to come out of the closet. (So to speak) Because for fear as being labeled as Marxists, or Un-American, losing employment opportunities and so-forth and so on. But of course democratic socialism has had a lot and I would argue proud history in America, going back to at least Eugene Debs and they’ve even had at least one President of the United States in Franklin Roosevelt. But what they’ve lacked is the courage to proud of their political ideology that they self-describe themselves for what they actually are. Democratic Socialists and they should defend who they are, not run way from it.