Tag Archives: Hillary

LIONEL PODCAST: CNN Redefines Sniveling Cowardice Via Fake News and Attempting Fruitlessly the Delegitimizing of Trump

“Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?” M. CICERONIS TULLI ORATIO IN L. CATILINAM PRIMA

What has happened here is rather obvious. It’s been slow, incremental, glacial. The public’s habituated, humiliated and chastened. Slapped and cajoled, conned and convinced . . . told that news isn’t to be true or real or even factual. Shite happens, Sparky. What are you getting upset over? What’s the big deal? Perhaps it’s a generational thing. We dinosaurs remember a time when the idea of a Cronkite getting shitfaced on New Year’s Eve whilst simultaneously pierced made our souls quiver and quake. And throw in the horrid Washington Compost for good measure. No, this isn’t an accident or happenstance. It’s deliberate, targeted and by design. Enjoy. 

LIONEL PODCAST: America’s Suicide Pact

Why are you so worried about “debates.” They’re not debates. They’re beauty pageants. Mindless media diversions. Psychotic interludes. Charm school rejects and sleight of hand. Bought and paid for political hacks playing the ol’ switcheroo. Just look at the topics that seem to command so much of our collective attention. Look at what we find interesting, critical and what we ignore and reject altogether. Look at the attention that our media will pay to underinflated footballs and other pseudo-controversies; it is beyond my comprehension. We have sealed our fate and guaranteed are doom. If this country fails it will not be because of invading Visigoths over the horizon but because of the collective collapse of our society due to our profound nescience and intellectual torpor. Or something.

LIONEL PODCAST: The Systematic Devolution of Human Culture and the Rise of the Poseur

This is what we’ve become. Lost. Disconnected. Narcissistic beyond any realm of comprehension. And it’s posh and cool to be profoundly nescient. Mention TPP and watch the vapid look . . . from the Ted Baxter sock puppet media. Just keep us amused. Give us surface level stories. Nothing too deep or profound.

On Putin. Borrowing from the US’s history, Putin may now blame ISIS for the downed plane and invade and take over any country (teeming with natural resources and energy wealth) that he wants so long as he makes a tenuous connection between it and “training” or support. He can then say the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. Or, better to strike them there than they strike us here. And we can’t say anything.

Who said bacon? Watch for yourself.

LIONEL PODCAST: If You Vote You Can’t Complain

George Carlin, America’s prophet said it best. He speaks to the futility and illusion of choice and substantive differences.

I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don’t vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, ‘If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,’ but where’s the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote – who did not even leave the house on Election Day – am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created.

Unavoidable verity. It is tragically true. But we love the game, the pageantry, the pro forma exercise in the noble pursuit of the belief that today, choice exists and choice is targeted. Emma Goldman said that if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal. (In fact, may have been attributed to that quote.)

The abecedarian fundamentals. Lionel’s Manifesto.

LIONEL PODCAST: Media Distortion, Factual Contortion, Reality Abortion

I want you to imagine. Imagine you are in the position of the country you’re now bombing or whose bombing you’re supporting. How would you feel about us? Good, start with that position and move accordingly.

LIONEL PODCAST: Drones, GMOs, Syria, Putin, Assad, ISIS and the Magic Mirror

This makes no sense. And therein lies the theme to today’s show. Enjoy.

LIONEL PODCAST: Silly Gun Talk. Keep Issues Simple and Base.

Would that. I wish we simply had the guts and the courage to admit freely that we simply have no interest in finding solutions to problems but would rather just respond reflexively. Guns are a wedge issue. They’re a part of a political cycle that’s since closed. Guns, God, Gays. The main issue is economics. Focus accordingly. Don’t be led by the ponderous forces seeking to distract and divert. Look to putting on the agenda forces that matter. Obama and the Dems seek to have gun control provide a refurbishment of their left cover. With killer drones, the debacle of ISIS and Syria, his left wing sheen has dulled. Gun control burnishes the sullied image. Guns are a wedge issue. Democrats want gun control hysteria to provide left cover. Don’t be duped. The human toll of the global financial oligarchs makes this pale my comparison. Focus on proxy wars and mass annihilation via drone strikes. Focus.

LIONEL PODCAST: The United States of Misinformed, Addicted, Clueless, Biased, Uninformed, Addled, Chastened, Hateful, Frightened But Proud

The truth can be cruel.  You know it to be true.

Celebrating the 101st birthday of “The World’s Foremost Authority,” the ineffable Profesor Irwin Corey.

LIONEL PODCAST: Never Ever Ban An Idea, No Matter How Despicable

Sheeple (a portmanteau of “sheep” and “people”) is a derogatory term that highlights the herd behavior of people by likening them to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research. (Wikipedia)

Behold. The slamming on the brakes of progress. A once proud species, now cowing and collapsing under the weight of self-imposed civil strictures. We are so frightened. So timid, so timorous. Above all, we avoid daring and risking even the slightest chance of offending someone, even if that someone is a hypothetical straw man. We quake in our boots over the notion of being accused of being insensitive. Our Jurassic mainstream media talk incessantly about having interminable “conversations” about every mindless subject there is. But nowhere, nowhere in the pallet of the Ted Baxter mainstream media news is even the mention of the fact that the First Amendment and freedom of speech and expression provide a concomitant respect for ideas that we find reprehensible. Ideas that abrade and hurt. Ideas that repel and sicken. Often the exhibition of horrible ideas does more for clarity and free-thinking than its suppression. Imagine that.

Ferguson convergence. There’s been considerable confusion as to the status of race relations in the country especially via the police and law enforcement. The unnecessary conflation is that between the cops and people, i.e. race relations between citizens is one thing, those between the police and minorities is quite the other. And with the usually confused Jurassic mainstream media their recommendations as to reportage is to repeat the phrase, “Let’s have a conversation,” which means double down on the usual suspects and repeat the same circuitous rants and odes to he obvious.

LIONEL PODCAST: Fraternity Idiocy Does Not Validate Free Speech Violations

“Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by it; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.” — Part I, Chapter I, Nineteen Eighty-Four

Hillary is a nonstory. She’s never going to be the Democratic nominee nor was she ever. It’s about her pathology and mendacity. I couldn’t care less about this silly woman and silly story and a silly media who hang on every word only because, finally, it’s a story they can understand. Hilary was never intended to be the nominee. Ever. And everyone who’s two neurons to rub together can figure that out.

The right to be stupid. The SAEs expelled at OU. This is the case that interests me. This goes to the core of the First Amendment and the life blood of free speech. Being stupid is a basis of American fundamental liberties. Being stupid and hateful and dumb. And the question then is who exactly determines what will be tolerated and the like? When will an anti-Islamic or Islamist chant or jeer be subsumed under the rubric of hate speech or impermissible thought?

Brilliance. Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. He’s authored a brilliant piece in the Washington Post entitled, “No, it’s not constitutional for the University of Oklahoma to expel students for racist speech [UPDATED in light of the students’ expulsion].” I commend it to you and provide the following excerpts.

University of Oklahoma president David Boren said, “If I’m allowed to, these students will face suspension or expulsion.” [UPDATE: The president has indeed expelled two of the students.] But he is not, I think, allowed to do that.

1. First, racist speech is constitutionally protected, just as is expression of other contemptible ideas; and universities may not discipline students based on their speech. That has been the unanimous view of courts that have considered campus speech codes and other campus speech restrictions — see here for some citations. The same, of course, is true for fraternity speech, racist or otherwise; see Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University (4th Cir. 1993). (I set aside the separate question of student speech that is evaluated as part of coursework or class participation, which necessarily must be evaluated based on its content; this speech clearly doesn’t qualify.)

UPDATE: The university president wrote that the students are being expelled for “your leadership role in leading a racist and exclusionary chant which has created a hostile educational environment for others.” But there is no First Amendment exception for racist speech, or exclusionary speech, or — as the cases I mentioned above — for speech by university students that “has created a hostile educational environment for others.”

2. Likewise, speech doesn’t lose its constitutional protection just because it refers to violence — “You can hang him from a tree,” “the capitalists will be the first ones up against the wall when the revolution comes,” “by any means necessary” with pictures of guns, “apostates from Islam should be killed.”

3. To be sure, in specific situations, such speech might fall within a First Amendment exception. One example is if it is likely to be perceived as a “true threat” of violence (e.g., saying “apostates from Islam will be killed” or “we’ll hang you from a tree” to a particular person who will likely perceive it as expressing the speaker’s intention to kill him); but that’s not the situation here, where the speech wouldn’t have been taken by any listener as a threat against him or her. Another is if it intended to solicit a criminal act, or to create a conspiracy to commit a criminal act, but, vile as the “hang him from a tree” is, neither of these exceptions are applicable here, either.

4. [UPDATE: Given the president’s letter, it’s clear that the students are being expelled solely for their speech, and not for the reason discussed in the following paragraphs.] Some people have suggested that the speech may be evidence of discriminatory decision making by the fraternity in admitting members. A university may demand that groups to which it provides various benefits not discriminate in admissions. See Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010). Indeed, nondiscrimination rules are applicable to groups generally, even apart from any benefits they get; much depends on whether the groups are seen as small and selective enough to be covered by a right to “intimate association,” and on whether apply antidiscrimination law to the groups would interfere with the groups’ expression of their ideas, and thus burden their right to “expressive associations.” See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (1983); Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000). The university might thus be able to discipline students who (a) are involved in a fraternity’s admissions decisions, and (b) can be shown to have denied membership to people based on race, or intentionally tried to communicate to potential members that they would deny them membership that way. I don’t think that a discussion saying that discrimination ought to take place, or even that at some unspecified time it will take place, would suffice to constitute a violation of the antidiscrimination rules, though it might be used as evidence in a future case where discrimination against a particular applicant might be alleged.

But even if the group is found to have discriminated against black applicants, and some particular members were found to have participated in that decision, the penalty for that has to be based on the penalties that are actually meted out to people who violate this rule. If discrimination by a group generally leads to a fine against the group, or a reprimand of the participants, or even derecognition of the group, the university can’t then expel students who engage in the same action but who also engage in constitutionally protected speech — that sort of disparate treatment shows that the school is really punishing people for their speech, not for their conduct.

This is a familiar principle from antidiscrimination law: if a black student is expelled based on conduct for which white students are generally just mildly reprimanded, the law recognizes that the expulsion was based on the student’s race, not just the student’s punishable conduct. The conduct in that situation is being used in large part as a pretext for race discrimination. Likewise, if SAE members are expelled based on conduct for which people who didn’t engage in SAE’s speech would generally just be mildly reprimanded, the expulsion would be based on the speech, not the members’ punishable conduct, which would just be pretext for punishing students for the ideas they were expressing to each other.

5. Of course, this just applies to the university. It certainly makes sense that the national fraternity may suspend the student chapter, and that other fraternity or sorority organizations refuse to deal with the chapter (or even its students). Fraternities, at least in principle, aim to promote certain principles of morality and behavior, such as the national SAE’s True Gentleman creed:

SAE may quite rightly insist that people who so sharply depart from such principles no longer use SAE’s name. (I don’t think a university may suspend a fraternity just based on its speech, but that question is likely rendered moot by national SAE’s actions here.) Likewise, I imagine that the fraternity members’ speech will more generally affect their social lives and their professional lives, as some people choose not to do business with them in the future. (In some states, even private employers are limited in their ability to discriminate against employees or job applicants based on their speech, but that’s true only in some states and generally only as to employment; and, rightly or wrongly, such discrimination often happens without the applicant’s even knowing that it’s happening.) How long this sort of misbehavior should dog a person is an interesting ethical question, but in any event it’s pretty clear that the offending students are going to pay a substantial social and likely economic price for their actions.

The thought vigilantes. The thought police are alive and well, better yet, the thought vigilantes. Wake up.