I’m afraid this blog doesn’t really lend itself well to narrative accounts (my writing style certainly does not help in that regard), but I want to convey a conversation of sorts I had the other day — for two reasons. First, this conversation re-ignited the desire to finish a post I had been somewhat hesitant to work on, the contents of which I felt at the time might be unduly inflammatory–but that I now see as both necessary and worthwhile. Secondly, I think sharing this conversation in many ways epitomizes the political rift in this country, which I think is itself quite illuminating. Most of the conversation is paraphrased, as I cannot remember the exact language. I will do my best to do justice to my instructor.

The story beings in my Federal Courts class. I was sitting there, presumably minding my own business when, for whatever reason, my professor (of whom I am actually quite fond) shares with us that her neighbor placed a campaign sign on the lawn that said, in bold, “McCain” with a subtitle, “at least he’s not a Socialist“. She could not understand how a Republican could sink that low, playing the RED card… claiming Obama was a “Communist” when this was clearly nothing more than a baseless attack designed to instill fear. “The ignorance”, or, “The ridiculous things these radical right-wingers believe and the depths to which they’ll sink!” was basically my take on her comments. These were not her exact words, but I believe I am accurately representing her frustration.

As soon as my instructor said this, I pointed out that there is, in fact, a difference between Communism and Socialism–and that the sign was perfectly clear on this point. Obviously, I was pointing out that whatever people may think about Communism, the sign was not objectively misleading. “Well, I don’t think [the neighbor] understands the difference” responded my instructor. (Just great, I thought… the stupid, ignorant, Conservative stereotype on full display…) A this point, my memory is a bit fuzzy; but what I know for sure is that eventually I just said, “well, he IS a socialist… at least he USED to be; old google records prove he was part of the ‘new party’, a socialist party in Chicago!” — at which point the conversation ended…

Now, what is unsettling about this incident is that there are MANY, highly-intelligent and highly-informed people who for whatever reason, DON’T think that Obama is a socialist–when ample evidence seems to indicate otherwise. I’d like to run through the reasons why I think he is, in fact, a socialist (or, at least, partially so). After all, the issue here is not if he has expressly nationalized one or more portions of our economy (it seems liberals only allow the “socialism” label to be applied retrospectively) but whether we can, based on his statements, reasonably conclude that his ideological principles place him dangerously close to that line–a chance our country can’t afford to take.

Why might someone conclude that Obama has a socialist ideology? Here are a few reasons:

1. In his now infamous interview with Joe “the plumber”, Obama said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Don’t worry, I’m not going to insult your intelligence by trying to de-construct this blatantly socialist statement. It speaks for itself.
2. In a recent Interview with Charlie Gibson, even after it was explained that there was a direct, inverse relationship between lower capital gains rates and Federal tax revenue… Obama said “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.” Now, an HONEST LIBERAL (and I am assuming there are a few around) looking at this evidence would conclude that capital gains rates SHOULD be lowered so that federal programs would receive greater federal funding… but strangely, Obama doesn’t conclude this at all. For Obama, FAIRNESS (or should I say, punishing rich people because they are wealthy) is more important than helping the poor. This is off-the-charts leftism.
3. In a recent town-hall meeting, Obama said: “If I were designing a [health care] system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system”. (no, I’m not making this stuff up). Obama would have the federal government control an entire segment of the economy.
4. Back when Obama was running for State senate, he was more forthcoming about his ideology than he has been this entire presidential campaign. In an interview with Hank de Zutter, Obama praised the emergence of “collective institutions”. “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.” One can reasonably conclude that Obama was not, in fact, promoting more private, corporate institutions, especially given his distain for the corporate form in his first book where he refers to the corporation as the “enemy”.  This was a undeniable endorsement of massive federal government programs and institutions. This endorsement of “collective” action is at the heart of socialist thought.  It is the community and the community’s needs that are of primary concern… NOT the individual.
5. In a radio interview conducted when Obama was a state senator, he both lamented the limitations of the US constitution — it didn’t give the state enough power to do things “on [our] behalf”– and championed the “community organizing activities… through which you bring about re-distributive change”.  This guy is a re-distributive, socialist to the core.  It’s unarguable.
6. Obama’s voting record is farther left than Bernie Sanders, the Senate’s only self-avowed Socialist. Last I checked, left of Socialism was still Socialism.
7. US News and World Report recently reported that a University of Chicago professor and close acquaintance of Obama candidly stated that Obama was, “as close to a full-out Marxist as anyone who has ever run for president of the United States.” Yes, you heard right, MARXIST.
8. Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, has claimed that paying high taxes is “patriotic”. I’m not sure if Biden has read any US history, but I seem to recall an event called… what was it… O, that’s right, it was THE BOSTON TEA PARTY. And what happened at the tea party? (since Biden seems to be completely unaware). That’s right, PATRIOTS engaged in civil disobedience because they were fed up with high taxes (sure, it was anger at taxation without representation… but do you really think they were mad taxes were low? I don’t.) Maybe paying taxes is a sign of patriotism in Venezuela or Cuba… but it never has been considered patriotic in America. I’m afraid Biden’s a bit confused.
9. Obama voted to partially-nationalize the banking industry (unfortunately, McCain did too… but that doesn’t hurt my argument).
10. Obama’s energy policy is akin to a national project… top-down dictation by the government about how an entire sector of our economy should operate: what forms of energy we should produce, how many carbon credits we are all allotted, what kind of cars we should all drive. (”animal farm” references should be going off in your head here like fireworks on the 4th of July
11. Old google records provide rather convincing proof that Obama actually WAS a member of a Socialist party called the “New Party” in Chicago in 1996. (Google doesn’t lie, people.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Two things* have grabbed my attention this week. First, Stanford University has a really interesting interview with Christopher Hitchens, an interview which isn’t necessarily recent, but is nevertheless relevant. Secondly, I have been trying to understand the almost religious fervor with which Democrats are opposing drilling of any kind. Prohibiting drilling seems to be the new ‘moral’ issue for Democrats: like abortion, drilling must be prohibited at any and every opportunity… at least, that’s what I used to think. What has recently become clear to me is that this issue is NOT, in fact a moral issue… it is actually a merely political one. To be a truly moral issue, one would expect outrage whenever the ’sin’ is practiced. Political issues, on the other hand, are selective–like taxes, only the wealthy get accused of not paying enough. What leads me to believe that drilling is merely a political issue is the almost deathly silence by members of the Left, particularly in the US congress in the face of new drilling projects only miles off our own Gulf by China, Venesuela, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia. I began to wonder why this could be; what could cause this selective outrage–outrage aimed ONLY at US businesses and energy producers. The answer became clear after listening to Hitchens’ interview.

The interview begins with the following question:

“Why do you think they [the left] broke over Iraq, and to a lesser extent, over Afghanistan, since, both the ostensible reconstruction and what happened was a promotion of democracy? Why was the left angry, what currents do you see that alienated them from the policy since they were not a part of the realist politique of the 1970’s and 80’s?”

Hitchens responds by saying

“The crucial thing for most of the left now is what goes under the name of anti-globalization; a primitive … non-marxist form of anti-capitalism. ANd if that is your main concern, then by definition the United States is the main enemy, which with only a little displacement means that any potential enemy of the United States is at least a potential friend. I have certainly read articles… from quite prominent leftists that give the strong impression that Jihadism may have its drawbacks, but it is better than no anti-globalization at all. In other words, it is a move from a conservative position to a reactionary one.”

Now, my argument depends in part on the validity of Hitchen’s claim, so I want to spend at least some time establishing the evidence of his contention of the new anti-capitalist agenda of the modern Democrat party.

First, there is developing a preference within the Democratic party to replace private, capitalist institutions with their respective government counterparts. Health care policy is a prime example of this developing preference; Democrats want to turn an entire segment of our economy into a government institution. If Democrats believed in the capitalist system; why would they want to socialize a trillion-dollar business? The question, obviously, is rhetorical. Anyone with the slightest respect for capitalism wouldn’t be demanding a complete government takeover as the solution of first choice–especially when other approaches may be tried without such a fundamental shift.

Read the rest of this entry »

As I was researching a previous post, I came across a number of interesting blog posts and interviews I found quite interesting. In particular, I wanted to bring your attention to a great interview with my favorite liberal feminist, Naomi Wolf, author of the infamous “a room of ones own” (and the subject of possibly the best television prank in the last year). She is promoting her new book “The End of America” –a book that lays out the ‘Ten Steps to Closing Down an Open Society’ and “exposes” the ways in which America is mirroring the closed societies of history.

Allow me to begin this discussion by first complimenting Ms. Wolf. First, she just looked great during that interview. I was all about that red thing she was wearing (but I digress!). In all seriousness, I think this book is a valuable addition to the discussion and brings an important (albeit selective) historical context to modern politics. At the risk of cliche, I would remind you that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. By reminding us of the evils of history Ms Wolf is, shockingly enough, being helpful… and I wish to encourage this kind of behavior.

This being said, I think it is fair to say that Ms Wolf’s conclusions are lacking… in any number of ways. It isn’t that she is always wrong, but that her foundational history is in many cases only loosely connected with modern practice. She begins with an assumption of guilt (primarily with the Bush administration… many times implying he is a ‘wannabe’ despot), finds similar parallels to dictators with completely different motivations and purposes, and then imputes those motives to Bush because factual circumstances were the same. Although a stretch, in some cases I found myself thinking that if two people washed their laundry, that would be enough for her to draw a comparison. I am, of course, exaggerating; but I do so to point out that to end one’s analysis at factual similarities without further analysis can lead to very irrational conclusions.

Read the rest of this entry »

Slate.com has been running a number of articles by intellectuals once supportive of the Iraq war… who now admit (or were gently coerced by Slate) to admit they were wrong. In response, I thought I’d join Christopher Hitchens and come out with a post on why I got Iraq right… and why I still support it. “Why waste your time?“, you ask? Well, I was having dinner with a couple from Europe a few weeks (well, now months) back. Late in the evening, the conversation turned to international politics; U.S. military policy in Iraq came to the forefront of the conversation. I’m not out to make enemies, so after various prevarications, I concluded that although I thought the arguments for war were compelling, I couldn’t stand how expensive the war had become–taking a clearly indifferent middle ground. As I reflected on the conversation, it became clear that as time has passed and circumstances on the ground in Iraq have changed, so my need for more articulable set of policy positions.

In beginning this process, a broad view of the middle east is necessary. The Middle East, specifically Iraq (but by no means limited to Iraq) was (and would still be) in the process of implosion had we done nothing. It was inevitable that Iraq would have collapsed eventually. There was certainly ample indica of this, whether you looked at the chaos Saddam’s sons would have brought after their father’s death, the religious tensions we have unearthed in the absence of a repressive ruler, or simply the deterioration of the country’s infrastructure caused by years of sanctions and Saddam’s indifference toward his own people.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ever Since I posted a link to a Stanford lecture by Alan Dirshowitz, some of my readers have been giving me a, shall I say, hard time about it. In response, these same reader(s) have posted articles critical of Israel. I had the opportunity to read one of the posted articles, and I think that, given the circumstances, that a reasoned discussion of that article would be helpful.

First, let me be clear that this is not a post in support of Israel as a state or in support of the Zionist movement. Instead, this post is an exercise in the use of logical; a foray into the fundamentals of proper debate. In short, I want to examine the statements and position of Mr. Amayrea’s article from a critical standpoint. Let me begin by quoting a rather long passage in a piece by Mr. Amayrea:

Last week, Israel marked the “Holocaust Day” in West Jerusalem amid the usual fanfare of sanctimonious rituals, never-again speeches and glorification of Zionism… The solemn but also highly propagandistic occasion is manipulated to the fullest by Zionist leaders in order to justify the crime against humanity, otherwise known as “the state of Israel.” - This year, too, Zionist leaders preyed on the memories of holocaust victims by seeking to blackmail the collective conscience of the world into recognizing the “uniqueness of Jewish pain” — as if non-Jews were children of a lesser God and their pain was unimportant.

Thus we had the political and ideological gurus of Zionism, from the morbidly sanctimonious Elie Wiesel to the pathologically duplicitous Ehud Olmert berate the world for the “reincarnation of anti-Semitism,” a deliberately twisted reference to legitimate criticisms of nefarious treatment of Palestinians, including the adoption of such policies as apartheid, ethnic cleansing and the use of brutal tactics for the purpose of forcing the victims of Zionism to leave their ancestral homeland.

First, let us ask on the basis of language alone, whether this author has even the slightest hope of an objective argument. The employment of words such as “sanctimonious”, “propagandistic”, “manipul[ation]“, “preyed”, “blackmail”, “morbid[ly]“, “twisted reference”, all expose the author’s insatiable distain of everything Jewish. In every sentence, Mr. Amayrea liberally interjects emotionally-charged, subjective terms into every description of anything Israeli–and in doing so sacrifices the strength of whatever argument he was about to make.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ever Since I posted a link to a Stanford lecture by Alan Dirshowitz, some of my readers have been giving me a, shall I say, hard time about it. In response, these same reader(s) have posted articles critical of Israel. I had the opportunity to read one of the posted articles, and I think that, given the circumstances, that a reasoned discussion of that article would be helpful.

First, let me be clear that this is not a post in support of Israel as a state or in support of the Zionist movement. Instead, this post is an exercise in the use of logical; a foray into the fundamentals of proper debate. In short, I want to examine the statements and position of Mr. Amayrea’s article from a critical standpoint. Let me begin by quoting a rather long passage in a piece by Mr. Amayrea:

Last week, Israel marked the “Holocaust Day” in West Jerusalem amid the usual fanfare of sanctimonious rituals, never-again speeches and glorification of Zionism… The solemn but also highly propagandistic occasion is manipulated to the fullest by Zionist leaders in order to justify the crime against humanity, otherwise known as “the state of Israel.” - This year, too, Zionist leaders preyed on the memories of holocaust victims by seeking to blackmail the collective conscience of the world into recognizing the “uniqueness of Jewish pain” — as if non-Jews were children of a lesser God and their pain was unimportant.

Thus we had the political and ideological gurus of Zionism, from the morbidly sanctimonious Elie Wiesel to the pathologically duplicitous Ehud Olmert berate the world for the “reincarnation of anti-Semitism,” a deliberately twisted reference to legitimate criticisms of nefarious treatment of Palestinians, including the adoption of such policies as apartheid, ethnic cleansing and the use of brutal tactics for the purpose of forcing the victims of Zionism to leave their ancestral homeland.

First, let us ask on the basis of language alone, whether this author has even the slightest hope of an objective argument. The employment of words such as “sanctimonious”, “propagandistic”, “manipul[ation]“, “preyed”, “blackmail”, “morbid[ly]“, “twisted reference”, all expose the author’s insatiable distain of everything Jewish. In every sentence, Mr. Amayrea liberally interjects emotionally-charged, subjective terms into every description of anything Israeli–and in doing so sacrifices the strength of whatever argument he was about to make.

Read the rest of this entry »

Commercial speech has been uniquely categorized in American law. In fact, this process of splitting speech into various categories has been a hallmark of American Constitutional jurisprudence. Pulling from both British common law and more modern doctrines, the Supreme Court has established a rather complex hierarchy of under-protected categories of speech. As a result, commercial speech has been subject to a much greater amount of regulation than its more-protected forms. This essay examines the doctrine’s foundation and also its future in light of more recent cases.

Our first inquiry is what is meant by the term “Commercial Speech”? The doctrine, as we are familiar with today, originated with Central Hudson v. Public service Commission of New York. The issue in this case was whether the state could constitutionally prohibit Central Hudson (an electric-company) from advertising the use of electricity in an attempt to curb energy usage. Much of the debate in revolved around the economic interests of the state of New York in maintaining the supply of electricity for its citizens. In order to protect supply (and by extension, the interests of the public at large), the city had created a restriction on Hudson’s ability to advertise energy use. The state’s economic interests were considered substantial enough to warrant the suppression of Central Hudson’s First Amendment protections.

Read the rest of this entry »

In this case, I concur with the majority in result, but would rather decide the case on less questionable grounds.

I concur with the majority on the issues of spectrum scarcity and licensing. It is clear that the F.C.C. must allocate frequencies if the broadcast media is to exist in the form in which we have become accustomed. The public nature of the airwaves necessitates a licensing scheme in order for the available frequencies to be allocated in a market competing for those frequencies. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why government licensing of airwaves should be any different than its involvement in many other marketplace where resources are scarce. In fact, were it not for the failure of the private sector to divide up the broadcast spectrum, government regulation would not have been necessary. The right of any party to use the airwaves should be looked at with no more or less favor than the rights of someone to pollute a stream or river; government regulation is needed in both instances in order to allow the most people to have the most access.

In addressing the issues arising from technological advances in distribution and digital compression, the majority correctly reasoned that the mere lack of a current demand for every available frequency neither negates the possibility that those frequencies could be filled nor solves the problem of frequency allocation. Licensing is still required to prevent spectrum “overlap”, regardless of total availability. We are increasingly becoming a media-centric society; to assume that demand will never outpace supply is, in my opinion, shortsighted.

It is after this point that I disagree with the majority’s reasoning, and concur in outcome only. It seems clear that Red Lion does not have a cause of action, given the nature of its broadcast license. I find no reason why, given the F.C.C’s authority to limit spectrum use, it may not also create time limitations on the use of of the spectrums in question. Red Lion’s argument seems to imply that they have a constitutional right to 24 hour control over the content broadcast over their frequency for the duration of their license term. I find no reason to conclude that the license granted by the F.C.C. confers this privilege.

If the broadcast license granted by the F.C.C. granted a complete bundle of rights, then Red Lion would have standing because the government would be forcing them to publish a particular viewpoint. This court held, in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, that the freedom of the press was bound by 2 things: a sufficient number of readers, and the journalistic integrity of its editors and publishers. Again, in Tornillo, we held that, “The choice of material to go into a newspaper… and treatment of public issues and public official–whether fair or unfair–constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” I see no reason to alter our holdings in either case.
Read the rest of this entry »