Quiz - The Remedy For LIES is MORE LIES? Except TO donors!!!

[johnkarls]

.

Short Quiz -- The Remedy For LIES is MORE LIES??? Except TO donors!!!


1. Who was Louis Brandeis?

2. Did U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis write a famous concurring opinion in a “freedom of speech” case (Whitney vs. California, 24 U.S. 357 (1927)) in which he said of the State of California’s restrictions on speech:

“Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly…..there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil WILL RESULT if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent…..THE REMEDY TO BE APPLIED IS MORE SPEECH…..”? [NB: Emphasis added by elevating lower case to all caps.]

3. For good measure, did the U.S. Supreme Court DEVIATE from the rest of the English-speaking world and English “common law” by deciding in New York Times vs. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) that “public figures” can be defamed unless “actual malice” can be proved?

4. Who was Joseph Goebbels?

5. As Hitler’s “Minister of Propaganda” 1933-1945, were both Goebbels and Hitler fond of saying that they didn’t care what the actual facts were and what the world press said -- so long as Goebbels could control every word that reached the German people?

6. Was that principle on prominent display prior to the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland?

7. Was the Sudetenland populated by ethnic Germans because it had been an integral part of Germany prior to World War I? And FAMOUSLY was it surgically removed from Germany and grafted onto Czechoslovakia by the WW-I victors because they thought it resembled geographically a “dagger aimed at the heart of Germany” and, as such, would help to prevent another war?

8. After Hitler’s annexation of Austria in March 1938, were the next “dominos” to fall the Sudetenland in October 1938 and the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939?

9. But back to Goebbels, did he create prior to October 1938 a public furor in Germany with “fake news” about Czech persecution of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland? And a public clamor that something be done about it – militarily if necessary?

10. After studying for our 2/14/2008 meeting 13.5 years ago “Homo Politicus” by the Washington Post’s long-time liberal OpEd Columnist, Dana Milbank, who is syndicated nationally, and “The Squandering of America” by Robert Kuttner, Brandeis U Prof and former long-time liberal columnist for Business Week who continues to write columns for The Huffington Post and The New York Times – have we made a habit of derisively calling the U.S. Government “THE BEST GOVERNMENT THAT MONEY CAN BUY”???

11. Was the thesis of both Dana Milbank and Robert Kuttner that, at least for many years prior to their 2008 publication dates, there exists “the establishment” which comprises the billionaires who “own” both political parties, who “own” many, if not most, of the Mainstream Media and who “own” many members of academia?

12. Did our 3/31/2020 letters to each of the four Co-Hosts and three Producers of ABC’s “The View” summarize “the basic problem” as (quoting from the letters) --

A. Politicians routinely engage in fraud vis-à-vis voters and “sell their souls” to campaign contributors.

B. Why can politicians “sell their souls” with de facto impunity???

C. Because public prosecutors NEVER prosecute politicians for criminal fraud (which should typically be a “slam dunk”) but instead confine themselves to prosecuting politicians for criminal corruption.

D. And the U.S. Supreme Court has long since ruled that criminal corruption requires an explicit “quid pro quo” (or “bargained for consideration” in contract-law legalese).

E. So it is “child’s play” for serious campaign contributors who want to bribe a politician to inquire who the “bundler” (aka “bag man”) is for a particular issue so that a sufficient amount of “contributions” (aka bribes) can be bundled to “bribe” the politician without violating campaign-contribution limits.

F. And it is “child’s play” for the politicians and the “bundlers” (aka “bag men”) representing the contributors to avoid a legally-enforceable contract (which is what “quid pro quo” or “bargained for consideration” means) so that there is no criminal corruption per the U.S. Supreme Court.

G. HOWEVER, the politician knows that s/he can NOT double cross those campaign contributors because doing so means s/he will NEVER AGAIN be able to raise a penny from serious campaign contributors.

13. Did our 3/31/2020 letters to each of the four Co-Hosts and three Producers of ABC’s “The View” begin with –

“Re: Worth The Fighting For – The Honorable U.S. Senator John S. McCain III”

and as the Re’s second-line sub-heading –

“His Dream of Campaign Finance Reform And What You Can Do To Help”???

14. Did the text of our 3/31/2020 letters then begin with --

“As you are probably aware, one of John McCain’s fondest dreams was campaign-finance reform – with The McCain-Feingold Act (aka The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) the result of six years of hearings. [NB: The U.S. Supreme Court in McConnell vs. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold in all important respects.]

“The following is a plea to you and your colleagues on “The View” to pick up the fallen banner of Campaign-Finance Reform and champion it for as long as it takes.”

15. Had we thought that with Sen. McCain’s daughter Meghan as a Co-Host of ABC’s “The View,” her colleagues and producers might be inspired to do something positive for the welfare of the nation???

16. Were we bitterly mistaken???

17. So in the aftermath of the FAILURE OF ABC’S “THE VIEW” to make any attempt to cure the problem, are we continuing to witness “what the U.S. Supreme Court hath wrought” -- virtually nothing but lies by politicians vis-à-vis the public while they “sell their souls” to their so-called campaign contributors???

18. With this background, do you believe that our focus book -- Michael Lewis’ “The Premonition: A Pandemic Story” -- is a good example of a classic political “hit piece” aimed at misinforming the demographic comprising readers of Michael Lewis books, none of which have dealt with serious public-policy issues in the past???

19. Are false political “hit pieces” protected “Free Speech”???

20. Should false political “hit pieces” be protected “Free Speech”???

21. In other words, don’t false political “hit pieces” comprise the kind of “serious evil” decried by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis???

22. Who should the “fact checkers” be??? Aren’t the so-called “fact checkers” themselves often nothing more than purveyors of lies???

23. Would false political “hit pieces” predominate in “the public square” in the wake of “campaign finance reform”???