KABOOM! Is Your Head Explosion Proof? Find Out Now With The Handy Ethics Alarms Test, Starring CNN’s Don Lemon!

On February 15 at 11 pm, CNN Tonight with Don Lemon held a debate between the Nation’s Joan Walsh–The Nation is the farthest left of the U.S. political magazines, and is fairly described as Socialist—and National Review editor Rich Lowry. TNR is the most venerable of U.S. conservative publications. The subject was gun control, following the horrific high school shooting in Florida. Lemon was supposed to moderate.

I began watching the segment, which was amazingly, perilously  long, until my head exploded, nearly killing Rugby. Yesterday, I finally found a transcript of the exchange, and realized that those of you who think your heads are immune from detonation can test your cranial fortitude by trying to read it.

I recommend the test. It is challenging, and if your head survives intact, you can safely assume that nothing will send your brain matter to the ceiling, which is feeling of security we all aspire to. First, however, line the room with plastic sheets. Wear something easily washable (or nothing at all.) And for God’s sake, keep pets and loved ones out of the room. No helmets allowed.

I will break in from time to time to comment, and check on how you are doing.

We’ll begin the transcript when the early part of the discussion had turned to the NRA and its large contributions to elected officials…

RICH LOWRY: Well, I think you’re looking at this totally from the wrong perspective. Let’s take Paul Ryan for instance. I’m sure — I’m almost certain he was pro-gun rights even before he thought about running for Congress. So the idea all the Republicans are secret gun controllers and just have been bought off to go out and lie and pretend they’re in favor of gun rights is not true. This is a sincere conviction.

DON LEMON: Where is the evidence? I never said that.

JOAN WALSH: I don’t think Don was saying that.

LOWRY: Well you’re suggesting that Paul Ryan —

LEMON: I’m not suggesting anything.

LOWRY: — because of the money.

LEMON: I’m just reading the facts.

LOWRY: Okay, so the contributions have nothing to do with Paul Ryan’s conviction on guns? We agree on that?

LEMON: No, we don’t agree with that.

LOWRY: Okay. That’s the point I’m making. I’m sure he was pro —

LEMON: I’m not saying — you’re saying they’re secret gun controllers. I never intimated that.

LOWRY: Yes. You’re saying they’re bought off. So — if they’re — what are they being bought off to a position they don’t agree with it? Is that what you’re suggesting?

LEMON: Do you think they’re not influenced by the money?

LOWRY: No.

LEMON: Are you influenced by money?

LOWRY: Let’s talk about Paul Ryan.

LEMON: Do you know where your bread is butter?

LOWRY: Let’s talk about Paul Ryan. You think he is a secret gun controller? He has always been in favor of gun control.

WALSH: No, no one is saying that why creating the straw person that is what. It’s not something either one of us would.

LOWRY: No. Well — How it the money relevant? So it’s a sincere conviction.

WALSH: The money is relevant, because they have an alliance, the money is relevant.

LEMON: The money is getting them elected.

WALSH: The money gets them elected.

LOWRY: The NRA supporting him because he’s pro-gun.

WALSH: They have come around to —

LEMON: I am looking at it that way.

WALSH: — absolutism version of the First Amendment where common sense gun laws don’t work.

LOWRY: What’s wrong?

LEMON: No it doesn’t. Because he is influenced by the money.

LOWRY: No, no, no. So you think he —

LEMON: If the NRA —

LOWRY: — you think that —

LEMON: — is not paying him the money, then he would —

LOWRY: — when he was 16 years old out hunting deer, he was in favor of gun control then he ran for office and all this lobbyist money came to him and he changed his view on guns. That’s absurd

WALSH: You are creating a straw person.

LEMON: So, why oppose common sense restrictions that the vast number of Americans support and, by the way, do you think he was out with an AR-15 hunting?

LOWRY: I’m sure he is out with a rifle.

LEMON: Okay but an AR-15?

HEAD CHECK I. Head still intact? Good for you. 

A. Note that Don Lemon is supposed to be the moderator. This format is that CNN invites two “experts” on different sides of an issue to debate points for the edification of its audience. The theory is that this is fair and even handed. Lemon is the worst, most incompetent moderator of all time, because he literally could not be worse. If he were a boxing referee, he’d be pummeling one of the fighters. Not only does he take the role of an advocate, teaming up with Walsh against Lowry, but because that leaves the segment with no moderator, it rendered the segment incoherent, with everyone talking over each other, shouting and interrupting while seldom finishing a sentence or a thought.  Lemon, supposedly a professional broadcast journalist, is, therefor incompetent as well as biased. He’s not doing his job; he’s abusing his position, and he’s cheating his audience. All of CNN’s anchors do this, but seldom to this extent. Does Lemon even know what moderating is?

B. My head lasted through this segment, but Walsh using the ridiculous, politically correct “straw person” twice almost did me in. The term is “strawman,’ and it refers to scarecrows, which, unless someone is trying to make a feminist point to birds, are made to look male. This is how Leftists make themselves look silly. I can’t take someone seriously who uses a phrase like “Straw person.” It’s as bad as “Hangperson.”

C. Lowry is quite right: if Walsh and Lemon believe that the NRA’s money is the reason why members of Congress don’t support gun restriction measures, then they are arguing that these members would vote for such measures without the contributions. They are exhibiting  a particularly crippling kind of bias. They believe that their position is so obvious, so correct, that nobody would ever sincerely oppose it unless they were bribed. It is also an unusually hypocritical argument for any partisan to make, as it can easily be turned around to make the same claim regarding legislators opposing “sensible abortion restrictions,” for example. I’m sure that legislators on both sides of the aisle have positions that they vote for to keep donors happy; I’m also sure that that many big interest group  donations go to politicians because they sincerely and enthusiastically support those interests, and would with or without the contributions.

D. Most of all: how useless, inarticulate. amateurish and chaotic can a segment be? You’re going to find out, unfortunately…

LOWRY: An AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country at the moment.

LEMON: So what does that mean? That is a problem. That is a problem.

LOWRY: Millions people own them and they don’t go out and shoot up schools. Every one of those gun control measures that you mentioned… universal background checks, a cosmetic ban on certain stylistic weapons… would do nothing to stop these sort of killings.

WALSH: That’s actually not true.

LEMON: How do you know that unless you try it, Rich? How do you know?

WALSH: That’s actually not true and we’re not —

LOWRY: Okay, Virginia Tech one of the worst school shootings. What weapon was used?

WALSH: — changing the culture.

LEMON: Hold on, hold on, hold on let me — let me just tell you this. Other countries have done the same thing. They have banned, done background checks. They have done sensible gun legislation and guess what? They aren’t nearly where we are when it comes to guns, but even — even by percentage wise.

LOWRY: Let’s talk about background checks. Everyone brings up background checks.

LEMON: Wise.

LOWRY: Almost every single case, they passed a background check because they hadn’t been adjudicated and weren’t guilty of crimes.

LEMON: So, then that is —

LOWRY: There is no background check you can devise —

LEMON: — that’s the problem.

WALSH: In fact there is. There actually is. You could — you could devise it.

LEMON: So they haven’t been adjudicated. That’s the problem. It doesn’t have to be adjudicated.

LOWRY: So how are you — how are you going to adjudicate someone who hasn’t committed a crime?

WALSH: This young man —

LEMON: So you could do a background check and do it longer.

WALSH: — the police were at —

LEMON: Hold on, Joan, let me get — you can do a background check. You can have the length be longer. So you can also have —

LOWRY: If you’re talking.

LEMON: — it where it doesn’t have to be adjudicated. It could be a doctor, you could — you could send people to be checked.

LOWRY: Two things.

LEMON: You could check their records when it comes to psychology.

LOWRY: If you’re saying that means pay more attention to people who are troubled and mentally ill —

LEMON: No, I’m saying you can do both.

LOWRY: — have more interventions I agree with you.

LEMON: You can do both.

LOWRY: I agree with you.

LEMON: You can do both.

WALSH: But Republicans are siding with the budget.

LOWRY: But you’re criticizing Donald Trump for saying that.

HEAD CHECK 2.

A. I literally have no clue what some of that was about.  What does “siding with the budget” mean? They are criticizing Donald Trump for saying what? You know what would help a lot? A moderator. At one point, Lemon interrupts Walsh to make his point, and badly, too. This is moderator malpractice.

B. Lemon keeps saying, “That’s the problem.” Yes, Don, we know the entire issue is a problem. You’re ignoring your duties as a moderator to inject brilliant observations like “That’s a problem”?

C. This is like listening to strangers at another table in a restaurant talk about something they know nothing about. Or like in  “Annie Hall”…

 

In the case of Lemon and Walsh, we would want to pull out George Mason  and James Madison to explain the Constitution, which prohibits taking away individual rights without due process, or “adjudication.” These segments are supposed to make viewers better informed, not less.

D. As every parent know, it is impossible to argue with six-year-old without sounding like one.  What is Lowry talking about with his  “pay more attention to people who are troubled and mentally ill”? This is lazy blather. What’s troubled? What’s mentally ill? Michael Savage argues that liberals are mentally ill. Some experts think transexuals are mentally ill. A large segment of police suffer from depression. What the hell is “troubled’?

 

LEMON: I’m criticizing all politicians —

LOWRY: Okay. It’s a constitutional right.

LEMON: — regardless if they’re Republican or Democrat who will not even broach the subject of how we get sensible gun legislation to stop this from happening.

LOWRY: No. We talk about it all the time.

WALSH: Well, there’s very few Democrats who won’t talk about it.

LEMON: The solutions —

LEMON: We talk about it all the time. We don’t do anything.

LOWRY: — the solutions you offer have no interaction with these horrific crimes. If you can give me a gun control idea —

LEMON: Okay, Dianne Feinstein proposed —

LOWRY: — that would actually stop one of these, then —

LEMON: — proposed that people who —

LOWRY: — we can have a conversation.

LEMON: — Diane Feinstein proposed people on the terror watch list were not able to buy guns. Republicans couldn’t — could not even come to consensus on that. How does that make sense?

WALSH: It’s ridiculous.

LOWRY: Because the terror watch list is a mess. Everyone acknowledges that. [LEMON GRAONS] If you clean it up.

WALSH: Well, then clean it up.

LOWRY: There is —

WALSH: Clean it up.

LOWRY: Fine. Let’s clean it up —

LEMON: So, clean it up —

LOWRY: — and then we can have the conversation, but —

LEMON: — and then do that as well.

LOWRY: — the fundamental fact, Don —

LEMON: So, you’re saying —

LOWRY: — is the Second Amendment —

LEMON: — so, you’re saying —

LOWRY: — in this country —

LEMON: — that people on the terror watch list, in the interim, while you’re cleaning it up, they should be allowed to have guns.

WALSH: Guns. Mentally ill people? guns.

LOWRY: Again, none of these shooters are on the terror watch list. So, again —

WALSH: Joan.

LOWRY: — you’re talking about something that has no interaction with these actual crimes.

HEAD CHECK 3.

A. My head blew when they all endorsed the unconstitutional watch list scheme, which was, and is, a slam-dunk unconstitutional violation of due process. The ACLU opposes this legally, ethically and constitutionally ignorant measure, because it’s indefensible. You can’t “clean it up.” Joan Walsh shows she is ignorant of the Constitution while she is on national television discussing the Second Amendment. Don Lemon shows he is ignorant of the Constitution while he is on national television discussing the Second Amendment. Rich Lowry shows that HE is ignorant of the Constitution while he is on national television discussing the Second Amendment, though to be fair to Lowry, I suspect he suffered a closed head brain explosion as he tried to fend off the other two blathering idiots.

B. When they were not blithely ignoring the Bill of Rights, Lemon and Walsh hit several classic gun control faux-arguments, like

  • “sensible gun legislation to stop this from happening.” Except sensible gun legislation won’t stop this from happening, and anything that will stop this from happening isn’t sensible. That’s why, when challenged to name such “sensible gun legislation,” Walsh and Lemon immediately wanted to repeal the Due Process Clause.
  • We don’t do anything.” In other words, do something, anything, though when challenged to describe what, the answers are either trivial or totalitarian.

WALSH: We care more —

LOWRY: That’s the whole weakness of your case.

WALSH: — we care more about guns than we do children and it’s disgusting and we need to change the culture that — that enshrines guns as a kind of manhood. We were — are not entitled to AR-15. We are entitled to own guns. We are not entitled to own weapons of mass destruction. You brought the receipts all these guys, yes they’ve been bought and paid for. They may now have come around to agree. They are not secret gun controllers.

LOWRY: So, now you’re contradicting yourself.

WALSH: They have — they have —

LOWRY: You’re saying they have been bought off, so they must not agree with this position.

WALSH: — they are now kept. I don’t know how they started

LOWRY: So you’re saying the gun position is sincere?

WALSH: — but they are kept.

LEMON: Do you know the definition of conflict of interest?

LOWRY: They’re saying —

WALSH: Huge conflict.

LOWRY: — no one’s sincere?

LEMON: Do you know the definition of conflict of interest?

LOWRY: No, look.

LEMON: No you don’t the definition of conflict of interest?

LOWRY: No, no, no you believe none of these people are sincere? None of them think the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right

LEMON: I never said they weren’t sincere. All I did was —

LOWRY: I don’t know what you’re saying.

LEMON: Here is what I’m saying. I put the information out there. Did you hear what I said?

LOWRY [SARCASTICALLY]: Right.

LEMON: Facts First.

LOWRY: Right.

LEMON: These are the facts. You make up your mind —

LEMON: But what — what you’re — okay. I’ll —

LEMON: — so, if you think that getting —

LOWRY: But what are you suggesting?

LEMON: — thousands of dollars, millions of dollars doesn’t influence someone, then you’re sadly mistaken. Come on, Rich.

WALSH: There’s an alliance. There’s an alliance. There’s an alliance of all beliefs.

LOWRY: So you’re saying they sincerely believed there are all sorts of gun control measures that will magically make these go away.

LEMON: No, I think you’re doing the same thing — no, no, no. I think you’re doing the same thing now with me in the conversation as people who oppose sensible gun laws do. You go to extremes.

LOWRY: No!

LEMON: And you say things that people are not saying.

HEAD CHECK 4.

A. Now we are completely off the rails. The best Walsh can do is circle back to the NRA and default to arguing from emotion, which is what “we care more about guns than we do children.” is. Really Joan? Really? “Think of the children”?  That’s a cheap shot, intellectually bankrupt, and certifiably stupid. Try that one in court before a jury in, say, the Casey Anthony case: “The defense wants you to care more about a fair trial than about children!” It is pundit malpractice to poison viewers’ brains with arguments like that, and I. for one, can’t respect any advocate who stoops that low.

No wonder Don won’t let you talk.

B. Lemon, who is, I’m afraid, an idiot, contradicts himself in the space of about ten seconds. He believes that the gun advocates in Congress are sincere, but he believes they are bought.

C. Does Lemon know what a conflict of interest is? Then he knows that using that as an argument against anti-gun control legislators is hypocrisy, unless he advocates banning all interest group donations, like, say, Wall Street’s donations to Hillary Clinton.

WALSH: That young man —

LEMON: You don’t want to look at the facts —

LOWRY: No, that’s so — when you say —

LEMON: — because they don’t line up with your ideology.

WALSH: That young man couldn’t buy a beer couldn’t buy a handgun —

LOWRY: — Paul Ryan is being bought off — bought off.

LEMON: No. I’m saying Paul Ryan has gotten 340 some odd thousand dollars —

WALSH: — but he could buy an AR-15.

LOWRY: So, what’s the consequences of that?

LEMON: — from the NRA. Then you —

LOWRY: Who do you think is being bought off? You think he’s being bought off.

LEMON: What do you think the consequences are? You tell me. You brought this up.

LEMON: No, I’m asking you. What do you think the consequences are?

LOWRY: You tell me. You brought this up.

LEMON: I am asking you. What do you think? What do you think it is?

LOWRY: So, you think he’s being bought off?

LEMON: No, I don’t think that.

LOWRY: I think he sincerely believes one in gun rights and two, that the kind of measures you have talked about in the program would have nothing to do with stopping the shootings.

WALSH: That’s not true.

LEMON: That is not true.

LOWRY: What univ — how does the universal background —

LEMON: That’s not true.

LOWRY: — check stop any of these shooting?

LEMON: Every single study shows — there is a new poll from Harvard that was printed in The New York Times yesterday. The only factor that separates us from other countries —

WALSH: Availability.

LEMON: — is the amount of guns and access to guns in this country.

HEAD CHECK 5.

A. Isn’t this amazing? Who could stand watching this, except as sick entertainment? They keep repeating the same non-arguments with decreasing coherence. Walsh is especially pathetic. She has nothing but clichés. “He couldn’t buy a beer, but he could buy an AR15!” What a non-sequitur. So if we lowered the drinking age, it would be OK for him to buy a semi-automatic rifle?

B.  “LOWRY: The kind of measures you have talked about in the program would have nothing to do with stopping the shootings. WALSH: That’s not true. LEMON: That is not true.”

It is absolutely true.

C.  ‘When in doubt, cite polls.’ Constitutional rights are not controlled by polls.

LOWRY: Well, look. We had an assault weapons ban and the best research in the 90s —

LEMON: The time — there was a time —

LOWRY: — says it did nothing.

LEMON: — limit.

LOWRY: It’s a cosmetic —

LEMON: There was a time limit.

LOWRY: — it’s a cosmetic definition. Semiautomatic —

WALSH: There is debate on that.

LOWRY: — we have a ton of —

LEMON: That is not true.

LOWRY: We have a huge amount of —

LEMON: The facts don’t show that.

HEAD CHECK 6.

What the hell???

LOWRY: — guns in this country are semiautomatic weapons. That’s a basic technology. If you want to ban all semiautomatic weapon, that is enormous prohibition. To have to make any difference, you probably have to go and confiscate them.

LEMON: That is, again, an extreme —

LOWRY: And then you’ll have enormous Second Amendment problems.

LEMON: — that’s not what any one is saying. No one is saying ban all semiautomatics…

LOWRY: Well, see this is your contradiction.

LEMON: No. It is not my contradiction.

LOWRY: Yes, it is.

LEMON: I sit here to have a conversation to talk about it and to actually do something about it. I gave you facts about what most Americans want. Most Americans want a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Most want a ban on assault weapons.

LOWRY: But that won’t stop school shootings. Just polling doesn’t — see, there is no magic solution, Don.

LEMON: Most Americans —

WALSH [ABOUT LEMON]: You weren’t saying there’s a magical solution.

LEMON: — vote for people. That doesn’t mean that they’re going to —

LOWRY: This is the problem with gun controllers, okay? You can either say there are minor things that work where suggesting universal background check. Those would make no difference or you actually advocate something on large scale [WALSH GROANS] that might make a difference.  But it doesn’t make a difference.

LEMON: Unless you try. How do you know it doesn’t make a difference?

LOWRY: Okay. What shooting would a universal background check —

LEMON: You can’t even take the — why can’t you even take the baby steps!

LOWRY: — what mass shooting — what mass shooting — what mass shooting?

LEMON: Why can’t you take the basic steps?

LOWRY: Because most of this —

WALSH: This young man was known to the police. The police came to his house multiple times and he got a gun when he turned 18.

LOWRY: I agree. There should be more intervention. There should be — there should be more.

WALSH: There should be matching — mental health and police records with guns.

LOWRY: It should be easier compel treatment for people who are seriously mentally ill —

WALSH: And shouldn’t have guns.

LOWRY: — and obviously we need more intervention for people who are on the borderline.

LEMON: Should they be able to get guns?

LOWRY: If they haven’t been adjudicated, gun ownership is an individual right. If I said to you, Don, the media is part of the problem here,,,

LEMON: So, should this —

LOWRY: …We need to ban the media from talking about —

LEMON: Should this kid —

LOWRY: — these shootings you would say, “Rich —

LEMON: — should this kid —

LOWRY: — there is a First Amendment right, you can’t do that. That is the way this country works. There is a Bill of Rights.

HEAD CHECK 7.

A. If your head hasn’t exploded yet, it’s not going to. Congratulations!

B. I know 7th graders who can discuss this topic more substantively than this. Lemon’s “baby steps” argument, aka “Do something!,” aka “Do something everyone knows won’t work, so we can advocate step after step until the only step left is banning guns” is social media low-level junk, yet after ten minutes of shouting, this is the best he can come up with.

C. Walsh mentions some relevant facts but refuses to acknowledge their implications. The Florida shooting was a failure of law enforcement, not gun laws. The FBI admits it screwed up. No system is any good if it isn’t followed.

 

LEMON: Yes, there is a Bill of Rights. But then if Congress or someone decided to do something about that, then we could talk about that.

LOWRY: To do something about the Bill of Rights?

LEMON: Yeah.

LOWRY: To do what about the Bill of Rights?

LEMON: To something about — if — if you —

WALSH: Talking about the availability of guns.

LEMON: — if you want to have a convers —

LOWRY: What do you want to do to the Bill of Rights? Now we’re —

WALSH: We’re not saying that.

LOWRY: You just said it.

LEMON: There is nothing that stops people

LOWRY: What do you want to do about the Bill of Rights?

LEMON: — from having conversations about it. How much does the President —

LOWRY: Ok, we’re having a conversation.

LEMON: Listen to me! Stop! Don’t over talk me. The President talks about all the time the media. He hates the media. He is upset about the media —

LOWRY: Yeah, yeah, I know that.

LEMON: — has a conversation about the media. The sheriff today says please media don’t put the camera on anybody’s face. Did anyone say: “Ohhh, oh my gosh! No! Please stop doing it!”

LOWRY: But if they proposed a law —

LEMON: No, we are free to talk about it.

LOWRY: — if they proposed a law, a lot of people would rightly say, sorry, there is a First Amendment. If you want to change —

LEMON: But this is America

LOWRY: — the Second Amendment, fine. Let’s have that debate.

LEMON: If someone wants to try to propose a law, let them do it. Fine. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

HEAD CHECK 8.

A.  Did I get you?? I’m sorry, that was mean, saying your head was in the clear, and then having this come up. Yes, we need to DO something about that pesky Bill of Rights.  Don shows his progressive bona fides now, doesn’t he? “Someone” needs to do something—you know a dictator you can trust, like Obama or someone.

B. ‘How dare you talk over me when I’ve been talking over everyone when I was supposed to be moderating? I’m a smug, loud-mouthed, opinionated ignoramus who can get away with this disgraceful display because I’m black and gay and CNN wouldn’t dare touch me no matter how unprofessional I am. Watch me get drunk again on New Years Eve!’

Let’s just plow on to the end…

LOWRY: Sure. So, you want to change the Second Amendment?

LEMON: I’m not. [GROANS]

WALSH: He didn’t say that.

LOWRY: Ok what are you saying?

LEMON: I never said I wanted to change the Second Amendment.

LOWRY: Okay.

LEMON: Again, that is your extreme argument, because —

WALSH [GROANS]: It always goes there.

LEMON: — you don’t want to take you don’t want to take the small steps to try to figure out how to stop what happened.

LOWRY: That’s not what I’m saying, Don.

LEMON: Yes. It’s exactly what you’re saying. No, you’re saying that I want to — I want to —

LOWRY: I’ll say it again and then I’ll stop —

LEMON: No one has ever said that. What we said —

LOWRY: — and let you say it.

LEMON: — no. I’ll said it. Let me say it again.

LOWRY: Ok.

LEMON: What we said was we gave the facts on how much money gun lobbyist are offering these people who are in Congress who are lawmakers and who then refuse to do anything at all about gun violence in this.

LOWRY: I get that.

LEMON: That is the fact.

LOWRY: Ok.

LEMON: You took it to an extreme

LOWRY: No.

LEMON: — saying I want to get rid of the Second Amendment, people who want sensible gun laws want to get rid of the Second Amendment and there is nothing that can be done about, that is extreme.

LOWRY: Okay so what I said, you threw out the numbers. I think most people —

LEMON: I didn’t threw out the numbers, those are facts.

LOWRY: Okay, right. I know. That’s fine.

LEMON: I’m not throwing them out.

WALSH: They are real.

LEMON: Those are real numbers.

LOWRY: Whatever verb you want to use. You told people about these numbers, but I’m saying if most —

LEMON: Facts are nouns. They’re not verbs. Go on.

LOWRY: Okay. Well throwing is a verb. But let’s not get grammatical here. So, I’m saying people like Paul Ryan are sincere in their convictions and I’m quite certain he believed the same things about guns even before he ran for Congress.

LEMON: That doesn’t mean he’s right.

LOWRY: That is true.

LEMON: That doesn’t mean he’s right.

LEMON: That is true. That’s a different discussion.

WALSH: He won’t bring up bump stock legislation and he won’t even bring up sensible things that there’s a bipartisan consensus on.

LEMON: And is the nail on the — thank you, Joan. Go on. That is the nail on the head.

WALSH: He blocks everything. He has total control and he is — he is beholden to the NRA. He believes it.

LOWRY: But most — most of the things you bring up just wouldn’t stop the shootings and, look. They’re horrific.

WALSH: It would stop some shootings.

LOWRY: We should be focused on them. We should fortify schools to a further degree.

WALSH: They might have.

LEMON: No. This is a circular argument. Do you think that the young man in Florida should have had this gun?

LOWRY: No, but you can’t. [LEMON LAUGHS] But of course not.

WALSH: Good.

LOWRY: I don’t want murderers to have guns.

LEMON [GROANS]: Oh my gosh. So then — again —

LOWRY: But what law —

WALSH: We agree.

LEMON: That is good. Now we agree.

LOWRY: — what law would you pass under these circumstances.

LEMON: So let’s have a conversation so then what next?

LOWRY: Okay, so what law can you pass that would prevent him from having a gun?

LEMON: Ok. Then that is the conversation.

LOWRY: What is it? Tell me.

LEMON: That’s the conversation.

LOWRY: Tell me.

LEMON: I’m not a lawmaker.

LOWRY: Let’s have a conversation.

LEMON: Okay. That’s exactly — so you —

WALSH: Much more stringent background checks.

LOWRY: You know what the problem is?

LEMON: So, you refuse to allow —

LOWRY: You refuse to answer my question.

WALSH: Much more stringent background checks.

LEMON: There is an answer to that question. There is an answer to that and it’s not necessarily passing laws or what have you. But there is an answer to that question.

LOWRY: Well, if you want to say people around him should have been more concerned, I mean obviously —

LEMON: Well, to your estimation.

LOWRY: — they were concerned to some degree already calling the police.

LEMON: Yes.

LOWRY: And they shouldn’t have allowed him to have this gun and they should have taken it away. I would completely agree with that.

LEMON: Rich, you refuse to have any conversation about any sensible gun conversations.

LOWRY: I love having conversation. We’re having a debate.

LEMON: You refuse to even —

LOWRY: It’s feisty.

LEMON: — you refuse to even —

LOWRY: I’m enjoying it.

LEMON: — you refuse to even have our lawmakers take on possible legislation for sensible gun legislation.

LOWRY: I’m all in favor of debate.

WALSH: But not the legislation.

LEMON: So —

LOWRY: Right.

LEMON: — so, to answer my question, no, you’re not.

LOWRY: So, univers —

LEMON: So, there is nothing we can do. It ends there. It’s — we’re done.

LOWRY: No. We should try to do things. We should try to do measures to stop this from happening. What I’m saying is, you can —

LEMON: I don’t think you know what you’re saying.

LOWRY: — it’s called common sense — sure I do.

LEMON: No, you don’t. I don’t think you know what you’re saying.

LOWRY: What you call common sense gun legislation are minor matters that do not, in most cases interact, with the shootings. What you could propose is something much more wide ranging and I’m, saying that —

LEMON: Would you say that to the face of the mom who is on here earlier with her 17-year-old?

WALSH: The politics are changing on this.

LEMON: That these are minor matters?

LOWRY: Well, look, my heart goes out to them.

WALSH: These students are going out and will be activist and vote against guns.

LOWRY: But that doesn’t change the facts.

WALSH: These students are going to change the world. They were chanting no more guns. This debate is opening, Rich. You’re not seeing it.

LOWRY: But we’re never going to have a situation where you have no more guns. Sorry.

LEMON: No one says we should have no more guns.

LOWRY: I — well, Joan was just —

WALSH: — they meant no more guns in schools. They —

LOWRY: Okay. Well, that — I mean, I support keeping guns out of school and if there are ways to do it, let’s do it.

WALSH: The point is politics are changing and these kids are going to change it.

LEMON: Yeah. Thank you. That was lively.

WALSH: That was fun.

LEMON: I appreciate it.

LOWRY: We’ll discuss grammar a little bit more next time.

LEMON: Ah well, facts are nouns.

This is CNN.

This is the state of journalism in 2017.

This is how gun control is discussed and argued across the country.

This is the best we get from those whose job is to enlighten the public.

KABOOM!

34 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Childhood and children, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Kaboom!, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights, U.S. Society

34 responses to “KABOOM! Is Your Head Explosion Proof? Find Out Now With The Handy Ethics Alarms Test, Starring CNN’s Don Lemon!

  1. Yep. My head exploded at strawperson.

    I’ll be back later to finish reading.

    • Junkmailfolder

      Did you see the news story a month ago about Canadian PM Justin Timberlake* interrupting a question at some town hall thing to correct her from saying “mankind” to “personkind”? To applause from the crowd?

      *spelling?

  2. Under NO circumstance should Don Lemon or Joan Walsh EVER be allowed access to any gun. They are MENTALLY UNSTABLE!
    (See? How I just did that? I just “watched” CNN! Polls would agree, too!)

    We need sensible restrictions on semiautoinsurrectionary and semiautoinciteful media – makes about as much sense as sensible restrictions on semiautomatic guns.

    My head doesn’t un-explode; it was in fine, exploded shape, even before I began to read this post.

    So yeah, let’s add some more sensible restrictions on semiautoexploding heads, and keep guns out the hands of THOSE people, too.

  3. Chris Marschner

    Lemmon should be required to read the transcript so he will see just how poor a job he did.

  4. adimagejim

    This is why CNN’s ratings are poor. Those people watching and fearing the worst will now go off and buy more guns. Great job, CNN.

  5. Junkmailfolder

    This was less coherent than most Facebook arguments I’ve seen. But then, at least I know this wasn’t planted by Russian agents.

  6. “sensible gun legislation to stop this from happening.” Except sensible gun legislation won’t stop this from happening, and anything that will stop this from happening isn’t sensible. That’s why, when challenged to name such “sensible gun legislation,” Walsh and Lemon immediately wanted to repeal the Due Process Clause.

    As my longtime Usenet ally, Christopher C. Morton, wrote:

    “Sensible gun control laws”, brought to you by the same people who brought you:
    * “Sensible slavery”
    * “Sensible Jim Crow”
    * “Sensible lynching”
    * “Sensible Nuremberg Laws”
    * ” Sensible ‘Resettlement to the East’”
    * “Sensible racial concentration camps for Japanese-Americans”
    * “Sensible anti-sodomy laws”

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/02/robert-farago/rolling-stone-repeal-second-amendment-meanwhile-sensible-gun-control/#comment-3842840

  7. Jack Houghton

    Made it only to Head Check #1, and then just barely. Can go no further. Big waste of time. Head hurts… but will attempt to comment…

    Prior to the 2016 election season, I previously watched CNN as my preferred TV news outlet… and I still try now and again. It has become painful to watch. If it isn’t theRussianstheRussianstheRussianstheRussians theRussians and more of the Russians, it is some other form of Trump bashing blather.

    No question, Trump deserves to be criticized, and bashed for some of his more un-presidential behavior, but CNN and some of the other news networks have become rabidly irrational and one sided partisan on almost everything political. CNN has become a pathetic joke not worth wasting my time on.

    Regarding the Florida shooting tragedy, it is not surprising that CNN and liberal politicians are immediately jumping to the “sensible” gun control narrative. Nearly everybody knew that would happen… it was just a matter of how many minutes would it take.

    But consider this: 1) over 40 million Americans are diagnosed with some sort of mental illness each year, 2) over 9 million of those diagnosed with mental illnesses are considered seriously mentally ill, 3) over 40 percent of all American live births are out-of-wedlock leaving tens of thousands of children to grow up in poverty, home-life instability, and lacking any kind of responsible parental guidance. Combine this with raunchy and violent TV, movie, Xbox and PlayStation addictive “entertainment” and what do you expect?

    Most people with mental illness are NOT violent, but some are. Some need very little provocation or entertainment inspiration to act out in violent ways.

    Regarding the video games, they are 1st Amendment protected speech, just “art,” just “lighthearted entertainment” full of blood and gore, mass shootings, dismemberment, decapitations, cannibalism, torture, human sacrifice, impalement, meat hook hangings, and other “delightful” forms of recreation… nearly all considered “suitable” for ages 14 and above.

    Is there any wonder why bad things happen? With or without guns?

    Regarding guns: We now have somewhere in the range of 300 to 400 million privately owned small arms in private ownership in America. Nobody knows exactly how many, but those guns are owned by maybe something in the range of 100 million Americans, most of whom are law-abiding and non-violent. Some… relatively few… are not. It doesn’t take too many “bad apples” to create a big problem for everybody.

    Not sure what kind of “sensible gun control laws” might prevent future tragedies. We have lots of laws already on the books but time and time again we read about a perpetrator who was legally prohibited (disqualified) from possessing a gun, shooting, killing, murdering somebody or multiple people. It happens all the time. And too often we later learn that previous gun related charges were dropped, nolle prosequi… even though the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. Why have laws if they are only rarely enforced?

    More importantly, why pass “gun safety” laws that only punish and put under legal jeopardy the masses of law abiding citizens in the off-chance that maybe some criminal… maybe even a psychopathic killer… will be deterred by that law? (Criminals do not follow the law, and mentally deranged criminals even less so.)

    Regarding the NRA’s influence on politicians: they only have about 5 million members out of the 100 million or so gun owners. Of course the NRA does support financially their political agenda, but usually are it heavily outspent by the anti-gun factions including Michael Bloomberg’s group and other similar organizations. If politicians can be so easily bought off, then guns should have been expunged from the American scene long ago.

    CNN seems to forget this: the NRA is not the only source of political financial contributions, and is by far not the biggest.

    • That post advanced the topic about 10,000% farther in a modicum of well-chosen words than the 7000 words of blather with three blathers did in the entire Don Lemon segment.

      And you know, wasting time gave me a pang. I decided to memorialize that example of what has happened to journalism and discourse, and after I was committed, wondered, “Am I insane? This crap isn’t worth 20 seconds of my time, much less a couple hours, and who wants to read this?”

    • Paul Schlecht

      ”Regarding the NRA’s influence on politicians”

      Lefty Anti-Christ Ben Shapiro: “Between 1998 and 2017, the NRA spent $200 million on all political activities combined. Unions spent $1.7 billion on politics in the 2016 cycle alone.”

      “the NRA is not the only source of political financial contributions, and is by far not the biggest.”

      Not even in the top 20.

    • Regarding the video games, they are 1st Amendment protected speech, just “art,” just “lighthearted entertainment” full of blood and gore, mass shootings, dismemberment, decapitations, cannibalism, torture, human sacrifice, impalement, meat hook hangings, and other “delightful” forms of recreation… nearly all considered “suitable” for ages 14 and above.

      I have heard this sort of thing said before. Is there anything to back it up as a contributing factor to shootings? Like your later comment on gun ownership, tens of millions of people of all ages play these games, and they don’t go off shooting everyone as it it gains them points.

  8. Don Lemon seems to me to give a really excellent example of ‘emotional argumentation’. This is certainly not to say that the emotions are bad, but it is to say that when important issues are considered it must be a balanced intellect that thinks things through. What I find most interesting about this issue (emotional reasoning) is that it seems to me to be the principle mode that has now ‘taken over the nation’. That is to say that one notices it in the way people structure their ‘arguments’ (people that we know and have contact with), and also the way that journalists are now structuring their presentations.

    The curious thing is that it is this *faction* of the demos that is all up in arms about the other *faction* of the demos which they feel justified in villifying. I guess it would be one thing, and a positive thing, if all their arguments were rational and intellectual. But they really are not. They are emotional appeals.

    How is it, or why is it, that a nation seems to have fallen down into this mode? There has to be an answer (ie. there has to be causation that can be traced) and yet this seems exceedingly difficult, even to the point that it cannot be done. All one can do, in a certain helplessness, is try to make encompassing allusions and generalizations.

    Is it because the US is completely dominated by an ‘advertising culture’ and a PR culture which, through deviousness and trickery (sophistry in the true sense of the word) engages in mass-manipulation through appeals to emotional factors or emotional motivators?

    Is it because in approximately the 1990s that the American nation embarked on completely illegal and absolutely immoral wars against sovereign nations, outrightly breaking every moral and ethical convention that can be named, with the reult that hundreds of thousands of people died at the national hands of America and Americans? Has this ‘war mentalitiy’ and this blind and inconsiderate use of violent force somehow infected people within the nation to a greater degree than ‘normal’ (in what is known to be a more violent culture generally, who knows exactly why)?

    If mental illness is a factor, what is the cause of this mental illness? Why are some people, or certain people, so unhappy? What is this inner disease and inner tension that explodes into mass violence? How dod this come about? How can it be addressed?

    A general and spreading condition of social madness? What does this portend? According to the school shooting map the start-date is said to be Columbine in Colorado (1999?). What will the map look like 10 years from now? What group of people, what group of experts and wise-men could be assembled to examine the causes and prescribe remedies?

    I suggest that there is no one there to undertake this task. No one seems to know. There is another possibility though: that the cause is so systemic, so grounded in the structures of the culture, that it requires a kind of meta-social and meta-political analysis that simply cannot be broached … because the issues arise from their very entrenchment. That is, these are unspeakable issues. (For example the one I mentioned: a war-mongering, malicious war-making nation that has committed astoundingly reprehensible crimes resulting in hundreds and thousands of death-murders: and no one will recognize it! none will talk about it!)

    So, the ‘conversation’ turns in every direction and goes every which way and is not ever resolved …

    • Paul Schlecht

      ”this issue (emotional reasoning) is that it seems to me to be the principle mode that has now ‘taken over the nation’.”

      Haven’t folks been using “emotional reasoning” for quite some time?

      Hume thought so; people intuit (their “gut”) then employ reason (such as it is) to rationalize, if I may, “their very entrenchment.”

    • It seems that some in the anti-gun cult are motivates by hostility
      towards whites. Here is a Facebook comment thread in which I participated.

      https://www.facebook.com/chris.kelly.7315720/posts/10215556513485410?comment_id=10215560495664962&comment_tracking=%7B“tn”%3A”R”%7D

      ” Excellent methods of giving gangs an even greater share of the gun
      market.”- Me

      “Yes please spout your trumpster bigotry about gangs like your bloated
      orange Fuhrer. I live in Baltimore and it’s not gangs that scare me it’s
      going to the hardware store full of old white gun-nut bigots. You know like
      the POS who held a campaign bingo for a AR15 last night! White men with guns
      are the true terrorists and the NRA is their death for dollars lobby.”-
      Carol Phillips, in reply to me

      I somehow suspect that more people in Baltimore are killed by
      gangbangers than by “white gun-nut bigots”.

      But this does illustrate the motivation behind some anti-gun nuts. They
      hate the United States of America and all it stands for, and because they
      see white Americans as symbols of what they hate, they hate white Americans, especially the male ones. And they associate gun ownership with white
      Americans, so they attack gun ownership.

      Consider this. Why is it when anti-gun cartoonists make cartoons mocking gun nuts, the gun nuts are NEVER portrayed as stereotypical black
      gangbangers?

      For these particular people, the gun control campaign is part of a
      larger culture war against what they perceive as mainstream American
      culture.

      Of course, the laws they want will NOT be targeted against the white
      Americans they so despise.

      • Excuse me my problematic replies. It is part of my efforts to get get clear and very dedicated to expressing what I see and understand.

        You wrote: “But this does illustrate the motivation behind some anti-gun nuts. They hate the United States of America and all it stands for, and because they see white Americans as symbols of what they hate, they hate white Americans, especially the male ones. And they associate gun ownership with white Americans, so they attack gun ownership.”

        While I agree that there are some who have very strong criticisms of the US, I am chary to use the word ‘hate’ because it is so loaded. I understand the Left-Progressives fairly well because I have read a great deal of their literature. I do not think that it is ‘hate’ that motivates them, and to employ that term will lead one into misunderstanding. But yet I see deliberate misunderstanding as a part of the larger conversation, as part of a social psychology if you will. Deliberate misunderstanding is a great part of the game!

        You will have to tell me what the US ‘stands for’. And when you do you will (IHO) wind up in a confused swamp. The US opted, through deliberate choice and political machination, to turn against its own principles (Consitutional principles) at the turn of the 19th century. You cannot tell me (convincingly) that the invasion and occupation of Cuba or of The Phillipines represents a ‘value’ to ‘stand for’. You would have a hard time explaining all the invasions and interventions in the Caribbean Basin in the next 30 years. And you could not explain the ‘values’ that stand behind the stark violation of Constitutional principles in getting enmeshed in WWl and WW2.

        Therefor, just with these 5 examples I merely point out that ‘what America stands for’ is anything but clear. You are speaking to an ideal and from an idealistic and patriotic perspective. You are speaking from the perspective of an engineered view of America and from ‘the tenets of an American religious patriotism’.

        To enter into the confused mass of what you are trying to refer to is a necessary endeavor and one I completely support. But one cannot do that if one is steeped in chaotic views. One requires clarification. View and perspective have to be clarified. How to do this? Who can do it? Baed on what you say I do not think I could count on you.

        So, everything has to be set on the table and then each element has to be identified so that a real conversation can ensue. This is not happening with now in America. Very much the opposite is what is happening: deliberate misunderstanding; deliberate miscinstruel; refusal to listen and consider. But all this does stem from meta-political and meta-social issues and different strains of ideas.

        How can there be a conversation among people who do not agree even about the most basic things?

  9. Jack wrote: “D. As every parent know, it is impossible to argue with six-year-old without sounding like one. What is Lowry talking about with his “pay more attention to people who are troubled and mentally ill”? This is lazy blather. What’s troubled? What’s mentally ill? Michael Savage argues that liberals are mentally ill. Some experts think transexuals are mentally ill. A large segment of police suffer from depression. What the hell is “troubled’?”

    Yet the issue of mental health cannot be simply dismissed. But even a simple observation, even one one assumes is neutral, is in fact an interpretation. Who interprets? Who is capable of interpretation of the events in our present? But yet … the nation appears to be sinking down into what can be described as ‘mental illness’. It sort of figures, doesn’t it? that with an alarming increase in individual cases of mental illness that require medication and hospitalization that at one point or another the mental health issue would become, or would emerge, at a national level. Or is it that the ‘mental illness’ has a root in a national psychology and is now manifesting itself, breaking out as a psychosis breaks out of a neurosis?

    Obviously, we must pay more attention to the mentally ill. But then that means looking into, it means understanding, what mental illness is within a larg, social and national context. And who is capable of doing that?

    It must be coming about through an entire group of influences and factors. How could these be named? Who would name them? Doing that you would wind up perhaps even more than ever in the most violent and conflicted rehearsal of the ‘culture wars’!

    The issue of and the question of ‘mental illness’ is completely, thoroughly and 100% a part of the American outlook when one considers how America ‘interprets’ the First and the Second World Wars. But unquestionably when it comes to European fascism, to Mussolini, to Hitler. It is part-and-parcel of conventional thinking, on both the American Right and Left, to *see* issues of mental health in operation when America (the shining example of human perfection, the ‘best of the best’ that have ever arisen on the surface of the planet, the world’s best social and political structure, God’s literal gift to the world), when America gazes out at the rest of the world. I appear to be mocking this and I do so only to make the obvious point: things are not going so well for this god-gifted America today).

    So, when the Progressive Left attempts to make a mental health analysis of the ‘extreme right’ or of the common man in the flyover country, it is carrying on a tradition of analysis. Simolarly, when the conservative right focuses its medicinal gaze on the various freakshows-on-wheels that comprise the counter-culture Left … they do so on the basis of a certain logic.

    I would suggest that the nation is entirely ‘troubles’; it is reeling under the weight of its ‘troubles’, and the ‘troubles’ are mounting and because there is no counter-force to stop them, and no one to address them, they will continue mounting until there is a severe outbreak of social madness.

    Or is what I say iteself a sign of some hyterical paranoia, some dark pessimism or simply theoretical opportunism?

  10. JP

    So I read this thing twice. It has to be the worst debate I have ever read. Why did Lowry agree to do this? Why did Walsh? Lemon makes Walsh look like an idiot. Look at everything Walsh says (about 450 words total):

    JOAN WALSH: I don’t think Don was saying that.
    WALSH: No, no one is saying that why creating the straw person that is what. It’s not something either one of us would.
    WALSH: The money is relevant, because they have an alliance, the money is relevant.
    WALSH: The money gets them elected.
    WALSH: They have come around to —
    WALSH: — absolutism version of the First Amendment where common sense gun laws don’t work.
    WALSH: You are creating a straw person.
    WALSH: That’s actually not true.
    WALSH: That’s actually not true and we’re not —
    WALSH: — changing the culture.
    WALSH: In fact there is. There actually is. You could — you could devise it.
    WALSH: This young man —
    WALSH: — the police were at —
    WALSH: But Republicans are siding with the budget.
    WALSH: Well, there’s very few Democrats who won’t talk about it.
    WALSH: It’s ridiculous.
    WALSH: Well, then clean it up.
    WALSH: Clean it up.
    WALSH: Guns. Mentally ill people? guns.
    WALSH: Joan.
    WALSH: We care more —
    WALSH: — we care more about guns than we do children and it’s disgusting and we need to change the culture that — that enshrines guns as a kind of manhood. We were — are not entitled to AR-15. We are entitled to own guns. We are not entitled to own weapons of mass destruction. You brought the receipts all these guys, yes they’ve been bought and paid for. They may now have come around to agree. They are not secret gun controllers.
    WALSH: They have — they have —
    WALSH: — they are now kept. I don’t know how they started
    WALSH: — but they are kept.
    WALSH: Huge conflict.
    WALSH: There’s an alliance. There’s an alliance. There’s an alliance of all beliefs.
    WALSH: That young man —
    WALSH: That young man couldn’t buy a beer couldn’t buy a handgun —
    WALSH: — but he could buy an AR-15.
    WALSH: That’s not true.
    WALSH: Availability.
    WALSH: There is debate on that.
    WALSH [ABOUT LEMON]: You weren’t saying there’s a magical solution.
    WALSH: This young man was known to the police. The police came to his house multiple times and he got a gun when he turned 18.
    WALSH: There should be matching — mental health and police records with guns.
    WALSH: And shouldn’t have guns.
    WALSH: Talking about the availability of guns.
    WALSH: We’re not saying that.
    WALSH: He didn’t say that.
    WALSH [GROANS]: It always goes there.
    WALSH: They are real.
    WALSH: He won’t bring up bump stock legislation and he won’t even bring up sensible things that there’s a bipartisan consensus on.
    WALSH: He blocks everything. He has total control and he is — he is beholden to the NRA. He believes it.
    WALSH: It would stop some shootings.
    WALSH: They might have.
    WALSH: Good.
    WALSH: We agree.
    WALSH: Much more stringent background checks
    WALSH:But not legistation.
    The politics are changing on this.
    WALSH:These studeents are going out and will be activist and vote against guns.
    These students are going to change the world. They were chanting no more guns. This debate is opening, Rich. You’re not seeing it.
    WALSH: They meant no more guns in school. They-
    WALSH: The point is politics are changing and these kids are going to change it.
    WALSH: That was fun.

    Is there anyone reading this that thinks Walsh won? Lowry should have keep bring the subject back around to topic. It seems like every time Lemon didn’t want to answer the question, he changed subjects and Lowry let him. Jeez this was just terrible.

    • I was tempted to do what you did there: thanks. Walsh might have well have been a potted plant: if Lemon weren’t her ally, she would have complained that this was sexist treatment (which it was.) It is terrible. If a producer or CNN exec didn’t call and emergency meeting after this, that tells me everything.

      That’s 450 words out of 7000…for one of the two supposed “debaters.”

  11. Kyjo

    I think my head exploded multiple times reading that transcript. Is that possible? Walsh summarized the state of the gun debate quite effectively, though:

    WALSH: Guns. Mentally ill people? guns.

  12. luckyesteeyoreman

    Second try…

    That scene in the line for the movie was probably my favorite scene in “Annie Hall” – certainly, the scene I remember best. Glad you chose it.

    Jack: I’ve been meaning to admonish you about something you wrote, ever since I first read it early this morning. Right after Head Check 8:

    “B. ‘How dare you talk over me when I’ve been talking over everyone when I was supposed to be moderating? I’m a smug, loud-mouthed, opinionated ignoramus who can get away with this disgraceful display because I’m black and gay and CNN wouldn’t dare touch me no matter how unprofessional I am. Watch me get drunk again on New Years Eve!’”

    You might get into trouble with your own ethics for that.

    Now, if you had written, instead…:

    “B. ‘How dare you talk over me when I’ve been talking over everyone when I was supposed to be moderating? I’m a smug, loud-mouthed, opinionated ignoramus who gets away with disgraceful displays like this mockery of a debate I am ostensibly moderating BECAUSE I CAN and CNN wouldn’t dare touch me no matter how unprofessional I am. Watch me get drunk again on New Years Eve!’”

    …you would have shown all the fairness and respect toward Lemon that he deserves, without involving any intersectionality between his unaccountable unprofessionalism and his race or preferred kind of sex.

    Now, please, oh PLEASE, reply to this and say “Bite me.”

    • Emily

      I think Jack’s point (judging by his history of critique of CNN) is that Lemon is safe specifically because CNN is chasing/bowing to hyper-liberal viewers. The reason hyper-liberal viewers wouldn’t tolerate firing Lemon for doing an awful job is because he represents two minority groups. So in that ongoing context, pointing that out is relevant.

      If you have a different argument as to why Lemon knows/believes he can get away with sloppy job performance, that would be interesting to add to the discussion. But your replacement only acknowledges that he believes that (because…?)

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        That’s easy: Lemon thinks all the “correct thoughts.” THAT is why he is untouchable at CNN. The facts that Lemon appears to be of a particular race and claims to prefer particular sex acts are irrelevant. He’s woke, so he can’t be broke. He’s hip, so he gets free lip. He might think he’s insulated because of his race and whoopee-style. But if so, that is just a quaint delusion, and Jack has projected that thought into Lemon. Viewers of CNN might, in great enough numbers, think it unthinkable that Lemon would be canned, ergo he is untouchable because of those personal traits, and CNN might use that knowledge of its audience to further excuse their keeping Lemon on the air no matter how incompetent he is. But the bottom line is that Lemon is trusted by CNN to convey all the correct thoughts.

  13. John Billingsley

    “LEMON: — it where it doesn’t have to be adjudicated. It could be a doctor, you could — you could send people to be checked.”
    An excellent plan. Let’s give doctors (hey, that’s me) the power to “check” people and decide whether their civil rights should be taken away. Nothing could possibly go wrong there.

    “LEMON: You could check their records when it comes to psychology.”
    No sweat for me. I got an A in psychology. I bet Dragin did too.

    “WALSH: Guns. Mentally ill people? guns.”
    It’s all those damn crazy people. Maybe Lemon was right, due process is way overvalued. Just give some kind of doctor the power to say they’re nuts and take away their rights. After all, there are only about 40 million of them.

    The actual fact is that only about 5% of all violence, not just firearm homicide, is attributable to the seriously mentally ill. The person most at risk of death from a mentally ill person with a gun is that person due to the high lethality of suicide attempt by firearm. There are things that should be done from the mental health standpoint but making that the primary focus of gun control will address only a minor component of gun violence.

  14. Just read the whole thing. Don Lemon gave me Forrest Whitaker eye…

  15. My head didn’t explode even once reading that but that’s only because I received the appropriate trigger warnings up front.

    That wasn’t a debate, it was just a school yard pissing match between people that have no respect for one another and it had no place being aired to the public.

  16. “…Forrest Whitaker eye…”

    HA! I had to look that up. The males in my family have medically documented histories of Forrest Whitaker eye. It’s unanimous, among us brothers (but milder cases than Mr. Whitaker’s). “Lazy eye,” I think it’s called. I think it came from Mom’s side…where all the outlaws, fecund POC and “Cherokee” come from (and she was the whitest, fairest, blondest of the bunch)… One brother considered having it surgically repaired. But why remove a fair warning of possible bipolarity? Jeez! Someone might sell us guns, and regret it later…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.