The Patriot Post Brief 10-11-2010

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 10-11-2010
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

The Foundation

"There is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust." --James Madison

Culture

"Leading environmental organizations in Britain, with the backing of numerous major corporations, recruited British screenwriter Richard Curtis to produce a video for the '10:10' campaign, which seeks to cut carbon emissions by 10 percent every year for 10 years. The video begins in a classroom, where a mild-mannered teacher tells her middle-school students about the 10:10 effort. She then asks the class if they'd like to sign up. Most do, but two kids abstain. The teacher tells them, 'That's absolutely fine, your own choice.' Then, she reaches for a device on her desk with a red button on it. She pushes the button, and the kids who refused to sign up for the green crusade are blown up, their blood and viscera spraying across the classroom, staining the school uniforms of their conformist and compliant classmates. The same 'joke' plays out several more times in different settings (an office, soccer practice, etc.). Each time someone resists the idea of getting with the program, the response is swift, bloody execution. The video's defenders argue it's all a big joke, lighten up. For the layman, the obvious response is, 'That's not true.' Blowing up kids isn't funny. But that misses the point. This isn't a joke for the benefit of you and me. No, this is a knee-slapper for those already committed to the cause. The subtext is, 'Wouldn't it be awesome if we could just get rid of these tiresome, inconvenient people?' That's why they're blown up without anyone trying to change their minds. That's the joke: 'Enough with these idiots already.' How else to explain the fact that this thing went through the entire pre-production and filming process, was undoubtedly screened by any number of people, most likely including sponsors and PR people, and none of them said, 'Are you nuts? We can't go public with this.' That's the outrage here: not that they thought normal people would find it funny, but that the producers and sponsors clearly did think it was funny. ... In fairness, a host of leading environmentalists have condemned this snuff film as an idiotic disaster. I'm fine with taking most of them at their word, but I suspect that at least some object to the film because it was bad PR, not because they actually found it offensive." --columnist Jonah Goldberg1

Tell us what you think here2.

Liberty

"Should speech lose constitutional protection when it is 'outrageous' and recklessly or intentionally causes 'severe emotional distress'? The Supreme Court is facing this question in Snyder v. Phelps, which was argued Wednesday. Its answer will affect far more speech than the repulsive statements of Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., and his followers. ... Since about 1800, state courts have likewise treated constitutional free expression guarantees as constraining civil liability. The question before the Supreme Court is whether there should be an exception from such First Amendment protection when the speech is 'outrageous.' The answer should be 'no.' Content-neutral, narrowly drawn ordinances banning targeted picketing in front of funerals might be constitutional, much as are ordinances banning targeted picketing of people's homes. Likewise, as Justice Kennedy suggested at oral argument, a speaker's following a target around and insulting him to his face might be constitutionally unprotected. But judges and juries shouldn't be free to decide, case by case, that some particular message at a demonstration or on a Web site is so outrageous that it loses constitutional protection. Many statements might be seen as outrageous by some judge, jury or other government official: publishing the Muhammad cartoons, burning a flag, harshly condemning affirmative action or illegal immigration, and more. ... American society rightly condemns rude comments about the recently deceased. ... And it is true that -- as the Justices acknowledged at oral argument -- some curbs on free speech (such as by content-neutral limits on picketing immediately outside a funeral) may well be constitutional. But such limitations should come through standards that are more objective, and less manipulable, than 'outrageousness.'" --UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh3

Re: The Left

"In the latest installment of its pro-bono PR campaign for the Ground Zero mosque, the New York Times attempted to draw parallels between opposition to the mosque and opposition to the construction of St. Peter's Roman Catholic Church, built in lower Manhattan in 1785. But somehow in his discussion of the mosque opponents, Times reporter Paul Vitello neglected to explicitly mention4 the September 11 terrorist attacks -- you know, the events that form the entire basis for that opposition. The omission allowed the Times to continue drawing false parallels, and to implicitly perpetuate the notion that objections to the mosque are unfounded, dishonest, or bigoted. More fundamentally, the article avoided mentioning 9/11 since doing so would have required the reporter to address the one monumental disconnect between the two cases: Catholics did not slaughter 2,852 innocent civilians in God's name two blocks from St. Peter's Church. The Times, with the help of Rev. Kevin Madigan, the pastor at St. Peter's, draws three parallels between the controversies surrounding the Ground Zero mosque and St. Peter's Church: opponents asked the proprietors of each to move the location elsewhere, concerns were raised over sketchy sources of funding for both projects, and, like Catholics in 18th century America, Muslims are now considered second class citizens. ... Of course the vast majority of opposition to the mosque's construction is motivated not by bigotry, but by a feeling that the project's proponents are peeling the scab off a wound that is far from healed. The Times didn't mention that fact since it completely undercuts the analogy it was trying to push." --Newsbusters' Lachlan Markay5

Government

"Lenin famously described his strategy for communist domination as 'one step forward, two steps back.' Of course, by that he did not mean to suggest steps of equal length. The step forward was a lot more like two large steps, and the two steps back were more or less symbolic, designed to diffuse opposition. Clearly, in the past two years the United States has moved two giant steps in the direction of socialism. We have seen the redistribution of hundreds of billions of dollars, the seizure of major industries by the state, the re-emergence of a hard-core welfare state, the virtual nationalization of healthcare, takeover by regulation of the energy and financial sectors, and much more. This resurgence of state control has been accompanied by the new power of labor unions, environmental lobbyists, tort lawyers, and state bureaucracies. But now, having reached the limit of what the public will stomach, the Leninists who run the Democratic Party see that it is time for two baby-steps back. Those steps back are taking the form of a new suggestion of inclusiveness and bipartisanship (even of openness to business interests), talk of repeal of some parts of the healthcare bill, talk of making some parts of the Bush tax cuts permanent (after the election, of course), talk of a balanced budget (pay-go once again). As this list suggests, the step back is nearly all talk-talk in the midst of an election campaign designed to preserve Democratic majorities. The steps back, in other words, are not an actual retreat. They are merely talk. As soon as the election is over, the strategy of moving forward will resume -- this time in the lame-duck session of Congress." --columnist Jeffrey Folks6