The FCC’s Needless Interference with Free Speech

The Federal Communications Commission is launching an investigation into Stephen Colbert after numerous complaints have been filed over his “homophobic” remarks. Colbert, host of The Late Show, included in a rant against President Trump the following insult.

“The only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s c—k holster.”

FCC chairman Ajit Pai said in a radio interview on 1210 WPHT that “Traditionally, the agency has to decide, if it does find a violation, what the appropriate remedy should be. A fine, of some sort, is typically what we do.”

The FCC’s investigation into Colbert’s remark is completely worthless and a waste of taxpayer money.

The idea that we should pay money for an agency to watch a thirty second tape, have them decide if its offensive, and then punish the offender is ridiculous. If people are so outraged by Mr. Colbert’s remarks they should punish him through their power as consumers. Refuse to watch his show, pester CBS to drop him, or pressure him into an apology. The free market gives the individual the power to financially punish a business or person already. Relying on government to do it for you is not the solution.

For once you are able to hamper the free speech of someone you find offensive what stops the other side from hampering the free speech of someone you agree with? You cannot afford to act in the short term for small victories without considering the long term implications. (Not that censoring someone should ever be considered a victory. It is far better to have opposing views than be in a vacuum of unchanging thought.) Taking back power from the government is nearly impossible so you can never afford to give them any.

On the taxpayer side of things it gets even more ridiculous. Why should our hard earned money go to some government agency to decide whether something someone said is obscene? Surely we all have the ability to determine for ourselves what is obscene or not. If we do view something as obscene we have the power to withdraw ourselves from it. Those who do enjoy Mr. Colbert’s remarks should have the ability to continue to watch his show without having a false version of himself afraid of being censored.

Earlier in the article Pai said that the most likely action would be a fine. I’m sure that’s just going to devastate Colbert and his $15 million dollar salary. Glad to see our tax dollars are going to such an effective use.

If it were up to me any speech, besides that which would encourage or incite violence, would be allowed on television. One of our country’s founding principles and rights is the freedom of speech. It is crucial that anyone be allowed to speak their mind, no matter how much we may personally find it reprehensible. For once we find it acceptable to punish someone else for their opinions free speech dies.


Saudi Arabia Elected to Women’s Rights Commission

No, this is not an Onion article.

Saudi Arabia, one of the most oppressive countries towards women, has been elected to the Women’s Rights Commission for a 2018-2022 term. Picked up by UN Watch, executive director Hillel Neuer said “Electing Saudi Arabia to protect women’s rights is like making an arsonist into the town fire chief.”

Saudi Arabia according to the World Economic Forum ranks 141 out of 144 countries when it comes to gender equality. Under law all women are required to have a male guardian which make critical decisions in their life.

Neuer also stated that “Saudi discrimination against women is gross and systematic in law and in practice. Every Saudi woman must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a woman’s life from her birth until death. Saudi Arabia bans women from driving cars. Why did the U.N. choose the world’s leading oppressor of women to promote gender equality and the empowerment of women?”

What makes the vote all the more insulting is that Saudi Arabia was elected on a secret ballot. If countries cannot publicly show their support then they should not vote at all. By voting in secret they do not have to directly face backlash from electing such a misogynistic country. The women of the world deserve better than this.

The Dangers of a Reactionary Foreign Policy

Last week on the 6th of April the United States launched fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles at an airbase in Syria in response to a chemical attack carried out by the government. Trump said in a statement following the attack “Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” This is a dramatic reversal from his prior statements and indications during the campaign that he would stay out of Syria.

His explanation for his changed policy is seeing the images of the chemical attack. “When you kill innocent children — innocent babies — babies — little babies with a chemical gas that is so lethal, people were shocked to hear what gas it was, that crosses many, many lines. Beyond a red line, many, many lines.” There is no questioning or debating the heinous attack upon civilians, but it is no reason to entangle the United States in Syria.

Despite what President Trump says there is no national security interest in attacking Assad. The chemical attacks did not harm Americans, nor does it place any of us at risk. What does place us at risk is bombing an ally of Russia. Attacking Assad will only weaken his ability to fight ISIS, a group we both want eradicated. In an interview in September 28, 2015 Trump told an interviewer, “Why can’t we let ISIS and Syria fight? Let Russia, let them fight ISIS.”

Not to mention the increase in tensions between Russia and the United States that will naturally come from attacking one of its allies. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in a conference at Moscow “The current state of U.S.-Russia relations is at a low point. There is a low-level of trust between our two countries. The world’s two foremost nuclear powers cannot have this kind of relationship.” A proxy war between opposing Syrian forces would benefit no one, and would only instill more hatred for the west in the middle east.

If Trump’s recent reactionary foreign policy holds it could be detrimental to the United States and the rest of the world. Prematurely reacting to foreign crises will only create more problems. Syria is currently engulfed in six year long civil war, with various groups fighting for control. You have the government, ISIS, and the various rebel groups fighting against each other for dominance. It is a multi front war with no clear group that would be best to lead if Assad and ISIS were taken out. With the United States long record of making countries worse by removing the current leaders you would think we would have learned by now not to meddle in other countries.

Sadly there seems to be no shortage of politicians and leaders who think they know the solution to other countries affairs. Their arrogance in believing they know how to fix other countries has only made the world a more dangerous place. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are the prime examples of our failed nation building policy. The establishment politicians couldn’t even understand the support for Trump, so why should we expect them to understand the intricacies of foreign politics?

The other dangers posed by a reactionary foreign policy is the debt it would cause for the country. A study by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs reveals that the War on Terror has costed the United states $4.79 trillion dollars. And what do we have to show for it? A more turbulent Middle East, dead and injured soldiers, and wars drawn out for far too long. With the already massive national debt of $19 trillion very close to reaching $20 trillion we can not afford to squander additional money. We should be focusing on ways to reduce our debt problem instead of wasting it on foreign wars that do not serve our national interest.

Most importantly however is the ceding of power from Congress to the executive branch. Congress holds the power to approve and declare war, and attacking another country with Tomahawk missiles is undoubtedly an act of war. However due to prior precedent Trump felt no obligation to go before Congress and ask for permission. Only a few Democratic and Republican voices brought up the legality of the strikes, but they were drowned out from the praise of fellow lawmakers and foreign leaders.

If there is so little opposition to Trump initiating military action against an ally of Russia then what is stopping him from reacting to other events he finds distasteful? The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists passed in September 2001 gives blanket ability for the president “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens.” While Assad is not responsible for September 11 this act of Congress began the transfer of power between the two branches. It has been abused to the point where the president does not even feel the need to bother with asking congress. If Congress does not act to reign back its constitutional authority we will only find ourselves in more conflicts.

Perhaps the best closing statement would be an old quote from the Donald himself.