February Surprise?

I'm not sure what to make of this story that claims that the United States is going to set up an "aerial" blockade of Syria outside of the United Nations.

I understand that some kind of buffer is needed for the humanitarian aid to be distributed to refugees but two problems strike me.

The first is unilateral action on the part of the U.S. I personally don't have a problem ignoring the UN, it's a bunch of thugs and dictators for the most part, but Obama and the rest of the worlds liberal internationalists constantly scream to all the world the need for the "international community" to act as one in these kinds of endeavors. Has Obama realized that that point of view is childish an unsustainable? I doubt it. Some kind of election year warmongering? Wouldn't be the first time but seems unlikely for Obama.

While trying to understand the mind set of a socialist megalomaniac is a pointless venture, trying to understand how an aerial blockade would even work here isn't. To the best of my knowledge the entire conflict is contained inside Syria. I don't believe the Syrian air force, if it exists, is participating in the slaughter. Knowing that, how does an aerial blockade work? Are our planes going to fly around and target Syrian military forces that seem to be engaging civilians? Are we just protecting aid workers? How does this stop the Syrian government from killing people?

When we had the fighters securing Iraq after the first Gulf War, it made sense. Iraq had some planes and were moving heavy military around that we could target and destroy. If we are going to destroy Syrian military in a city environment while they are engaged with civilians, that seems like a recipe for disaster. We may very well destroy large percentages of active Syrian military but can't help but kill high numbers of civilians as well. On the other hand, if that's not what we are trying to do with the aerial blockade, then what are we doing? Nothing else will save any lives.

This smells faintly like Vietnam-era decision making where Washington theorists are trying to determine the most mathematical way to get this done. If we are willing to bomb cities in an attempt to keep the Syrian government from killing them why not just invade with the goal of regime change? We did it in Afghanistan, Iraq and virtually in Libya so why not here as well. Seems like a hell of a lot better than an indefinite bombing campaign with hazy objectives and limited possibilities for success.

United in Hypocrisy

Few things in this world vex liberals like the case of Citizens United v. FEC.

Sady Doyle tries to take a stab and making the case that all of humanity should be outraged and demand that a constitutional amendment be passed to overturn the ruling that allows for profit corporations to enjoy free speech protections.

The primary argument seems to be that a corporation isn't a person, legally or otherwise. I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that liberals would come to that conclusion. After all, if an unborn human being doesn't count as a person why should a corporation?

Her "logic" falls apart rapidly when she compares corporations to other entities that enjoy the same freedoms that corporations do after the Citizens United case. What constitutes all of these groups? Let's examine.

Corporation - A group of people (investors, employees, directors) that combine their efforts to further the business and make profits.

Union - A group of employees that collectively bargain for their own collective benefit. (AFL-CIO, NEA)

Non-profit group - A group of people combining resources and efforts to achieve a certain goal, unrelated to profits. (NAACP, NOW, Americans for Prosperity)

Gee, all of these things seem awfully similar. What justification could Doyle use to censor on group of people but not the other two? Easy, corporations are comprised of bad people while labor unions and non-profit organizations are the salt of the earth. Except for those rotten conservative Super PAC's of course.

Doyle makes the assertion that corporations have unlimited amounts of money and will absolutely try and buy a politician. Maybe so. I'm sure all the George Soros, Warren Buffet and Hollywood funded Super PAC's are as pure as fresh snow. Certainly labor unions have never tried any underhanded techniques, outside of assaults, lies and voter intimidation. Lets also not forget that almost all of the bailout dollars went to propping up unions across the country so the cash discrepancy that Doyle cites as a reason to discriminate against corporations is a total fabrication.

Ultimately liberals hate the Citizens United decision because it gives conservatives a chance to balance out organizational shortcoming created by the liberal activities of unions and non-profits like the NAACP. The uglier side of the argument is how liberals like Doyle simply dismiss corporations as uniformly bad. Maybe the directors are all multimillionaires who can take a hit or two but what about the legions of employees, stock holders, etc. that earn their living working for the corporations? What about all the other workers of the world who might have retirement accounts or mutual funds that include stock in these corporations? Are they inherently bad too? Why should the group they belong to be any less empowered to protect their interests than their unionized counterparts? They shouldn't be of course.

Doyle's article is a pathetic attempt to cover her own partisan shortcomings. Why is she so certain that conservative corps. can buy politicians? Because all liberal politicians have been bought and paid for buy unions and wealthy liberals, that's why. She is simply projecting the dark activities of her side onto the opposition. In typical liberal fashion, whenever they fail in their attempt to win the ideological discussion (dwindling support for unions proves the failure) they simply utilize the courts to try and legislate socialism.

Are corporations people? Of course. What else could they be? So are unions, Super PAC's, non-profits, religious groups and political parties. Combine this attack on free speech with the recent attack on religion and liberals have just about opposed all of the first amendment. Better peacefully assemble now while its still legal.