Buddy Biancalana, Karl Marx, and Patrick Kelley : A Question of Fairness

I took a long walk this morning, about eight miles worth. One of the things I noticed as I walked was that Emporia is as it was about a year ago. Terry Bassler's still recovering from his war wounds incurred in Iraq well over a year ago now. Scott Rochat, ace reporter from the Gazette is still snooping around, looking for the hidden dirt at city hall. He hasn't found it yet, but I keep reassuring him that it's there. His cohort, Patrick Kelley, is where he most always is, butt glued to some naugahyde chair in the Gazette's catacombs. Me? I've still got a case of writer's block.

With that in mind, I'm re-running a piece I did about a year ago on Labor Day. It's all about fairness and I also think it's about the fact that here in small town America few things change over time. The original piece now follows:

It’s Labor Day weekend. Here in Emporia, Kansas, things are quiet as they always seem to be. The weather is cool for this time of the year, by Kansas standards. I took my morning walk, passed by Terry Bassler’s house, looked at the yellow ribbon on the tree in front of his house, and said a little prayer as I passed. I got home and mowed the lawn while my wife, Nancy, weeded her gardens. At about one thirty we took a jaunt up to Jay’s, Emporia’s best hamburger “joint” to celebrate. This evening the smell of barbeque is in the air.

In short, the Labor Day holiday here in Emporia is small town America as it should be at this time of the year.

It’s not that we Emporians don’t care about what’s going on in the world. The yellow ribbon on the tree in front of Terry’s house reminds me that he is going to be deployed to the Persian Gulf in a few weeks. And just about everyone in Emporia will be going to church tomorrow to pray for the safety of men like Terry, for blessings on working men in women all around this country, and for God’s healing hand to be with Bill Clinton next week.

Over all, people here in this part of the country seem to be pretty happy. At least I haven’t seen any gangs of revolutionaries roaming around. I take that to be a very encouraging sign.

But we do have a gadfly or two here. Emporia’s “lord of the flies” is a fella’ named Patrick Kelley, editorial page editor at our local rag, the Emporia Gazette. In the five years I’ve been here I think I’ve only agreed with him two or three times. While I’m sure he’d claim that I’m the problem, I know, my wife knows, and our six cats know that I’m not.

Today was no exception. It all started innocently enough. In his salute to labor he began by saying:

“Of course, not everybody gets Labor Day off, because there is some important work that must be done every day. Give a thought to the police officers, firefighters, nurses, doctors and others who are working to keep their neighbors healthy and safe. And don’t forget the soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia, who never get much of a holiday at all.”

Who wouldn’t agree with that sentiment? I found myself in complete agreement with him. I’m deeply appreciative for what all these, and other workers, do for me. I’m retired now and I know what it’s like to work. In my working life I’ve done some of the hard things. I shoveled snow door to door as a kid for a buck a sidewalk. When I was in high school I delivered groceries from the back of “Sahady’s” vegetable truck. I’ve worked as an usher in a downtown Boston theatre for forty five cents an hour. . I’ve been in the military. When I signed up I agreed to a seventy eight dollar a month salary. I’ve assembled dishwashers and refrigerators for Westinghouse for two ninety two an hour. I’ve dispatched the big rigs and have been a regional line haul manager in the trucking industry. I’ve loaded freight on freight docks. I’ve cleaned bathrooms. I started at FedEx as a customer service agent and moved on to the corporation’s logistics division and then finished my career in engineering.

Now I’m not outlining my resume to boast. I don’t think my work history is more unusual than most people’s. And, while I didn’t set the world on fire, I certainly didn’t fail. What my resume says is that I know what it’s like to work and appreciate those who do.

Well, Patrick Kelley couldn’t leave well enough alone. From his tribute to labor he launched into a diatribe against the evils of capitalism:
“A recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy found that the pay gap between chief executive officers and the people who work for them is widening once again. Last year, CEO’s made 282 times the salary of their average workers. This year, the ratio is up to 301.”

“At the same time, the Economic Policy Institute reports that, adjusted for inflation, American blue-collar workers wages have actually gone down since the end of the recession.
Somewhere along the way, America has lost sight of the fact that behind every success story, there are workers who make the business thrive. For every Henry Ford or Bill Gates, there are thousands more who do the work, building the cars and writing the computer code.

America’s wealth is not in its factories or its corporate cash reserves. It’s wealth is in its workers – the people with the skills and talent to make the grand ideas a reality.

Without them, the factories are just rusting metal and the entrepreneur’s grand ideas are nothing more than passing dreams.”

I read the piece and thought I’d better take a peek out my window to see if the revolution had begun. Thankfully, it hadn’t. But it’s not because our community gadfly wasn’t trying. Do his words sound familiar? If you’re not sure a couple of snippets from Karl Marx might help:

“The laborer becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, indeed, the more powerful and wide-ranging his production becomes. The laborer becomes a cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. With the increase in value of the world of things arises in direct proportion the decrease of value of human beings. Labor does not only produce commodities, it produces itself and the laborer as a commodity, and in relation to the level at which it produces commodities.”

“Still, even today, socialism is particularly forthright in advocating direct pursuit of working class interests, even at the expense of what other ideologies consider the legitimate property rights of the wealthy classes.”

“The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. What, therefore, the wage laborer appropriates by means of his labor merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labor, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labor of others. All that we want to do away with is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the laborer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.”

Of course, what Mr. Kelley failed to mention was the same study noted that workers’ wages had gone up forty eight percent over the time period while inflation had gone up forty one. He failed to mention that the 2004 study was nothing more than a rehashing of a 2001 study by the same institute that had concluded that the 1990’s was the “decade of greed.” That study also had the same buried statistics that revealed that workers’ wages had gone up thirty seven percent in the nineties compared to a thirty one percent increase in inflation. He failed to mention that the 2004 study concluded that “corporations should have to provide answers.” While they didn’t say who they should answer to you can be sure it will either be to some Congressional committee or an expert from the Institute for policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy. He fails to mention that the “Institute” has other projects. For example, one 2001 project, aimed at youth, advocated dismantling the Electoral College. The language they used was clever, designed to appeal to a young audience:

"Is the Electoral College a Fair System?
A LOT of people do not think so. The 2000 Presidential election proved the injustice of the Electoral College. How is it possible that after winning the majority of the votes from American citizens, Al Gore was still declared the loser in the presidential election?”
The institute’s “publication” list also includes interesting titles like “Power Trip – U.S. Unilateralism” and “The Pre-emptive Empire – A Guide to Bush’s Kingdom.”
Put it all together and you’ll get a good picture of what Mr. Kelley’s “Institute” is all about:

“While other think tanks celebrate the virtues of unrestrained markets and individualism, IPS is building partnerships to create a more responsible society — one built around the values of justice, nonviolence, sustainability, and decency.”
The information Mr. Kelley cited from the Economic Policy Institute is just as conflicted. A sample about their views on the success of welfare follows:

"It depends on who you ask. There is widespread agreement that the economic boom of the late 1990s decreased unemployment among low-income workers (including those moving from welfare to work) and consequently increased wages. However, many still had trouble making ends meet with hourly wages that averaged only around $7. Families still faced significant hardships in the areas of food security, inadequate child care, and insufficient access to housing (Boushey and Gundersen 2001). In sum, while many of these workers experienced wage increases that helped to pull them above the poverty line, they were not enough to allow families to make ends meet."

It’s now about 10:15 PM here in Emporia. After reading all this stuff from the "Institutes"I think it might be a good idea to look out the window once more. The barbarians may be at the gate. Someone may have resurrected Marx. I can almost hear him as I peer out my window:

"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Proletarians of all countries, unite!"

I’m sure that Patrick Kelley would deny that he’s a socialist at heart. He would claim that he just wants a system that’s fair for all of us.

Well, what’s the problem then?

First, there are a lot of things in life that seem unfair. Buddy Biancalana played shortstop for the Kansas City Royals in the eighties. He hit .205 over that period. Two oh five! Do you know how much he made? About two million big ones a year! He had 113 hits and made about ten million dollars during his Kansas City playing days. That’s an average of $88,500 per hit. Now, the man couldn’t hit a baseball if he used a banjo, much less a baseball bat. I ask you, “How fair is that?”
Why isn’t this obsession with fairness fair? Because the obsession makes things worse. Economist F.A. Hayek put it this way:

“The demand for the new freedom (the freedom from want) was thus only another name for an equal distribution of wealth.”

The end of that pursuit, Hayek concluded, “Was, in fact, the High Road to Servitude.”

Why doesn’t it work? Peruvian economist Hernando DeSoto, a capitalist and advocate of free market reform in the third world, noted in his book “The Mystery of Capital” that it “is because knowledge about the poor has been monopolized by academics, journalists, and activists moved by compassion or intellectual curiosity rather than by the nuts and bolts of legal reform.”
And what are the nuts and bolts? The 2001 edition of “Geographica, the complete illustrated Atlas of the world” has some interesting statistics concerning per capital Gross National Product. The United States average was $26,980. The GNP per capita of Costa Rica, in U.S. dollars, was “$2,610. The average for Belize was $2,630. And the average for Cuba, the “workers’ paradise” was $766!

Capitalism works!

My youngest son owns a small insurance agency. He wasn’t always doing so well. I remember the bi-monthly calls I got when he was in college. “Hi, dad. You don’t suppose you could send me a bit of money, do you?” After several calls and several checks FedEx’d to Springfield, Missouri I decided the next call would produce a two (Nancy and me) on one (Michael) face to face visit. Well the call came and Nancy and I took the back roads from Memphis to Springfield. We found out that the man wasn’t working. “Why?” I asked. His answer almost floored me. “There aren’t any jobs.”“No jobs?”
“Well I guess you can get a job flippin’ burgers if you want, but who wants to flip burgers.”
“Why not? Look at this short and long term, my man. You can either do it for a couple of years while you’re going to school so that you don’t have to do it for the rest of your life or you can flip burgers for the rest of your life. Those are the options.”
“That’s not fair.”
“Get a job. My putting you on the family version of the dole isn’t fair either.”
Later that evening we stopped by a restaurant for a bite to eat. I noticed one of the busboys as I ate. He was a man about my age (about fifty six at the time). I knew nothing about him except that he had to work bussing tables. I seized the opportunity. “Do you see that guy, Michael. He’s probably a real nice guy. He probably has a family to support. He’s probably doing his best and his family’s probably doing alright too. This is just what he does. Do you know, Michael, you can do that too and I won’t love you any less than I love you now. But you listen to old Dad for a minute. If you want a better life and you want to finish college you need to start seeing the big picture.”
Well he did. He got a job and finished school. And now he’s out there working every day, just like millions of other Americans. He’s just started and I don’t think he’s making a lot of money yet, but he’s seized the opportunity and he’s going to be okay. he may hit better in his profession than Buddy Biancalana did in his, but he may not make as much money. That'll be okay too. I did better than Buddy in mine and I didn't make as much money as him either. But you know what? I'm not jealous of him; I'm happy for him. That's the way things are supposed to work.Could things be better? Of course. But I know one thing for sure. If Patrick Kelley and the “Institutes” he so adores get a hold on the system to make it fair we’ll all wind up in the tank. Our per capita GNP will sink like an anchor. Then the revolution will really begin.

Technorati tags for this post

Capitalism

Karl Marx

An Open Field and a Fair Chance

“Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,

Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Emma Lazarus, New York City (1883)

I’m not sure how the country’s issue with illegal immigration is going to be resolved. I do, however, know where I stand. I support the recommendations hammered out by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I do so, first, because I don’t believe the provisions of H.R. 4437 are practical, nor are they in keeping with American ideals. The provisions aren’t practical logistically. Yesterday, George Will noted that “It would take more than 200,000 buses, extending in a line 1,700 miles from San Diego to Alaska to deport 11 million people…Seventy percent of the illegal immigrants here have been here at least five years. They have roots in the community. Many of them have children born in America who are therefore American citizens. Not ripe for deportation, it seems to me.”

Mort Kondracke, commenting on the split between conservative and moderate Republicans on the issue, made the following observation:

“Now the GOP is split between fellow moderates, led by Senator John McCain, and “reconstructionists” led by Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo. If the reconstructionists “prevail, the nation will be treated to the spectacle of mass roundups of illegal immigrants.” And these “deportations will split families and produce tales of arbitrary interrogations of Hispanics.”

Today, Senator Ted Kennedy, a man I rarely agree with, told his colleagues that the cost of building the sixty miles or so of walls/fences already completed along our southern border cost U.S. taxpayers twenty billion dollars. With another 1,800 miles or so yet to be done, the cost of walling ourselves off against Mexico would be too astronomical to be taken seriously.

While I believe strongly that we need to fix the problem, I don’t believe that the House provision for fixing it is practical. It doesn’t make good economic sense.

Nor do I believe it’s in keeping with our ideals. When Nancy and I lived in New Jersey we took several day trips to see the Statue of Liberty. Seeing that Grand Lady watching over New York Harbor was always a vivid reminder to me that America is indeed a land of opportunity. Nancy’s family came here from Switzerland and Germany and carved out a good life. My mother came from Newfoundland, and while she struggled to realize the great ideals, she taught us to love and embrace them. I believe that one of this nation’s manifest destinies is to embrace its principles by embracing the “tired, the poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refuse.”

I suppose it can be argued that the 11 million immigrants now here are here illegally and shouldn’t be included among the “tired, poor, the huddled masses, the wretched refuse.” True enough. But I don’t believe the solution to the situation is to criminalize them, deport them, and then build an eighteen hundred mile wall from Texas to California.

One of the things I believe many are missing in this debate is grace. I cannot in good conscience bring myself to the place where I deem someone a criminal for trying put bread on his or her family’s table. I suppose our legislators, with enough public support, may do so. They may be able to establish the legal parameters, but they cannot, in my mind, establish the moral parameters for doing so.

I’m a bit astonished and a bit angry. Some of those crying most loudly for deportations and walls seem to have forgotten some of the acts of grace that have been bestowed upon them in their American journeys. Do they believe they got where they are without help? Do they believe that Providence had no role in the blessings they’ve received in life? Why, if so much grace has been extended to them, can’t they find grace in their hearts for those who really want to be contributing members of our society?

This morning I was reminded of one of the noblest characters in classic literature. Myriel, a Bishop, has had some of his material blessing stolen from him by Jan Valjean, a man who has just been released from nineteen years in prison for having once stolen a loaf of bread. Valjean is caught by the police and then brought before the man whose silverware he’s stolen. Valjean pleads that the silverware he’s stolen was actually given to him by the Bishop. Now, Valjean is not only guilty of theft, but of lying to the police. Yet, in a stunning act of grace, Myriel confirms what Valjean has said, then gets two candlesticks and brings them to the lawbreaker:

“My friend,” resumed the Bishop, “before you go, here are your candlesticks. Take them.” He stepped to the chimney-piece, took the two silver candlesticks, and brought them to Jean Valjean. The two women looked on without uttering a word, without a gesture, without a look which could disconcert the Bishop. Jean Valjean was trembling in every limb. He took the two candlesticks mechanically, and with a bewildered air. “Now,” said the Bishop, “go in peace. By the way, when you return, my friend, it is not necessary to pass through the garden. You can always enter and depart through the street door. It is never fastened with anything but a latch, either by day or by night.” Then, turning to the gendarmes: “You may retire, gentlemen.” The gendarmes retired. Jean Valjean was like a man on the point of fainting. The Bishop drew near to him, and said in a low voice: “Do not forget, never forget, that you have promised to use this money in becoming an honest man.” Jean Valjean, who had no recollection of ever having promised anything, remained speechless. The Bishop had emphasized the words when he uttered them. He resumed with solemnity: “Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul that I buy from you; I withdraw it from black thoughts and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God.”

“Do not forget, never forget, that you have promised to use this money in becoming an honest man.” Jean Valjean, who had no recollection of ever having promised anything, remained speechless. The Bishop had emphasized the words when he uttered them. He resumed with solemnity: “Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul that I buy from you; I withdraw it from black thoughts and the spirit of perdition, and I give it to God.”

Am I being a bit melodramatic? I suppose. But I believe, in principle, that I’m right. America has a problem that must be fixed, but it must not be fixed by criminalizing the millions of people whose only “crime” in coming here was to attempt to escape the abject poverty of the land they came from. While there is no doubt that there are real criminals among those millions, punishing those who really want to embrace the opportunity and freedom America offers along with them is an un-American, un-Christian solution.

In August, 1864, Abraham Lincoln thanked the 166th Ohio Regiment for their service to preserve the nation. In closing his remarks, Lincoln said, profoundly:

“It is in order that each of you may have through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. It is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright--not only for one, but for two or three years. The nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel.”

While the struggle over immigration today is not of the same order as the struggle of Lincoln’s day, the ideals he outlined are every bit as relevant today as they were then. A fair chance, an open field are all that the overwhelming majority of those who’ve come here to harvest the crops or cut the cows want. I believe we must find a way to make that happen!

Technorati tags for this post

Abraham Lincoln

Emma Lazarus

George Will

Immigration

Mort Kondracke

test

test

test

test

test

test

No Decency, No Shame

1 Corinthians 14:40 (New King James Version)

“Let all things be done decently and in order.”

Yesterday morning I sent a note to the office of Senator Edward Kennedy, expressing my displeasure with what he had attempted to do to Samuel Alito in the nomination hearings.

“Thank you for your message. Hearing your views is important to me, because it allows me to better understand the constituents that I serve in the United States Senate. It makes me proud to know that my constituents take an active role in our government by corresponding with me, and I look forward to responding to your concerns in greater detail.”

“As you can imagine, my office receives a great number of messages every day regarding a variety of issues. This is particularly true of e-mails. In the meantime, I just wanted to let you know that your e-mail has been received, and to ask for your patience until I send you a more detailed response.”
”Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to visit my website http://kennedy.senate.gov to follow my work in the Senate and to learn more about the services my office can provide to you.”

Warmest regards

Ted Kennedy

I doubt that I will get any further correspondence from Senator Kennedy. If I do, I will publish it on this site.

What got me, a citizen outside his constituency, worked up enough to send correspondence the senator from Massachusetts? I can sum it up in two words – fairness and decency.

I have no problem with any senator asking difficult questions a prospective Supreme Court justice. I believe they have an obligation to do so. The issues that find their way to the High Court have, in a temporal sense, supreme importance to the citizens of this country. For example, beyond abortion, which seems to be the paramount concern of liberal Democrats, there are issues of property rights I believe were decided wrongly in favor of ordinary American citizens, particularly the poor, in Kelo v. New London. In that five to four decision, the four liberal justices (Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer) and one conservative (Kennedy), decided against Suzette Kelo, a citizen of New London, Connecticut in her attempt to save her property from an eminent domain claim by the city. She lost her case to both municipal and corporate interests. The Supreme Court decided that private economic development trumped her right to own the home she and her family had lived in for generations. I’m well aware of how eminent domain works. Twice in my life I’ve been impacted by it. When I was young, in high school, I lived in a very poor neighborhood near Cambridge, Massachusetts’ Central Square. Our family accommodations were far from regal. We rented an apartment that was adjacent to an alley outside a small Italian restaurant. Often, as patrons were leaving to go the parking lot on the other side of our building, they would bang playfully on our windows as they did. While things like this happened with some frequency, I always felt that having a roof over my head outweighed the irritation. I had a place to live. As all of this was going on I managed to win a school and commerce day essay contest sponsored by a civic group. One of the rewards for me was getting to attend a luncheon, sponsored by Rotary or Kiwanis, as a guest of honor. After lunch I was introduced to the gathering. Some of the attendees, upon finding out I lived on Brookline Street, in a depressed part of town, asked me what I thought about the new road that was being proposed by the City of Cambridge that would necessitate some private dwellings, including the apartment building I lived in, being claimed by the city under eminent domain provisions. I didn’t know then what eminent domain meant, so all I could do was profess ignorance. “What does eminent domain mean?” I asked. When I found out I was upset. “I don’t like it,” I said. “Why do they need to build the road through my house? Why not yours or someone else’s?”

Years later, in Memphis, the issue of eminent domain was to come up for me again. Nancy and I had just bought a home, a beautiful antebellum, near the University of Memphis. One of the things we weren’t aware of when we bought it was that the university had designs on the house we’d just purchased, along with several others on our block. They were considering asking the City to allow them to claim eminent domain so that they could replace the houses on our block with an arts center. I was a bit more sophisticated by this time. I understood that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution meant there are times when public benefit (a road, a hospital, a school) might outweigh my personal interests. I also knew that my property couldn’t be taken without just compensation. In the end we sold our home to the University of Memphis.

The Kelo ruling, which was affirmed in large part because of the liberal bloc of the Court, has broadened the definition of public use and eminent domain. Now, municipalities can claim that a home, a block of homes, or an area of a municipality can be declared blighted, freeing the municipality to sell the homes and land to private developers. If, for example, the City of Emporia decided that our neighborhood is blighted (there are some rentals in bad shape), claim eminent domain over the neighborhood, then sell it to private interests to enhance the city’s tax revenues. While it may not happen in Emporia, it will happen somewhere. Corporate interests wanting to build a shopping mall or a regional headquarters for their company or a series of trendy shops now have a mechanism available to them they’ve never had before. Who will be hurt by this ruling? The justices of the Supreme Court? Ted Kennedy? Of course not. It will hurt the poor, particularly minorities. Here in a small city like Emporia it would hit Hispanics particularly hard. It wouldn’t be overtly discriminatory. No one would target “them.” What “they” had would just need to give way to “public use,” as redefined by the Supreme Court. The sad reality is that the poor simply don’t have any economic clout, while developers do.

So, the Supreme Court has ruled. In time the heavy hand will drop on us, particularly the poor, in favor of corporate interests, just like it did on Suzette Kelo in New London, Connecticut.

I found it fascinating that, when questioned about the Kelo case, Judge Alito seemed to express some sympathy for people who will eventually be caught in the ugly squeeze created by this unique interpretation of public use the High Court has made. Upon hearing what he had to say the senate committee about eminent domain and the Fifth Amendment, I found a new measure of respect for the man.

It doesn’t end for me with issues like eminent domain. Free speech is a paramount right guaranteed by our Constitution. This morning I read an essay by Brian Anderson published in City Journal. The piece, titled “The Plot to Shush Rush and O’Reilly,” outlines some of the things legislators have been doing in the name of campaign finance reform. One of the things that’s especially troubling is the approach legislators and the courts are now taking vis a vis political speech on airwaves and the internet. I highly recommend you read the entire essay. It’s very enlightening. It’s also very frightening. There are a couple of portions of the essay that I’d like to highlight. First, there’s this:

“But when the chief House architects of campaign-finance reform, joined by McCain and Feingold, sued—claiming that the Internet was one big “loophole” that allowed big money to keep on corrupting—a federal judge agreed, ordering the FEC to clamp down on Web politics. Then-commissioner Bradley Smith and the two other Republicans on the FEC couldn’t persuade their Democratic colleagues to vote to appeal.”

“The FEC thus has plunged into what Smith calls a “bizarre” rule-making process that could shackle the political blogosphere. This would be a particular disaster for the Right, which has maintained its early advantage over the Left in the blogosphere, despite the emergence of big liberal sites like Daily Kos. Some 157 of the top 250 political blogs express right-leaning views, a recent liberal survey found. Reaching a growing and influential audience—hundreds of thousands of readers weekly (including most journalists) for the top conservative sites—the blogosphere has enabled the Right to counter the biases of the liberal media mainstream. Without the blogosphere, Howell Raines would still be the New York Times’s editor, Dan Rather would only now be retiring, garlanded with praise—and John Kerry might be president of the U.S., assuming that CBS News had gotten away with its last-minute falsehood about President Bush’s military service that the diligent bloggers at PowerLine, LittleGreenFootballs, and other sites swiftly debunked.”

Then there’s this:

“Two popular conservative talk radio hosts, Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson, explained why the gas tax was bad news and urged listeners to sign the 225,000 petitions necessary to get the rollback initiative on the November ballot, though they played no official role in the campaign and regularly featured on their shows defenders as well as opponents of the tax hike. With the hosts’ help, the petition drive got almost twice the needed signatures, but the ballot initiative, strongly opposed by labor unions, the state’s liberal media, environmental groups, and other powerful interests, narrowly lost.”

“Meantime, however, a group of pro-tax politicians sued No New Gas Tax, arguing that Wilbur’s and Carlson’s on-air commentaries were “in-kind contributions” and that the anti-tax campaign had failed to report them to the proper state authorities. The suit sought to stop NNGT from accepting any more of these “contributions” until it disclosed their worth—though how the initiative’s organizers could control media discussions or calculate their monetary value remained unclear. The complaint also socked NNGT with civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other damages. Even more offensively, to litigate the suit the politicians hired a private law firm, Foster Pepper & Shefelman, which serves as bond counsel to Washington State. The firm, which represents unions, hospitals, and retirement funds among its other clients, could thus clean up from the state’s plan to sell gas-tax-backed bonds. Appearance of corruption, anyone?”

The same reasoning used by the State of Washington used against Wilbur and Carlson can also be used against people expressing political views on the internet. McCain-Feingold has opened the door. So much for free speech.

I’m a blogger and I occasionally express my political views. Thousands of other bloggers, liberal, moderate, conservative, and radical, do the same. I don’t agree with everything I read. But I do believe that the Constitution affords me, a conservative, the right to freely express my political views. I also affords those I strongly disagree with that same right. McCain-Feingold can now be creatively used to stifle political speech. It’s mind boggling enough that it begs the question, as Mr. Anderson noted:

“All this massively begs the question: Why should any American need government permission to express himself? Instead of a media exemption, blogger Glenn Reynolds sarcastically commented at a recent conference, maybe we need a “free speech exception, in which you are allowed to say what you want about political candidates without fear of prosecution by the government.”

How did the Supreme Court feel about all of chilling effect that McCain-Feingold has already begun to have on free speech? In a five to four decision, with conservative justices Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy dissenting, almost all provisions of the flawed law were upheld. What did the majority opinion have to say about free speech?

“…the First Amendment would render Congress powerless to address more subtle but equally dispiriting forms of corruption.”

“[no person or group may engage in] broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office; [and] is made within 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election for the office sought by the candidate; or 30 days before a primary or preference election…”

So, thanks to the High Court’s decision in McConnell v the Federal Election Commission, free political expression can be regulated by lawmakers. How’s that for liberality?

All of that is to say that the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is critically important to all of us. What was Ted Kennedy fixating on over the past few days? A magazine subscription!

“KENNEDY: You called CAP a “conservative alumni group.”
It also published a publication called Prospect, which includes articles by CAP members about the policies that the organization promoted. You're familiar with that?
ALITO: I don't recall seeing the magazine. I might have seen...
KENNEDY: Did you know that they had a magazine?
ALITO: I've learned of that in recent weeks.
KENNEDY: So a 1983 Prospect essay titled “In Defense of Elitism,” stated, quote, “People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns, blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and Hispanic. The physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports. And homosexuals are demanding the government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.”
Did you read that article?
FEINSTEIN: Finish the last line.
KENNEDY: Finish the last line -- is, “and homosexuals are...
FEINSTEIN: No, “And now here come women.”
KENNEDY: If the senator will let me just...
FEINSTEIN: Yes, I will...
(LAUGHTER)
KENNEDY: Can I get two more minutes from my friend from...
(LAUGHTER)
Just to continue along.
I apologize, Judge.
Did you read this article?
ALITO: I feel confident that I didn't. I'm not familiar with the article, and I don't know the context in which those things were said. But they are antithetical...
KENNEDY: Well, could you think of any context that they could be...
ALITO: Hard to imagine.
If that's what anybody was endorsing, I disagree with all of that. I would never endorse it. I never have endorsed it.
Had I thought that that's what this organization stood for I would never associate myself with it in any way.
KENNEDY: The June '84 edition of Prospect magazine contains a short article on AIDS. I know that we've come a long way since then in our understanding of the disease, but even for that time the insensitivity of statements in this article are breathtaking.
It announces that a team of doctors has found the AIDS virus in the rhesus monkeys was similar to the virus occurring in human beings.
KENNEDY: And the article then goes on with this terrible statement: "Now that the scientists must find humans, or rather homosexuals, to submit themselves to experimental treatment. Perhaps Princeton's Gay Alliance may want to hold an election."
You didn't read that article?
ALITO: I feel confident that I didn't, Senator, because I would not have anything to do with statements of that nature.”

This has had my blood boiling for two reasons. First, the good senator from Massachusetts was giving little or no thought to issues of real importance, like eminent domain or free speech. Life experience has taught me that the right to property, as expressed in the Fifth Amendment, and free speech, which is guaranteed by the first amendment, is far more important than a magazine subscription.

It’s also angered me because I remember the Army-McCarthy hearings well. I was young, but I’ll never forget the character assassination the Democratic senator from Wisconsin engaged in. It was a shameful! Read some of the following transcript yourself and see if you don’t agree:

McCarthy: Jim, will you get the citation, one of the citations showing that this was the legal arm of the Communist Party, and the length of time that he belonged, and the fact that he was recommended by Mr. Welch. I think that should be in the record....
Welch: Senator, you won't need anything in the record when I finish telling you this. Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty, or your recklessness. Fred Fisher is a young man who went to the Harvard Law School and came into my firm and is starting what looks to be a brilliant career with us. When I decided to work for this Committee, I asked Jim St. Clair, who sits on my right, to be my first assistant. I said to Jim, “Pick somebody in the firm to work under you that you would like.” He chose Fred Fisher, and they came down on an afternoon plane. That night, when we had taken a little stab at trying to see what the case is about, Fred Fisher and Jim St. Clair and I went to dinner together. I then said to these two young men, “Boys, I don't know anything about you, except I've always liked you, but if there's anything funny in the life of either one of you that would hurt anybody in this case, you speak up quick.”
And Fred Fisher said, "Mr. Welch, when I was in the law school, and for a period of months after, I belonged to the Lawyers' Guild," as you have suggested, Senator. He went on to say, "I am Secretary of the Young Republican's League in Newton with the son of [the] Massachusetts governor, and I have the respect and admiration of my community, and I'm sure I have the respect and admiration of the twenty-five lawyers or so in Hale & Dorr." And I said, "Fred, I just don't think I'm going to ask you to work on the case. If I do, one of these days that will come out, and go over national television, and it will just hurt like the dickens." And so, Senator, I asked him to go back to Boston. Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad. It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty, I would do so. I like to think I'm a gentle man, but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me.
McCarthy: Mr. Chairman, may I say that Mr. Welch talks about this being cruel and reckless. He was just baiting. He has been baiting Mr. Cohn here for hours, requesting that Mr. Cohn before sundown get out of any department of the government anyone who is serving the Communist cause. Now, I just give this man's record and I want to say, Mr. Welch, that it had been labeled long before he became a member, as early as 1944 --
Welch: Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers' Guild.
McCarthy: Let me finish....
Welch: And Mr. Cohn nods his head at me. I did you, I think, no personal injury, Mr. Cohn?
Cohn: No, sir.
Welch: I meant to do you no personal injury.
Cohn: No, sir.
Welch: And if I did, I beg your pardon. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator.
McCarthy: Let's, let's --
Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

Ted Kennedy crossed over the line. He abused his privilege. What he did was in the worst tradition of American politics. I’m not one of his constituents, so there’s little I can do to express my outrage about the offensive behavior he’s engaged in other than by way of correspondence or this blog. If he, and some on the High Court have their way, my right to express those views could become subject to government oversight and control. That, it seems to me, is far more important than a magazine subscription!