Godwin's Law, Revisited.

     The latest McCain campaign argument/rebuttal/smear tactic is the pronouncement that Obama is a socialist. At the risk of sounding naive or idealistic, my response on hearing this for the first time was “So what?”

     OK, back up. That’s a bad place to start. Before plunging headlong into centuries of socio-political debate over the virtues and pitfalls of socialism, a better beginning would be to investigate the evidence and logic behind Joe the Plumber’s statement--and the McCain campaign rallying point--that Obama’s tax plan “sounds more like socialism.”

     Firstly, so few of us have a solid understanding of socialism to begin with, that to incite this claim is to call on Cold War fears, still lingering in the American imagination, or perhaps to conjure images of "terrifying" South American leaders who flex their dictatorial muscles by trying to use their countries' natural resources for the benefit of their own people. Whichever of the many definitions of socialism floats your boat, Obama is not really a socialist. Yeah, he’s more liberal than some, which means he will raise taxes, and he used the phrase “spread the wealth,” which, lest we forget, is a basic principle of a progressive tax system such as the one we currently enjoy. Perhaps some of Obama’s policies like tax and health care are in danger of appearing *gasp* European, but would the likes of Warren Buffet really be advising and associating with Obama if he was likely a socialist?

     The fact is that, regardless of the label put to Obama’s tax plans, McCain’s are hardly different in the effect that they will have on the country. The Tax Policy Center’s analysis of both candidate’s tax and health care plans show that “without substantial cuts in government spending, both plans would sharply increase the national debt” (emphasis added).

     But all of these are practical considerations; let's really focus on the theoretical. If Obama did indeed harbor some socialist tendencies, I refer to my opening statement: “So what?” Ignoring for the time being the nuts and bolts daily operation of socialism, we can all agree that some of its aspects “look good on paper:” namely, the programs enacted in order to level the playing field to try and give the underprivileged a fighting chance and to close the ever-widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. Surely we can agree that if Obama brought a socialist perspective to the U.S. government, some of the resulting programs would be worthwhile if added to our current social structure. Where taxation is concerned, it seems ludicrous for individuals to complain about being taxed for earning over $250,000 a year when some can't afford health care for themselves or their families. We've seen the effects (or rather we haven't) of trickle-down economics, and the current economy cries for something different: now, in this time of recession, the hardest hit will be those who are already struggling for subsistence.

     Conservatives will always argue that liberals will have too big a hand in government. But with this most recent claim, they should really stop to turn the microscope on their own ranks. For all their bluster over the nationalization of our banks undertaken with the recent bailout, and the big show they put on over rejecting the plan, they let the (fascist) Patriot Act slip through Congress with barely a peep—in some cases even with great applause. I’m not sure I’m comfortable in a society where citizens are more protective of their economic interests than of their lives and basic human freedoms. And Obama is just one man. Even if he were the most radical of Marxists, he himself would not be able to fly in the face of the prevailing economic trends and overhaul our fundamental socio-economic structure. That is the beauty of the American democratic republic—checks and balances. At the most, Obama might be able to turn a few of his more strongly held ideals into law, such as universal health care. Please stop me if I'm starting to scare you...

Maybe a pinch of socialism in this melting pot will improve the flavor.

"Carbon charlatanism:" Say that ten times fast...

     The Devil's going to the back of his closet to pull out the winter sweaters, cause Hell is about to freeze over.

     That's right, I'm agreeing with Fox News. Dum da duuuummm!

     Let me preface that statement (Please, give me a chance to defend myself)!! I went to Fox News looking for a really right-wing commentary that might be fun to rip into, and I came away with this. I've always been pretty eco-minded, and recently, finding myself without economic means for a car, I have been pedaling myself around with the fuel of my own self-satisfaction turning the wheels of my bike. So the subject is of some interest to me. I thought, Great. I wonder what Steven Milloy has to say on the subject of the environment; probably some rubbish about raping the planet. Alas, though I found such material as would be expected from a man in the employ of such imperials as Philip Morris and ExxonMobile as well as the author of a blog covering "all the junk that's fit to debunk," I also found that this particular post went beyond the usual global warming debate.

     Milloy informs his Fox audience about an interesting offer from the World Wildlife Fund, that organization of the ubiquitous panda logo, to participate in the journey of a lifetime! The irony is plain to see, that a company touting drastic lifestyle change--including reducing air travel--as a way to reduce human impact on the planet would offer such an extravagant and seemingly wasteful vacation. (The hilarity is amplified when you take a look at the banner across the top of the page which proclaims several lovely eco-platitudes each time the page loads: when I opened the page, there was a graphic of a bicyclist lecturing me to reduce my carbon footprint.) Concerning the "luxury" vacation, Milloy really just states the obvious about the hypocrisy, and he drives his point home with a look at the WWF's own carbon footprint calculator, finding that a journey such as the one advertised would cost over $44,000 in carbon offsets.

     So far, so good. However, as always with Fox and its affiliates, Milloy's post seems to infantilize both the target of his attack, in this case the green industry, as well as (subtly) his audience. He uses a tone that suggests the utter incompetence and therefore the complete incredibility of his target, so common to Fox broadcasters. That is what is so frustrating about the Fox News network in general: in some (very few) cases such as this one, I do agree with them, at least on certain points, but the obstinacy of their tone blinds me to any logic they might be using. And though I heartily agree with him on the point of the jet tour, I'm not so sure of his lambasting of the carbon-offset industry. I understand how such a product seems like snake oil, but when you take a look at the companies that offer these offsets, such as the now-famous NativeEnergy who offset the carbon footprint of the filming of "An Inconvenient Truth," what they really are is creative charities. The "guilt" money sent in by wealthy overconsumers goes toward funding green projects and--for NativeEnergy--offering hope to the decimated tribes of Native Americans. Of course, every industry has its bad apples, but it's naive to automatically discount the entire industry because some people are greedy.

     By turning the WWF's own preaching against them, this article of Milloy's does what is intended: it gives the Fox-devoted sheeple another talking point to shout about. Although I agree with the main point of the article, to expose the hypocrisy of a sometimes-dubious charity, I cannot be led to the same conclusion as Milloy, that all things green are a global scam created by kill-joy liberals to break up the earth-raping, SUV-driving, animal-hunting, tree-felling, reckless-living party. The moral of this story for me is look closely at a charity before forking over your hard-earned money, a lesson well learned particularly when giving to charities, but equally important in all aspects of life. And though I'm doubtful that conservatives and liberals will ever agree on the wider global-warming issue, I'm sure they can all agree that there will always be those who prey on the emotions of average, concerned citizens in order to exploit their response to charity. Hopefully, policy makers will understand that such behavior does not discredit an entire movement and regulate accordingly.