20 Burst results for "Alexis De Tocqueville"
77WABC Radio
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Censoring and monitoring among others me me and other conservatives and other you conservative organizations know a few years ago this would have been a shocking scandal today it's acceptable because the media thrown in a hundred percent the media are we are into this American Marxism and they are Democrats so if you have a copy of American Marxism I want to strongly encourage you to get a copy the Democrat Party hates America and put them side by side on your shelf Alexis de Tocqueville when he wrote Democracy in America he actually wrote two books two volumes so when we talk about Democracy in America book the it's actually two volumes and so when I wrote America Marxism and how the Democrat Party hates America these are really two volumes two volumes and if you read American Marxism and you read the Democrat Party hates America you will have knowledge for there's no question about it and you will be the Thomas Paine's and you will be able to spread the word at Thanksgiving at Christmas at Hanukkah anytime you where ideas do matter you see it in the streets ideas evil ideas spreading throughout the country we need good ideas American ideas spreading throughout the country that's our role
Mark Levin
'American Marxism' & 'The Democrat Party Hates America' Go Together
"Censoring and monitoring among others me me and other conservatives and other you conservative organizations know a few years ago this would have been a shocking scandal today it's acceptable because the media thrown in a hundred percent the media are we are into this American Marxism and they are Democrats so if you have a copy of American Marxism I want to strongly encourage you to get a copy the Democrat Party hates America and put them side by side on your shelf Alexis de Tocqueville when he wrote Democracy in America he actually wrote two books two volumes so when we talk about Democracy in America book the it's actually two volumes and so when I wrote America Marxism and how the Democrat Party hates America these are really two volumes two volumes and if you read American Marxism and you read the Democrat Party hates America you will have knowledge for there's no question about it and you will be the Thomas Paine's and you will be able to spread the word at Thanksgiving at Christmas at Hanukkah anytime you where ideas do matter you see it in the streets ideas evil ideas spreading throughout the country we need good ideas American ideas spreading throughout the country that's our role
77WABC Radio
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Because Alexis de Tocqueville warned about this. Basically the endless complexities. You have court challenges, you have activist courts, you have bureaucracies making law, you have Congress that is either unattentive or attentive contrary that is to constitutional limitations, you have a media that basically is a mouthpiece for the state when the democrats control it and even the democrats when they are out of office. For example. That is why I was thinking there has got to be something bigger than we can do. to There has be something else. There has to be another way. Thank you. And there is. See, ladies and gentlemen, we have some people out there who believe they can invent new ideas, invent new principles that over the last thousands of years that the great thinkers hadn't thought of. And most of these people are in their late 20s, early 30s, mid 30s and many of them haven't done a damn thing. Except write about their ideas. We here behind this microphone, we've been involved in grassroots movements, whether it's the Tea Party. Movement. Convention of states. for We've real looked and concrete ways to confront the foundational problems in our politics and our culture. We don't just write columns and issue white papers. We don't just till we're blue in the face. Even if they had the best deal, you can imagine even if we had the deal that they voted on adopted by a Democrat president, a Democrat Senate and a tiny majority in the House, even if all their wet dreams came true. And I they wish did, because we have to fight at every level and in every way. The trajectory of the Republic is very dire. You see. Folks, your children and grandchildren now graduate from college fully indoctrinated with critical race theory and transgender ideology. This country cannot afford to lose another generation to the left. But thankfully, you can inspire
Dennis Prager Podcasts
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Dennis Prager Podcasts
"And now a special motorcycle weather report from progressive. Well, today you can expect lots of cloud cover with 0% chance of raining on your parade because you'll be riding your motorcycle room that rumbling low pressure system in eth you should give way to a relaxing commute and a sudden urge to take the scenic route everywhere you go because dag nabbit you're having fun out there. At your forecast back to you. This has been a special motorcycle weather report from progressive, where every day is a beautiful day to ride with coverage from America's number one motorcycle insurer, get a quote today and see what you could save. Progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Dennis prager here, thanks for listening to the daily Dennis prager podcast to hear the entire three hours of my radio show commercial free every single day become a member of prager topia. You'll also get access to 15 years worth of archives, as well as The Daily Show prep. Subscribe at prager topia dot com. Hey, everybody. Hello, hey, hope you had a good weekend. I'm Dennis prager. More mass shooting. Actually, mass shooting and a mass murder with a car. So one wonders what what is breathing this murder? These mass murders that are taking place with frequency in the United States of America. In the year 2023, for the left and its simple simple world, simplistic world, simple as good. It's guns. So do we even talk about the guy who mowed down people with his car? Doesn't seem to be much in the news. It's hard to keep straight. Where was the guy who mowed down people with a car? Where was that? They both in Texas. And the guy who mowed down people with his car had a serious record of from not mistaken correct a mass. Massive amount of prior arrests. I'll get to that fact, but I'd like to offer my thoughts here. Almost always there's one description. Whatever their race whatever their creed, whatever their non creed, the almost all of them are loners. And I was thinking about that. That was also in Texas. So one was outside of Dallas. That was the shooting. And this was Brownsville, Texas, with the car. And how many were killed in the car? 8. 8, 8 people, wow. And others terribly injured. So. The more promising avenue to look for answers to why so much of this and one Clint and I that there is a lot of this. Is the loner issue in my opinion. In America, historically, from the tocqueville in the 19th century, the brilliant, I mean, he was truly brilliant. Alexis de tocqueville, who was a French young man, who observed the United States of America. And wrote a prescient book democracy in America. And he spoke of the strength of America in having non governmental institutions. That's not the term he used. I got to get through the term, but that's what he meant. Non governmental institutions. Americans joined so many groups. Those groups were religious, those groups were non religious, those groups were based on interests, those groups were based on hobbies on passions, so that was..
ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on ToddCast Podcast with Todd Starnes
"Well, I talked about the evangelical vote back in November and I made this prediction right after he announced, I said there may be some evangelicals who want to kick the tires and check out other candidates and some leaders who will want to do that. But eventually they will coalesce around Donald Trump just like they did in 2016. What I missed on that prediction, Jeff is eventually came a lot sooner than I thought it was going to. You look at the latest polls and others and so forth. And I mean, he's crushing the competition right now. For those who have hesitancy about mister Trump and another candidacy and people who've been with us since the beginning of the program today, we've heard callers who have some qualms. We also have had callers who are even more steadfast in their support, but for those who have concerns, either about demeanor or about the fact that it's time to hand off to someone else, if someone were to ask you directly about that, what's your response to these folks who are, if you will, shopping a bit or have hesitancy. Look, I don't agree with everything president Trump says or does just like he doesn't agree with everything. I say unbelievable. But on the basic he is right on target. And I will just say this without hesitation, he has done more for Christians than any president in history. I said at the rally, he is demonstrably the monster blade the most pro life pro religious liberty, pro Israel, president, we've ever had. And just the point is, other candidates may say they're going to do certain things, but we haven't seen them do these things. We know Trump's record. He has four years in office as a record of what he has accomplished. And I know so many evangelical leaders in 2016. They said, Robert, we can't believe you're supporting him. He's just saying he will do these things. And I said, no, he is going to do that. And he did. And a lot of these leaders have said, you know, we were wrong in 20 16 and we should have supported them. So I would say to those who have qualms, you know, you don't have to agree with everything. Everybody says, you don't have to agree with their demeanor. But I think this is a life and death battle for the soul of our country right now and when Trump says America is going to hell. This country is going to hell. I think that resonates with people. Religious and non religious people alike. They look at the corruption. They look at geopolitical tensions. They look at people flooding the borders and they say, this has got to stop. And for those of us who are Christians, I mean, there is no way to support the pro abortion. The pro transgender agenda of the Biden administration that they are cramming down the throats of the American people. We've got to say enough is enough. Pastor Robert Jeffers is senior pastor at first baptist Dallas, he joins us on the Todd star and show Jeff Stein filling in for Todd. With regard to how we got so far from what we used to be as a people. That's a question I ask people an awful lot. How did we get this way? How did it get this bad? And I think you're uniquely positioned to talk about the eradication in some corners of society of faith and it's no accident that things have turned southward in a hurry when we've abandoned faith and publicly professing faith, am I overstating it? No, inject you may have already discussed this. I don't know, but there's a new Wall Street Journal poll out today. That shows the number of Americans who believe that religion is important has decreased from 70 percent in 1998 to just 39% today. I mean, that has a lot of impact on this horrific shooting we've seen. I mean, when you devalue the importance of teaching people and believing there is a God to whom we're all accountable. You're going to have acts of horrific violence like this. And other consequences as well. And I quoted that the rally, Alexis de tocqueville, the French diplomat, who said America is great because America is good if America ceases to be good. She will cease to be great. But America's goodness, Jeff is tied to the fact that this country was founded as a Christian nation. And I'll say it again. It was founded as a Christian nation. And to the extent we follow God in his work, we're going to be blessed by God to the extent we depart and go our own.
77WABC Radio
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"People ask me Mark Mark who do you support for president I may ask this endlessly And we don't take any calls on this because it would be very monotonous I'm going to support the candidate who can save our country I'm going to support the candidate who can prevent our national suicide from continuing And to support the candidate who understands the enemy foreign and domestic And as the guts to confront them I'm going to support the candidate who takes the battle To these VAERS American Marxist forces who are destroying the nation from within And I'm going to use whatever power I have on every platform I have The trying to stave off what would be a disaster some bleak future for this country My eyes are wide open I said the other day I think it was on Fox and Friends Sunday when I was asked In response to a question that I can't remember right now that we are in a soft tyranny and we are That is a phrase that was written by Alexis de tocqueville In democracy in America
Mark Levin
Who Does Mark Levin Support for President?
"People ask me Mark Mark who do you support for president I may ask this endlessly And we don't take any calls on this because it would be very monotonous I'm going to support the candidate who can save our country I'm going to support the candidate who can prevent our national suicide from continuing And to support the candidate who understands the enemy foreign and domestic And as the guts to confront them I'm going to support the candidate who takes the battle To these VAERS American Marxist forces who are destroying the nation from within And I'm going to use whatever power I have on every platform I have The trying to stave off what would be a disaster some bleak future for this country My eyes are wide open I said the other day I think it was on Fox and Friends Sunday when I was asked In response to a question that I can't remember right now that we are in a soft tyranny and we are That is a phrase that was written by Alexis de tocqueville In democracy in America
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June grosso from Bloomberg radio. In a clash that pits the rights of same sex couples against free speech, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear ready to side with a website designer who says she has a free speech right to refuse to create websites for same sex weddings because of her Christian faith. Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said that a decision allowing the designer to turn away same sex couples would be a first. This would be the first time in the court's history. Correct. That it would say that a business opened to the public, a commercial business open to the public serving the public that it could refuse to serve a customer. Based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. But several of the conservative justice is focused on the designers stated intention to create customized wedding sites and the difference between businesses engaged in expression and one simply selling products. Here's just as Brett Kavanaugh. How do you characterize website designers? Are they more like the restaurants and the jewelers and the tailors or are they more like the publishing houses and the other free speech analogs? My guest is constitutional law expert Michael dorff, a professor at Cornell law school. Under Colorado law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. How is freedom of speech involved? So the petitioner argues that her web design business is inherently expressive because when clients come to her and say they want her to design a wedding website, she puts various creative efforts into it to fashion a, bespoke website and in so doing, she is creating speech, thus speaking, and if the government tells her she must create same sex wedding websites, it is forcing her to espouse a message, the tacit approval of same sex marriage that is inconsistent with her beliefs. Tell us how the justices responded to this claim. Some of them were skeptical of whether they're really was any expression at all here. I think justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most skeptical. She wanted to know how this is speech by Laurie Smith, the owner of the web design company, given that it's essentially for the couple, right? Part of the point is that it's not speech endorsing same sex marriage at all. It's simply saying things like, here's the date of the wedding. Here's the venue, your directions, here's a registry. Here's how we met, et cetera. So there's skepticism that it's web designers speech at all. And then there's a question of whether it's speech that endorses this particular message. So that's on one end. At the other end of the spectrum, you had justice Alito and some of the other justices who seem to just accept that, of course, this is expressive and they gave some hypothetical examples where you pretty clearly would have expression, for example, if you had to put on the website, I had a web designer believe that God blesses this marriage or even just God blesses this marriage. I think some of the justices had the view that there certainly is expression here and it could be understood as expression, endorsing same sex marriage and then the question is, does the state get to override that? Because they have a public accommodations law. There were a lot of questions and hypotheticals about discrimination due to race or disability. For example, what happens if an architect or a photographer whose work is expressive refuses to work for black customers? I mean, right. None of those were answered sufficiently. I think that's right. So I think it's very tempting to want to go where David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU went in a brief that the ACLU filed and in a New York Times op-ed that he published under his own name, which is to say that none of these claims really should get off the ground. Of course, you have a right to free speech, but when you go out into the marketplace and offer your services, you're going to have to take some lumps because otherwise everybody in virtually any trade or craft is going to say that there's some expressive element, right? Think about a bartender. Sure, bartender just provides drinks, but we know that part of being a bartender is talking to the patrons at the bar and you might not want to engage in certain conversations with certain people because you'll have to express views that are polite and therefore could be taken as endorsing their lifestyle or whatever it is. So if the court goes down this road and wants to say, well, there's some occupations, some services, some goods that are more inherently expressive than others. It's going to have a lot of cases for a long time trying to draw those lines. Why do you think that justice is took this case over the rights of same sex couples at a time when there is so much concern that the court will reverse the right to same sex marriage just as it reversed the right to abortion. I mean, that's the reason for the same sex marriage bill. I think they took it for at least two sorts of reasons. One is that the timing is somewhat accidental. This was an issue that they did want to address in 2017. They punted then and it sort of been around since then. And that was from before the court's decision overruling roe V wade and thus raising the possibility of the overruling of other cases, including obergefell against Hodges, the case recognizing the right to same sex marriage. The second reason, though, I think, is that especially the conservative justices on this court want to limit the scope of LGBTQ+ equality. At least insofar as they see it infringing on conservative religious lifestyles. There is a line in justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the obergefell case in which he says that many people oppose same sex marriage based on honorable and decent religious or philosophical principles. Now, when justice Kennedy wrote that just Alito in dissent mocked it is saying, well, sure, you're saying that they're entitled to have these principles. They're just not entitled to act on them, but since then, he and some of the other conservative justices have sort of taken that up as a banner to say, well, if it's decent and honorable then people should be able to opt out that wanting to oppose same sex marriage is not the same thing. It's not morally equivalent to race discrimination. And so they want to sort of carve a hole in anti discrimination law. How do the conservatives make a carve out that doesn't characterize this as inviting business to be examined from civil rights laws? They can't control how their decisions are perceived. But I think this court has shown that they're not all that attuned to or concerned about how the public perceives them. I mean, chief justice Roberts seemed more concerned about that early and his career and maybe still is, but he's lost control of this court. What do you see as the result here? I think it's likely that three two three creative and miss Smith the owner of the web design company will win. I think that chief justice Roberts will either write the opinion himself or try to assign it to one of his colleagues likely justice Barrett or justice Kavanaugh, who he thinks will write a somewhat narrow opinion that doesn't open the door to the complete gutting of anti discrimination law, at least not initially, but exactly what distinctions they draw is hard to predict at this point. You know, depending on how they write it, this becomes a question that's going to be litigated over and over, isn't it? It's opening the door. Yes. Sure. For the most part, claims like this have lost in the lower courts, but if the web designer wins in the Supreme Court, even in a relatively narrow way, there will then be a large number of cases of this sort, posing all sorts of difficult questions, right? One will be about our forests like web designers, if they're not, what about bakers, what about the difference between a bespoke website and one off the rack? So there are very many questions that will be left open and as Alexis de tocqueville pointed out in the early 19th century when he visited America in America, the open questions become legal questions and they're all going to be litigated. That's certainly seems to be true. Thanks so much, Mike. That's professor Michael dorff, of Cornell law school. Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show, the Trump organization is convicted of criminal tax fraud. We'll look at the trial and the likely sentence. I'm Jung grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Can catch us live, your favorite Bloomberg radio shows, including Bloomberg surveillance, Wall Street week and Bloomberg sound on are also available as podcasts. Listen today on apple's butterfly and anywhere else you get your podcasts. President Biden was signing a $1.7 trillion
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June brasso from Bloomberg radio. In a clash that pits the rights of same sex couples against free speech, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear ready to side with a website designer who says she has a free speech right to refuse to create websites for same sex weddings because of her Christian faith. Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said that a decision allowing the designer to turn away same sex couples would be a first. This would be the first time in the court's history. Correct. That it would say that a business open to the public, a commercial business open to the public serving the public that it could refuse to serve a customer. Based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. But several of the conservative justices focused on the designers stated intention to create customized wedding sites and the difference between businesses engaged in expression and one simply selling products. Here's justice Brett Kavanaugh. How do you characterize website designers? Are they more like the restaurants and the jewelers and the tailors or are they more like the publishing houses and the other free speech analogs? My guest is constitutional law expert Michael dorff, a professor at Cornell law school. Under Colorado law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. How is freedom of speech involved? So the petitioner argues that her web design business is inherently expressive because when clients come to her and say they want her to design a wedding website, she puts various creative efforts into it to fashion a, bespoke website and in so doing, she is creating speech, thus speaking, and if the government tells her she must create same sex wedding websites, it is forcing her to espouse a message, the tacit approval of same sex marriage that is inconsistent with her beliefs. Tell us how the justices responded to this claim. Some of them were skeptical of whether they're really was any expression at all here. I think justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most skeptical. She wanted to know how this is speech by Laurie Smith, the owner of the web design company, given that it's essentially for the couple, right? Part of the point is that it's not speech endorsing same sex marriage at all. It's simply saying things like, here's the date of the wedding. Here's the venue, your directions, here's a registry. Here's how we met, et cetera. So there's skepticism that it's the web designers speech at all. And then there's a question of whether it's speech that endorses this particular message. So that's on one end. At the other end of the spectrum, you had justice Alito and some of the other justices who seem to just accept that, of course, this is expressive and they gave some hypothetical examples where you pretty clearly would have expression, for example, if you had to put on the website, I had a web designer believe that God blesses this marriage or even just God blesses this marriage. I think some of the justices had the view that there certainly is expression here and it could be understood as expression, endorsing same sex marriage and then the question is, does the state get override that? Because they have a public accommodations law. There were a lot of questions and hypotheticals about discrimination due to race or disability. For example, what happens if an architect or a photographer whose work is expressive refuses to work for black customers? I mean right. None of those were answered sufficiently. I think that's right. So I think it's very tempting to want to go where David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU went in a brief that the ACLU filed and in a New York Times op-ed that he published under his own name, which is to say that none of these claims really should get off the ground. Of course, you have a right to free speech, but when you go out into the marketplace and offer your services, you're going to have to take some lumps because otherwise everybody in virtually any trade or craft is going to say that there's some expressive element, right? Think about a bartender. Sure, bartender just provides drinks, but we know that part of being a bartender is talking to the patrons at the bar and you might not want to engage in certain conversations with certain people because you'll have to express views that are polite and therefore could be taken as endorsing their lifestyle or whatever it is. So if the court goes down this road and wants to say, well, there's some occupations, some services, some goods that are more inherently expressive than others. It's going to have a lot of cases for a long time trying to draw those lines. Why do you think that justice's took this case over the rights of same sex couples at a time when there is so much concern that the court will reverse the right to same sex marriage just as it reversed the right to abortion? I mean, that's the reason for the same sex marriage bill. I think they took it for at least two sorts of reasons. One is that the timing is somewhat accidental. This was an issue that they did want to address in 2017. They punted then and it sort of been around since then. And that was from before the court's decision overruling roe V wade and thus raising the possibility of the overruling of other cases, including obergefell against Hodges, the case recognizing the right to same sex marriage. The second reason, though, I think, is that especially the conservative justices on this court, want to limit the scope of LGBTQ+ equality. At least insofar as they see it infringing on conservative religious lifestyles. There is a line in justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the obergefell case in which he says that many people oppose same sex marriage based on honorable and decent religious or philosophical principles. Now, when justice Kennedy wrote that, just Toledo in dissent, mocked it, is saying, well, sure, you're saying that they're entitled to have these principles. They're just not entitled to act on them, but since then, he and some of the other conservative justices have sort of taken that up as a banner to say, well, if it's decent and honorable then people should be able to opt out that wanting to oppose same sex marriage is not the same thing. It's not morally equivalent to race discrimination. And so they want to sort of carve a hole in anti discrimination law. How do the conservatives make a carve out that doesn't characterize this as inviting business to be examined from civil rights laws? They can't control how their decisions are perceived. But I think this court has shown that they're not all that attuned to or concerned about how the public perceives them. I mean, chief justice Roberts seemed more concerned about that early and his career and maybe still is, but he's lost control of this court. What do you see as the result here? I think it's likely that three two three creative and miss Smith, the owner of the web design company, will win. I think that chief justice Roberts will either write the opinion himself or try to assign it to one of his colleagues likely justice Barrett or justice Kavanaugh, who he thinks will write a somewhat narrow opinion that doesn't open the door to the complete gutting of anti discrimination law, at least not initially, but exactly what distinctions they draw is hard to predict at this point. You know, depending on how they write it, this becomes a question that's going to be litigated over and over, isn't it? It's opening the door. Sure. For the most part, claims like this have lost in the lower courts, but if the web designer wins in the Supreme Court, even in a relatively narrow way, there will then be a large number of cases of this sort, posing all sorts of difficult questions, right? One will be about our forests like web designers if they're not, what about bakers, what about the difference between a bespoke website and one off the rack? So there are very many questions that will be left open and as Alexis de tocqueville pointed out in the early 19th century when he visited America in America, the open questions become legal questions and they're all going to be litigated. That's certainly seems to be true. Thanks so much, Mike. That's professor Michael dorff, of Cornell law school. Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show, the Trump organization is convicted of criminal tax fraud. We'll look at the trial and the likely sentence. I'm Jim Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Global market news changes in an instant. So don't miss a minute. Listen to Bloomberg radio anytime anywhere around the world on the iHeartRadio app. Tune in, the Bloomberg business app and Bloomberg dot com. Britney griner is spending her first full day back in the U.S.
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"This is Bloomberg law with June gross from Bloomberg radio. In a clash that pits the rights of same sex couples against free speech, the conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear ready to side with a website designer who says she has a free speech right to refuse to create websites for same sex weddings because of her Christian faith. Liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said that a decision allowing the designer to turn away same sex couples would be a first. This would be the first time in the court's history. Correct. That it would say that a business opened to the public, a commercial business open to the public serving the public that it could refuse to serve a customer. Based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. But several of the conservative justices focused on the designers stated intention to create customized wedding sites and the difference between businesses engaged in expression and one simply selling products. Here's just Brett Kavanaugh. How do you characterize website designers? Are they more like the restaurants and the jewelers and the tailors or are they more like the publishing houses and the other free speech analogs? My guest is constitutional law expert Michael dorff, a professor at Cornell law school. Under Colorado law, a business may not refuse to serve individuals because of their sexual orientation. How is freedom of speech involved? So the petitioner argues that her web design business is inherently expressive because when clients come to her and say they want her to design a wedding website, she puts various creative efforts into it to fashion a, bespoke website and in so doing, she is creating speech, thus speaking, and if the government tells her she must create same sex wedding websites, it is forcing her to espouse a message, the tacit approval of same sex marriage that is inconsistent with her beliefs. Tell us how the justices responded to this claim. Some of them were skeptical of whether they're really was any expression at all here. I think justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most skeptical. She wanted to know how this is speech by Laurie Smith, the owner of the web design company, given that it's essentially for the couple, right? Part of the point is that it's not speech endorsing same sex marriage at all. It's simply saying things like, here's the date of the wedding. Here's the venue, your directions. Here's a registry. Here's how we met, et cetera. So there's skepticism that it's the web designers speech at all. And then there's a question of whether it's speech that endorses this particular message. So that's on one end. At the other end of the spectrum you had justice Alito and some of the other justices who seem to just accept that, of course, this is expressive and they gave some hypothetical examples where you pretty clearly would have expression, for example, if you had to put on the website, either the web designer believed that God blesses this marriage or even just God blesses this marriage. I think some of the justices had the view that there certainly is expression here and it could be understood as expression, endorsing same sex marriage and then the question is, does the state get to override that? Because they have a public accommodations law. There were a lot of questions and hypotheticals about discrimination due to race or disability. For example, what happens if an architect or a photographer whose work is expressive, refuses to work for black customers. I mean, right. None of those were answered sufficiently. I think that's right. So I think it's very tempting to want to go where David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU, went in a brief that the ACLU filed at a New York Times op-ed that he published under his own name, which is to say that none of these claims really should get off the ground. Of course, you have a right to free speech, but when you go out into the marketplace and offer your services, you're going to have to take some lumps because otherwise everybody in virtually any trade or craft is going to say that there's some expressive element, right? Think about a bartender. Sure, bartender just provides drinks, but we know that part of being a bartender is talking to the patrons at the bar and you might not want to engage in certain conversations with certain people because you'll have to express views that are polite and therefore could be taken as endorsing their lifestyle or whatever it is. So if the court goes down this road and wants to say, well, there's some occupations, some services, some goods that are more inherently expressive than others. It's going to have a lot of cases for a long time trying to draw those lines. Why do you think that justice is took this case over the rights of same sex couples at a time when there's so much concern that the court will reverse the right to same sex marriage just as it reversed the right to abortion? I mean, that's the reason for the same sex marriage bill. I think they took it for at least two sorts of reasons. One is that the timing is somewhat accidental. This was an issue that they did want to address in 2017. They punted then and it sort of been around since then. And that was from before the court's decision overruling roe V wade and thus raising the possibility of the overruling of other cases, including obergefell against Hodges, the case recognizing the right to same sex marriage. The second reason, though, I think, is that especially the conservative justices on this court, want to limit the scope of LGBTQ+ equality. At least insofar as they see it infringing on conservative religious lifestyles. There is a line in justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the obergefell case in which he says that many people oppose same sex marriage based on honorable and decent religious or philosophical principles. Now, when justice Kennedy wrote that, just Alito in dissent, mocked it, is saying, well, sure, you're saying that they're entitled to have these principles. They're just not entitled to act on them, but since then, he and some of the other conservative justices have sort of taken that up as a banner to say, well, if it's decent and honorable, then people should be able to opt out that wanting to oppose same sex marriage is not the same thing. It's not morally equivalent to race discrimination. And so they want to sort of carve a hole in anti discrimination law. How do the conservatives make a carve out that doesn't characterize this as inviting business to be exempt from civil rights laws? They can't control how their decisions are perceived. But I think this court has shown that they're not all that attuned to or concerned about how the public perceives them. I mean, chief justice Roberts seemed more concerned about that early and his career and maybe still is, but he's lost control of this court. What do you see as the result here? I think it's likely that three two three creative and miss Smith, the owner of the web design company, will win. I think that chief justice Roberts will either write the opinion himself or try to assign it to one of his colleagues likely justice Barrett or justice Kavanaugh, who he thinks will write a somewhat narrow opinion that doesn't open the door to the complete gutting of anti discrimination law, at least not initially, but exactly what distinctions they draw is hard to predict at this point. You know, depending on how they write it, this becomes a question that's going to be litigated over and over, isn't it? It's opening the door. Sure. For the most part, claims like this have lost in the lower courts, but if the web designer wins in the Supreme Court, even in a relatively narrow way, there will then be a large number of cases of this sort, posing all sorts of difficult questions, right? One will be about our florists like web designers. If they're not, what about bakers, what about the difference between a bespoke website and one off the rack, right? So there are very many questions that will be left open and as Alexis de tocqueville pointed out in the early 19th century when he visited America in America the open questions become legal questions and they're all going to be litigated. That's certainly seems to be true. Thanks so much, Mike. That's professor Michael dwarf, of Cornell law school. Coming up next on the Bloomberg law show, the Trump organization is convicted of criminal tax fraud. We'll look at the trial and the likely sentence. I'm Jim Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Global
Bloomberg Radio New York
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Cornell law school professor Michael dwarf about Supreme Court oral arguments over a Colorado website designer who says she has the constitutional right not to design wedding websites for same sex couples. Why did the court take this case? At a time when there's so much criticism of the court and there is fear from LGBTQ and other advocates that they're on their way to trying to get rid of same sex marriage. I think they took it for at least two sorts of reasons. One is that the timing is somewhat accidental. This was an issue that they did want to address in 2017. They punted then and it sort of been around since then. And that was from before the court's decision overruling roe V wade and thus raising the possibility of the overruling of other cases, including obergefell against Hodges, the case recognizing the right to same sex marriage. The second reason, though, I think, is that especially the conservative justices on this court want to limit the scope of LGBTQ+ equality. At least insofar as they see it infringing on conservative religious lifestyles. There is a line in justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the obergefell case in which he says that many people oppose same sex marriage based on honorable and decent religious or philosophical principles. Now, when justice Kennedy wrote that just Alito in dissent, mocked it, is saying, well, sure, you're saying that they're entitled to have these principles. They're just not entitled to act on them, but since then, he and some of the other conservative justices have sort of taken that up as a banner to say, well, if it's decent and honorable then people should be able to opt out that wanting to oppose same sex marriage is not the same thing. It's not morally equivalent to race discrimination. And so they want to sort of carve a hole in anti discrimination law. Indeed, you might even look at just as Gorsuch, who, after all, wrote the court's opinion in the 2020 case finding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity are forbidden by the federal employment anti discrimination law that having sort of established his bonus fee days as sort of not a homophobe or a transphobic. In those cases, he now wants to say, but don't worry, I'm going to give something to the other side by giving this carve out or religiously motivated expression or opposition. I've taken you agree that it was a split between the conservatives and the liberals on the court. Yeah, for the most part, the only justice who I thought was really ambivalent that is to say, who thought that there is a legitimate speech issue here, but you don't want to recognize it very broadly was justice Kagan. She seemed to think that there are hard cases on each side of the line. Some of justice Barrett's questions suggested that she would not go quite as far as some of her more conservative colleagues. But for the most part, the court was divided on ideological or political lines. Justice Sotomayor said, ruling for the web designer here would be the first time in Supreme Court history to allow a business open to the general public to refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. So how do the conservatives make a carve out that doesn't characterize this as inviting business to be exempt from civil rights laws? Well, so I mean, she's right, but only because we define that narrowly after all in the hobby lobby case and I believe it was 2013. Of course gave a carve out from statute and regulations requiring the provision of health insurance that covers contraception to religiously motivated business owners. Now, that was in the context of employment rather than public accommodations, but it's also a carve out from anti discrimination law, also based in sort of conservative religious principles. Part of the reason the court would be doing this for the first time, I think, is because it's the first time they're addressing it in this specific context, although I do think justice Sotomayor is right, harkening back to those cases from the 1960s and 70s in which they dismiss the proposed exceptions with respect to race. But I think the answer to the question of how does the court prevent people from perceiving this as them taking sides against anti discrimination law is that they can't. They can't control how their decisions are perceived. I actually would share that perception. I'm sympathetic to the position articulated by justice Sotomayor, but I think this court has shown that they're not all that attuned to or concerned about how the public perceives them. I mean, chief justice Roberts seemed more concerned about that early and his career and maybe still is, but he's lost control of this court. I know you can't get everything from these oral arguments, but what do you see as the result here? I think it's likely that three two three creative and miss Smith is the owner of the web design company will win. I think that chief justice Roberts will either write the opinion himself or try to assign it to one of his colleagues likely justice Barrett or justice Kavanaugh who he thinks will write a somewhat narrow opinion that doesn't open the door to the complete gutting of anti discrimination law, at least not initially, but exactly what distinctions they draw is hard to predict at this point. You know, depending on how they write it, this becomes a question that's going to be litigated over and over, isn't it? It's opening the door. Sure. For the most part, claims like this have lost in the lower courts, but if the web designer wins in the Supreme Court, even in a relatively narrow way, there will then be a large number of cases of this sort, posing all sorts of difficult questions, right? One will be about our florists like web designers if they're not, what about bakers, what about the difference between a bespoke website and one off the rack, right? So there are very many questions that will be left open and as Alexis de tocqueville pointed out in the early 19th century when he visited America in America, the open questions become legal questions and they're all going to be litigated. So then if this decision comes out as you expect it to. What does this mean for LGBTQ rights? It's open season on LGBTQ rights. No, I don't think so. I think it's still going to be true that the vast majority of, let's say, same sex couples looking for wedding services will find them, especially because people tend to clump geographically in places that
TuneInPOC
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on TuneInPOC
"Rioters spread eagled on the floor with the capitol police with guns standing over them. And they got us to safety. As my colleagues have said, they saved our lives. At risk of their own. But we mark this day by also recognizing the resilience of our democracy. On that day, our institutions withstood the threat. We overcame the chaos. And let it be a reminder of just how remarkable America is. Together we stood up for the union. And we protected the basic functions of our democracy. We continued the quest to build a more perfect union. And the principles of our constitution not only survived this crisis, but proved once again that our democratic system works. And remains a Beacon of hope for the world. And that is why it is so important that we continue to have a full investigation of those events one year ago, so that they never happen again. We seek the truth, recognize what happened so that we can move forward. It is why we must safeguard our elections by passing voter rights legislation. That will protect that right to vote. The right to vote is the ultimate defense against insurrection. It is why we must continue the work of the January 6th committee led by congressman Benny Thompson and congresswoman Liz Cheney. And that is why those of us who have the capacity and whatever's committees we serve on that where we passed into law almost a $1 billion to fund the capitol police and to secure the U.S. capitol. The Citadel of democracy, one year ago, our democracy was tested, but we prevailed. Our institutions and the rule of law triumphed on January 6th and despite rioters and protests, we performed our constitutional duty. Yes, we were delayed, but our efforts were undeterred. We pray for the officers and their families who made the ultimate sacrifice. We honor their sacrifices by taking a hard look at just what happened on that dark day. And what we need to do to ensure such an alarming breach in our capital security never happens again. We must never forget January 6th. We must never lose sight of what happened. And we must never stop fighting for our democracy in the immortal words of Alexis de tocqueville, and I quote, the greatness of America lies, not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults, that that be the enduring lesson of January 6th. Thank you, my colleagues, and God bless this
Serve to Lead | James Strock
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Serve to Lead | James Strock
"War to try to accomplish that solidarity that national purpose in unity without being pressed from external forces of war. How do you think about that. Yeah so i understand what james was trying to do and more. Generally i think that if you are looking for precedence for our current political and social condition the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries look a lot more like like the present than the nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties. Do i wish those periods received more attention in educational and journalistic or political discussion. But that's but that's an aside. Unfortunately i think there is no moral equivalent of war and he in in many ways. The whole political history of the twentieth century has been a search for moral equivalence to war. You know we think of the war on poverty or the war on drugs and finally the war on terror. And i think that each of those substitute wars has left us. Im- important ways worse off than we were before there's a lot of discussion about the decline of religion and the former religion and the identities that went along with that at the same time as our sense of national identity may also be declining and people seem to be expressing individual identities to just an unimaginable extent because of technology as well as other things are you aware of any other nation. Now or in history with a comparable level of individually expressed identities. That's a great question. And i must say that. No no no other nation comes comes to mind and a strong element of individualism is not definitive of the american character. Or american social traditions. But it is. It is an important important element of them and part of the reason is simply that it's always been this way. When alexis de tocqueville the the great french writer visited the still young united states in the eighteen twenties. He was astonished not only by the religious diversity that he observed then but also by its individualistic character..
The Babylon Bee
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on The Babylon Bee
"Trolled and also audience. You should buy tom's books. Yeah also by towns book which apparently are not as good as michael's books if you've had a lobotomy. You might think that all right. Well i think okay so now. Actually interviewing that was michael got twenty minutes or interview. We did a huge solid on that one. So i'm i'm a amid. Would that count. Because i'm so. I'm not like super. I became more libertarian-leaning recently but i'm not like a guy who's read books like dan back here. In fact i was saying during our interview. We should each kind of like on. Who wants to be a millionaire. You get one lifeline to dan. Because dan reads a bunch of like amid it would be somebody who in the middle of a discussion about mitigation of the virus. Comes along and says well. You know what's really important. Social distancing social distancing consists of trying to stay like six feet. Apart as a way of. Now we've been through this for fifteen blankety blank months. How could you possibly think. I'm unfamiliar with the term social distancing or think that an argument that i've obviously heard a million times answers me or you know what's really important masks. Okay maybe you believe that but if that's not an original everyone's already been talking about that for fifteen months so that's not actually an argument. That's just you repeating something you heard on television. That's amid wit okay. So it's not me. No you're not a bit but now with our our audience is largely christian and their faith is a big deal to them. And i i'm interested in your. I'm sure you've answered this a million times every question because you do a lot of this stuff. How do you connect faith to libertarianism. Your views on economics. What is the case you make to. Somebody like that. Who just goes well christian. I don't get so into economics and politics and stuff like that all right well. We'll just start with politics more. Generally i mean. I don't really care for it. I find myself drawn to it. Because just as a matter of self defense i have to be involved in it but i would say that particularly in this day and age. There's just no possibility. The state has ever going to be your friend even if you thought it might possibly be. That's just not going to happen. The kinds of people who are drawn to it and who remain in the permanent bureaucracy or people who cannot stand the sight of you and they broadcast this to you almost daily and even if somebody manages to get into the white house who kind of likes you a little. He's going to spend his time fighting against an entrenched bureaucracy. That wants to resist. Every is every move so far better to try to build a parallel life apart from the coercive of structures of the bureaucracy. Build something build up your community build up your church build up your friendships build up all these beautiful small voluntary arrangements. That really are what america's all about alexis de tocqueville. All the way back in the eighteen thirty said that that was his impression when he visited the united states he said in europe. You have all these problems and the government has always trying to fix them. He says whereas in the united states instead of that there's always some voluntary association that comes together to try to make things better. And i think just as a matter of plausibility the especially since the french revolution. The french revolution granted was aimed at the religious aspect of it was aimed at the catholic church but that wasn't because they were protestants. Okay that was because they the fact that they read they started the calendar all over again and they dated the the year from the when they killed the monarch and they made the weeks into ten day weeks instead of seven which would make it almost impossible over time to remember when sunday was. That's not like they didn't accidentally do that. You know they. They didn't accidentally enthrone a statue of the goddess reason in the cathedral of notre dame just because they had nothing else to do. This was a pretty obviously anti-christian movement and the idea of a single indivisible almighty irresistible state was at the heart of the french revolution and that's been the heart of almost all regimes in the western world since then is one single irresistible power center and when that power center is aimed against you. You're gonna wish you had a little patchwork of of tiny little jurisdictions of the kind that i'm describing so i think in order to build the kind of life we want. We need to stop trying to build some some some gigantic tower of babel and instead build wants all around us be humble and not not try to fashion the world into into a vision that we have when when our own our own kids are struggling just to not be corrupted by a crazy world. I mean we have to get a priority straight. You have your family. You have your your neighbors. you have your church. These things will take up enough of your time without trying to build some giant empire something or or have a single irresistible power center so and then which when it comes to economics economics is not just about money and profit like these are things that are beneath us that. We're we're too sophisticated for that. That that's for i for stupid materialistic people. That's all wrong. The economy is how we cooperate with each other when there are more than ten us in the world when there are ten of us we all know each other's names and we can all hand out assignments to everybody but when there are billions and billions of. Us is impossible to do that so we have to figure out. What's the best way for us to all work together. So that as many needs as we have can be satisfied and so that people can lead flourishing lives. People are not going to be able to have a study group reading kelvin's institutes if they're on the verge of starvation. They're going to be thinking. They're going to be extremely materialistic. If they're on the verge of starvation okay guarantee you that's not gonna make them purer and more spiritual it's going to make them radically materialistic so so to me then the economy. It's it's understanding. The economy means understanding. How it's possible that the smallest thing like a ham sandwich or a book that requires a vast number of inputs. I mean the book is you got to grow a tree and shot and chop it down with an axe and the act requires steel. Then you gotta do mining and all the who knows how to do all those things and who could possibly coordinate everybody doing them in just the right amounts at just the right time so as to bring together this this consumer item. That costs us two dollars. That's like a miracle if you're not sure about how that happens i don't know what to tell you. That's a wonderment. it's a miracle and so what it's showing us is how it's possible for us to flourish and live together peacefully peacefully where no one steals from anybody else. Nobody aggressives against anybody else. Nobody harms anybody else. But just through our own natural activities of providing for our families which we have an obligation to do Because if you do not provide for your for your own household you're you are worse than a heathen then to me. This is like one of the most beautiful things in the world. Is that when you when you get bureaucracy. Out of the way when there's no guy shouting orders of people through a bullhorn and extraordinary order not chaos but order spontaneously emerges and. That's a very appealing world to me where we treat each other as i treat you as an end in yourself. You're not a means to my ends. I don't issue orders to you to satisfy my desires. You are an end in yourself. And i treat you that way. I don't just grab things that belong to you. I don't interfere in your plans. You are an end in yourself. And i think that's the kind of society we should want. It's a it's a real struggle with politics and religion. I think because for me. It's like i want to chesterton wrote. We tend to make politics. Two important g k chesterton..
Pod Save America
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Pod Save America
"Of the world and the myth of the liverpool jewish community is the it's full of the low iq individuals when the boat from east in your doctor review in the pool. They look up at the wom- till building on the liverpool skyline thought. They were in new york. Goff we've made it to the promised land but it wasn't my grandfather sam who are so close with when things with door he would pick up this little chart ski statue of liberty plastic souvenir toy. And just look at it and say we should have lived. There should live that every american piece of culture heart-to-heart the love boat fantasy. I all of it just filled me with. They were like clues of this land. I felt i was america. Even though it never set foot there and oversee the portes told me your party. My party it was rent. The mc in the beastie boys that would just essentially they were the puppet masters of all of our behavior for at least two years amazing So roger the transfer portal opened and we got our hands on you on june first two thousand eighteen. You became an american citizen. Congratulations we're thrilled to have you But before you spent before he became a citizen. You spend all this time in the. Us watching observing america. You are modern alexis de tocqueville. Was there anything you're able to see in that time the that you think that we missed about ourselves i. I came to chicago when i was sixteen. K may refer someone and i lived in the northern suburbs with my pen pal. Let's the person you right to young listeners. Before the age of the internet and it was john hughes his neighborhoods glencoe highland park. I lifted and it was as promised it was has promised was the holy land nutri a high school which is bigger than most english university. Your mom wants nutria. Mafia thousands of your listeners. And no doubt yes i went to it was it was i openly spectacular and i met the chicago bears super bowl winning team william refrigerator. Perry whispered into my dream. Big dreams kit. You can do anything i did. You can too. Which i now know. Working in. Sports is in the modem of every cliche and the athlete just flings off when they meet some little kid and want to get the hell away from them but when he said them us oh my god he's telling me to move to chicago as soon as i can and i did. A data moved here at the first opportunity after university in england and job. My first job. I was illegal alien. Which i think is an important part. The story told me you know. I came on a tourist visa and just never left into begin wherever a waiter a baker terrible baker four am. Sheriff i was a librarian other full asleep in the in the stacks i was just hustling and then it got a job. At a degree in england. I got a job during the welfare debate of of june. The clinton welfare debate where single african american males were really stigmatized in that policy debate and public advocacy groups to trade mixed. The homeless men How to talk to the media about the challenges bitten between Welfare and work. It was a major. So i arrived and thence for most of my life in the robert taylor homes in the near south side of chicago. And so what. I realized immediately young road and this will not show you. Tell me you spend your whole life grappling with this. I i was it absolutely aflame. And i still am twi wrote the book. I still am the biggest motivator. The driver of my life that driving force in my life. I've acted upon as a kid. The grew out with the statue of liberty painted on his bedroom wall and the manhattan skyline and dream of moving there and made that dream come true by luck and by being blessed but i realized that's the american idea and i instantly and the robert taylor homes. You immediately are exposed to the american reality and the gap between the tape was start. I was startling. Startling officer route the book in the seventeen months of lockdown when all of that really fermented and and became unbearable and impossible to ignore Which is why ultimately the epitaph for a book. That's about a love of america. Lifelong love of america that driving of america. Why the appetite for the book which is probably the important words in the boat. They don't mind the epitaphs such a funny. Sorry the why the epigraph of the book. The epigraph is funny. Part of any boot. Where you actually using somebody else's words to set your enough for mike case for shadow them it's the words of of links than Hugh's lab america be america again. The land never has been yet and yet must fake. I love the book in your political awakening. it starts when your father makes you Be one of like the only people in all of liverpool to support margaret thatcher and go around and canvas and knock doors and then you get obviously immediately makes you just a a a a red hot flaming liberal like like me. You know just like the absolute opposite of whatever he intended. Yeah i mean my. My father is a judge in liverpool and liverpool. When i was growing up that the city was it fell. You could walk onto a street corner and stare at buildings and genuinely see them deteriorate before you're always i remember watching mad max the thunderdome and thinking that way slim yet the waste. That didn't look that bad to me. That'd be an upgrade. On where i'm living and it was a deeply political tell. Fat show was the making the south writer as a financial centre a financial center in europe and the north she just laid waste and liverpool was her punching bag. She stigmatized the entire city and there was a deep regret at the time when liverpool city council had serious debates about whether they should seed from the rest of england and become a republic a socialist republic the republic of liverpool. And in that milia. My dad was like last conservatives. He adored mrs thatcher loved the queen. I was weighing school like everybody. The but there were pitched battles at the time all up and down england between the miners strong to fight to save the union thatcher and the police force just running battles every night on the news. Just thousands of men just bloodied in pitch hand-to-hand battles up and down up and down the north in the midland's until i wore school under.
Pod Save America
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Pod Save America
"Welcome back to pad save america. I'm tommy vitor. I'm john Jon favreau is still vacationing down at mar-a-lago spending much time twitter so love and i are holding down the fort today for an extra fun. July fourth themed show love it. Do you have any fireworks ready for us today. No the lapd lower. They took on fireworks. The lapd took all my fireworks. And they're like it's fine. We know what to do anyway. It was a mess Well listener show have local. La they really. Lapd blew up a truck and it's part of town but anyway sorry i. I didn't even know that. Oh okay well okay. Well that's that sounds like a mess. Then we're gonna talk about narratives in politics and beyond and you might be asking why narratives because narratives that's what july fourth is all about right. We're told a story about. America stretches from seventeen seventy six to today and there's important discussion to be had about what's real. What's not what's good. What could be a blind spot for us as americans. We're also going to pick apart some other common media narratives in politics in our culture. That sometimes are good. Sometimes drivers crazy. We're gonna have a little fun with it Then we are going to be joined by. Jason concepcion the co host of. Take line in all caps. Nba in ira madison. The third the co host of keep it for very special conversation about the most patriotic songs and then finally. You're gonna hear my interview with roger bennett. He's the co host a fantastic sports in soccer. Podcasts called men in blazers. We're gonna talk about his new book reborn in the usa. Roger became a us citizen in two thousand eighteen after falling in love with america decades ago as a kid growing up in liverpool england. And we'll talk about american culture and the power. The american story in probably sports and it'll be a lot of fun and i think you'll love hearing from him but love it Let's start with this narrative that defines july fourth in defines this episode which is american exceptionalism. What's your take good bad it's complicated. So here's what. I want to say about american exceptionalism and it. Is this anyone who believes that. America is the best country in the world cannot also believe in american exceptionalism. American exceptionalism is a pejorative to describe people who believe that america is the best country in the world despite evidence and so when someone says oh they don't even believe in american exceptionalism. It's really fucking confusing to me. Because presumably who says. I think america's the fucking best one of which is me. I'm one of those people. And if it's not. Because i believe or you if the person who says that doesn't believe in american exceptionalism they believe america is the best based on the facts right to say you believe in. American exceptionalism is like a paradox. You see what i'm saying. You see how it doesn't really make sense. I hear what you're saying. I mean i think what look just the listeners out constantly popping into the office and be like america fucking past. We'd go to the bathroom. Like i think some of this is kind of definitional right like there are things about america that are exceptional until recently i would have included our history of peaceful transfer of power germ. That got a little complicated on january. Six right our constitution. Our system of government is unique in that we have this capacity to amend it and fix it over time i think the term american exceptionalism it was first coined by alexis de tocqueville right. But it's changed a ton over. And i think we get into trouble when we get to high on our own supply and we decided that it means like america is more just and more pure than anyone else and like our way of is just inherently better than everyone else's and we're gonna force it on you like that to me is a real risk. Well you know. Obama got ding for saying americans believe in american exceptionalism the same way greeks believe in greek exceptionalism. And it was like he was like a two weeks. A fucking stories about not believing america's the best but actually. He was saying something different. American exceptionalism isn't something you can believe in the inside. It's what people on the outside. Say about us and our myopic view about america being the center of story that said i believe america is the center of every story. That's my position. Which is why. I reject american exceptionalism because america's the best. You see the problem issue. I like it. I like it. I also think like what i kind of like cringe at a little. Bit is the constant like reflexive. This isn't who we are rhetoric. Whenever something terrible happens in the united states which ignores the reality that a lot of the things we're talking about that are terrible in. That moment happened a lot right. Slavery jim crow. The these are some of the recent conversations we had and then there was this just ridiculous idiotic. Seventeen seventy six commission report that the trump folks leaked or released. Sorry right at the end of the administration that was literally just whitewashed literally. Us history in an effort to push back on the sixty nine thousand nine project like that to me is the ultimate like it's american exceptionalism to me is good when it's aspirational it. It's a story about america constantly. Trying to live up to an ideal. It's really bad when it's a cudgel that just silences criticism. And i think that's what kind of the the right wing version has been come. There's also There's like another level to the racism that goes along with the fighting against teaching of our history and full..
Rooks and Becords Podcast
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on Rooks and Becords Podcast
"I remember when i was a junior in college. I took a class from a professor who would later be a mentor of sorts to me. His name is gene weinstein and he taught at san francisco state university in the political science department. Now the study of politics can be kind of dry and technical but gene had a way of using less than traditional methods to get students interested in the topic. He used short stories novels. Reference films and even read poetry to show how political ideas and themes often manifest themselves in art and literature. But truthfully i think he found political science kind of boring even though this is where he made his career. So why not live in up the discipline by bringing in readings. That did just that one day. I remember him saying something along the lines of well as you spend the day struggling to understand Alexis de tocqueville's observations of america. You might find yourself in the mood to read some light before dropping off to nights slumber in a comfortable bed so i'd like to suggest picking up a short story collection which i happen to have a few right. Here that's my best gene weinstein impersonation and then. He gives us a brief capsule summary of the collections. We all found his delivery super amusing so much so a group of us would often imitate outside of class but gene was right sometimes a novel or even a lengthy nonfiction book on say the dewey decimal system is just a little too much something. A little less daunting is needed. That's why i'm going to spotlight a previously unpublished story a platform for those who don't know her. Plath was an accomplished poet and wrote a couple of novels the most famous being the bell jar but she's also known as a tragic artist who after many failed suicide attempts finally succeeded in february nineteen sixty three on the morning of the eleventh platt seal the windows and doors and our kitchen with towels and sheets and then she turned on the gas in the oven placed her head inside and breathed in the fumes until she died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Pretty depressing stuff No doubt but what's fascinating is a story. She wrote when she was twenty years old at smith college massachusetts. The story was rejected by mademoiselle. Even after she won a writing prize from the magazine but fifty seven years later it finally got published. The story is called mary. Ventura and the ninth kingdom and it's a bit of a surreal tale in the mode of the twilight zone but more like twilight zone light. The setup is fairly unremarkable. Mary ventura the title character is leaving home and boarding a train. She's with her parents. Were senior off at the station but marries kind kinda nervous and scared not ready to leave yet. Her mother says quote. It will be an easy trip. Everyone has to leave home sometime. Everyone has to go away sooner or later. Well she gets on the train and sits down and measure. Train starts up. Plath introduces us to marries seat-mate on the train who plugs herself down starts knitting address for a girl about the size of mary. She's friendly and offers to buy mary her something in the dining car. Mary gets ginger. Ale and remarks held juries. The train trip is. They eventually get back to their seats. With the following exchange happens a vendor opened the door at the front of the car and came swinging slowly along. the i'll crying candy popcorn cacheu. Nuts get your candy. Popcorn cashew nuts here said the woman opening her brown satchel and taking out of warren purse. Can't it's both a chocolate bar. Ono mary protested. please. I'll pay for it. Nonsense dear the woman said. This is my treat. The chocolate will be good for your sweet tooth. Besides you'll have enough to pay for by the end of the trip. The vendor stopped at their seton pushed his red cap back on his forehead sticking his thumbs in his red and white striped silk vast. What'll it be. He began routine board voice. We have he. Paused looked closely at the woman then and burst out into a raucous laughter here making this trip again. His voice dropped to a low confidential tone. There's nothing for you in this load you know. The whole deal is signed sealed and delivered signed sealed and delivered. Don't be so sure burt. The woman smiled amiably. Even bookkeepers can go wrong now. And then bookkeepers. Maybe but not the boss. Bert jingled his black change. Purse with a sly grin. The bosses got this all sewed up personally this time personally. The woman broke into a rich laughter. I should think so. After the mistake he made on the last trip. Getting trains crossed on the higher level. Why he couldn't get those people out of the lower gardens now if he tried. They took to the gardens like children. Happy as larks. You think they'd obeyed him and go back to the lower subway. Were they belong. Not on your life. Bert screwed up his face like a monkey. He said some dude. Yes i suppose you gotta get some percentage some of the time. That's why i'm here. The woman said i'll take a chocolate bar larger small large the woman replied and handed him a quarter well by now bird said touching his cap happy hunting and he swung off down the aisle calling in aboard sing song. Candy popcorn cashew nuts. Clearly this is no ordinary train. Ride and mary's journey is one that becomes more. Surreal as it's clear. Her destination to the ninth kingdom isn't what she was expecting mary. Ventura and the ninth kingdom reflects platts state of mind during that time and it wasn't good. She was struggling with depression. Her science classes in college were giving her a lot of grief and a sense of impending doom sort of surrounded her. So it somewhat heartening to read that. The story doesn't have a tragic end. unlike its author. The story is worth reading as it gives. Wanna look into the mind of a young writer whose control over a number of elements in a short story is really impressive. Specially at the young age of twenty so much for listening to the roofs and bekker's podcast as always. I hope he really enjoyed it. I want to thank john. Young as always and michael mugabe for talking about tom. Petty lively discussion. It was i. Try to post new podcasts. Each week and the best way to know when a new episode is available is simply by subscribing. You can do so on apple podcasts. Were also on google podcasts. Spotify stitcher and amazon which is also audible. They posted it on both amazon music and audible. How about that. So basically wherever you get your podcasts works and beggared since probably listed there. My name is ted. And i'll be back next time to talk more about books and records..
The Propaganda Report
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on The Propaganda Report
"Also those court cases are have been chronically misrepresented by the media the media says over and over again just chris. Wallace said most definitively on fox from the very beginning the all those cases have been resolved or dismissed period. And that's absolutely fake news true. Yeah the only person who spoke honestly about that in politics is rand paul. Who had that little interaction with stephanopolous. Right i had that little interaction with him where he laid it out. He said all those cases they were not dismissed on a consideration of the evidence. They were dismissed on process. They never considered the evidence but there are still the ones that are continuing. Yeah exactly do have more stuff from garland. We've got another show this weekend with him things to say about the impeachment. I read some excerpts from those trial briefs as per the wall street journal which is already highly curated. So you're really not probably getting the best of the arguments but some of the stuff was kinda crazy. I thought that one of the things was it. Was it said that. The pro impeachment like the impeachment managers said that basically it was unthinkable unimaginable that the founders did not give did not anticipate that there might be malfeasance in the final days of someone's office and so it would not be possible for them to not have meant impeachment to apply straight through to the last day in office but that is silly because impeachment is about removing someone from office and if people had to read democracy in america by alexis de tocqueville it was from the early eighteen. Hundreds french guy came over to check out the penal system but wrote a book about a whole lot of stuff and he identifies that it was good. That impeachment was way where a lawmaker would just be losing office. He wouldn't be like put in the gallows and wanna fight to the death. So of course assad is going to find to the debt because you saw hussein go into the gallows or that like the way they have it in europe christine lagarde one of those numerous this french guy. Staying get brought up on charges after they're out of office extremely threatening and then you really need to maintain power. You're willing to fosters corruption. So in peach mint is is by design a very mild reprimand. That simply remove somebody from office if what they're talking about and they are saying i don't know if they use the word treason treasury if they're actually talking about crimes the you can try them for those crimes and put him in jail and you could use as a as a conviction by the trial by jury that he's established from future office holding as the fourteenth amendment like this is their argument silly and then i have something else. I just wonder said this before. But they're saying that he spent a long time making these claims. These lies these debunked lies about election. Fraud this was all done on twitter. This was done on twitter for the most part. So i would love to see. If they're going to actually produce says tweets proving. They have kept them while while keeping the public from them. There are archives of them. I've gotten patron saying that. There's an archive of the twitter. I know they're in the library of congress. So you could do some footwork and find it by. You're you're going to go search on twitter..
The Takeaway
"alexis de tocqueville" Discussed on The Takeaway
"We did our folks going to pay attention. It's a critical question. And i think that we are now in a time of trying to reconstruct and restore civil society and the meaning of america in the nineteenth century. The french observer. Alexis de tocqueville's made an interesting observation quite timely. For our time as we've lived through four years president calling to make america calling for people to make america great again The tocqueville wrote in the eighteen forties. The greatness of america lies not in her being more enlightened than any other nation but in her ability to repair her faults the ability to repair our faults is at the heart of what it needs to be a good and a great nation. And i think that what we need now. Our moral leaders in every sector of life who are capable and courageous as you underscore to begin. Some difficult dialogues. Some fearless dialogues is one of my friends puts it to Have an honest conversation about america about american history about at again for dr king's book title. Where do we go from here. Chaos or community. Moral leaders are people who invite us to become a better version of ourselves. And that kind of work will certainly be done in in congress now very proud raphael warnock and john all saw from georgia will join the conversation in washington president but elect biden vice. President-elect will help to form sponsored bad conversation so i'm actually encouraged about the future but ultimately who are the leaders to whom those proud boys and insurrectionists respond and. Here's where i think holding president trump accountable making him pay a price for his irresponsibility is an act of moral decency by the society. So i'm gonna watch that very carefully. What happens there. There should be no pardoning or looking the other way he behavior has consequences. So i think that's the call now step up. Speak truth to power. Break the silence on issues of racism impression. Hypocrisy and let's have an honest conversation about how we move forward together rashad. I'm curious about your thoughts on the fact that this these insurrection as some are even calling them domestic terrorists have been enabled and encouraged by by are a lot of our politicians and not just the president but a lot of his supporters and either are people who would even argue that the media itself hasn't gotten this tone right hasn't really understood what was happening until yesterday. Really i mean i even tweeted. Look guys this is an unbelievable. This is a logical combination of events. If you've been paying attention to the past couple of years what would you. How would you assess the media's role in covering trump supporters rashad trump versus a black. Lives matter you know. This is actually an important point in to build off of reverend. Dr franklin's point is right when we have those conversations and we have that sort of accountability at the individual sort of level of a trump that then has to lead us to new structures new rules new levels of accountability for those that build infrastructure. That profit off of this amplify that incentivize and radicalize those that would do this type of damage and benefit from it. And so when you say media. I think it's very important that as we sit in this age we think about all of the different ways in which we get information we move. Move information so yes. There's this sort of mainstream media and the far right media and all the ways in which those sorts of channels those vehicles have created a level of this information and misinformation about. What's happened a framing. That is be sort of about both sides or a framing. That takes an incident like what happened on the capital yesterday and frame it in ways that are not accurate at all and then we also have to look at the social media platforms the facebook's and twitter's google's 'em and as a person who has spent years a pushing and fighting and challenging these corporations to do better as the leaders of those institutions were buying islands and profiting off of hate creating allowing for close groups allowing for all sorts of content to live on their platform because it was making their money. I've sat across the table. Be with the leaders of those largest companies. Work to make demand what i recognize. Most importantly is that they do not and should not get to be the arbiters of what type of information content should get to travel. They have created violence algorithms on these platforms and then they are profiting off of them. And unless we have rules. That hold these institutions accountable. There's actually nothing we can do. Because the incentives around money profit and growth will always outweigh for them safety integrity and security and so as this new administration takes hold. They're gonna have a lot of work to do to make sure the technology that has so much potential to bring us further into the future in the ways in which we can reach one another being engagement. That technology is dragging us into a past disrupting sort of rules and norms that. We've created in society bypassing civil rights laws that we have one in fight fought for and so in so many ways there does have to be a whole level of conversation. There has to be a whole level of accountability at the individual level. But we also need the new sort of rules of accountability. Because what has happened. Episode capital has did not happen by mistake once again and it did not happen. Just because of donald trump there are whole set of folks where the debut sort of right wing republicans mainstream and right wing media whether they be social media platforms that have enabled it and they've enabled it because it has a benefitted them. It has given them either. Money power or respect and intel. We create the new rules of tomorrow. That actually hold accountable create consequences and take away that money power and respect we will those that will put us all in danger because it helps them in some sort of personal way.
The News & Why It Matters
Iowa caucuses results are in but chaos and confusion reign as no clear winner emerges
"AP has declared officially after so many days of waiting eating That there is no winner. They are unable to declare a winner of Iowa Democratic caucuses because of irregularities in this year's process and the tight emergent between Pete Buddha judge and Bernie Sanders now. This comes after The Democrat National Committee Chair. Tom Perez has already dad. We need to re canvass. We need to go back and count all you know all of the paper Th th the paper trail everything because it's too close to call. There are too many questions we gotta start over Pat What are your thoughts on this tobacco. I think we've already left behind. Have we got New Hampshire coming up in a couple of days as we might as well. Just forget it this year. Yeah I mean nobody's going to really be able to have the bragging rights here because They can both claim victory. Sort of Bernie is already saying he won the initial Vote and Buda judge one the one after that and and it's kind of like I think it was two thousand twelve with Rick Santorum where we found out a week later right that he won when they thought it was. Who Was it Romney or they thought somebody else one yeah and it turned turned out? Sanatorium did and so he never really got the credit for that I mean he never really got any momentum going or anything for that because it was too late this. It's going to be as well. I think we're wins. Josh Pat points out you know. Historically the person who wins does get that momentum going into the New Hampshire voting and no one's going to have that now. How do you see that playing out yet? So need silver at five. Thirty eight had a pretty good column on Tuesday the night after this total crap show unfolded where he basically. We said that. Even if Iowa does get you know what together. It's never going to be too little too late. It's already too late because what happens. Is the boost. You get head. Is You go on national television that night and you're able to declare victory as someone who was very active in the Cruz campaign. Two Thousand Sixteen. I remember Ted's victory speech in Iowa very well and he got a bump out obviously didn't take them all the way but it did help so no candidate is going to be able to claim that this year and I think there are serious questions about the Avocados process going forward. I mean I'm actually longtime defender tender of it. I happen to like the caucus process. I participated in and I to me. It kind of embodies all that Alexis de Tocqueville famously looked at America everyone kind of game together and like like they're doing their civic duty in a very fundamental level. It says it's much more engaging process and the privacy of a ballot box clicking lever so I'm long time defender but having said add that if the Iowa Democratic party can literally not tabulate the votes to give us what the party apparatus needs. I think there are very serious questions but I will going forward. So whoever ends up the winner and perhaps we'll never know. It seems to me quite possible. It will be the last winner but I will caucus what do you think trial in. Good clear even at we don't know winter. The the clear loser was Joe Biden. Who by all accounts came into distance? fourth-place talk about the former vice president of the United States coming in Pretty low in an in a state that he he should have carried or at least come into the top two and we were just talking a little bit earlier that there has never been a nominee of of either party Who has placed below second place in both Iowa and The caucus in the New Hampshire primary. So if Joe Biden doesn't get his act together and at least place in the top two Next week in New Hampshire. There's really no precedent for him to become the the party's nominee. I mean how incredible would that be that. There's been all all this talk about Joe Biden and we could be looking at him dropping out within a week or two. He's done I mean I do a weekly election. Newsletter for the daily wire comes out Thursday's you can describe bribe. LP DUCK LP dot daily wire dot com slash. Get election wire so I said Yeah. I'll talk to folks about. Yeah but I mean I guess I basically said stick a fork in Joe Biden. He's done I don't see it at this moment. He's fourth place in Iowa. He's not going to get any better in New Hampshire that so-called firewall in South Carolina which the the campaigns been touting for months maybe a year on. Then it's already dissipating. He's four or five points. The most recent poll there if he goes fourth-place in Iowa third or fourth New Hampshire. He's probably not GonNa Win Nevada because again it's a caucus state caucus eight does not play well to his campaign apparatus. He's going to go over three in the first three. That firewall Julia Florida already saying he's not he's he doesn't have a very good apparatus in Nevada. He doesn't have have a good organization on the ground there and he's not looking good right now. Now we obviously see judge with a little bit of momentum going into New Hampshire sure You know let's let's pretend for a second that's already played out. Buddha judge gets the gets this boost and suddenly Buddha judge is the person that we're looking got running against trump in the general just UC. That is that going to be a problem for trump. Do you think or do you think trump could handle it partly I I do not. They blew judges a particularly scary general election for trump I actually think Bernie Sanders. Despite being as radical as he is a more formidable generally Bernie Sanders and trump. Have this weird crossover appeal read. They're both kind of burn it. All down anti-establishment counter cultural in their own unique sense figures. I think they actually she probably a appeal to a lot of these similar. kind of rust belt's More antitrade Anti Nafta style voters would adjudge. There's just so much material for trump come to work with their and he's so young he's so inexperienced. I mean a lot of you are these conspiracy theories that he's like a CIA agent. It's kind of sketchy. We don't really know exactly what he was doing. There's just like he's too USA by happy but he's what he's thirty seven years. Old Trump could torture in the debate. I think he's the mediocre mayor of a town one-seventh the size is of your average congressional districts I I mean E it's not serious I was telling somebody from Miami. Yesterday I was making like a reference in terms of like how how big South Bend is compared to like some of the small municipality down there and it's just really ridiculous and I I totally agree with Josh. Not only does does Bernie Sanders. Had I think the strange crossover appeal. I also think he can activate people who otherwise don't vote just bring a lot of people out of the woodwork to show up to vote so I think I think I think president trump is in a very strong position heading into November. But it's going to be very interesting to see what Democrats do you at the convention because it would. There's no clear front runner. I don't think that the powers that be. You're convinced that Buddha judges is strong and the clearly do not like Bernie Sanders so we may. We may be going into broke. Invention Pat. Do you just to play. Devil's advocate Josh. Do you agree with Josh. That Bernie would be formidable candidate against against trump. Because it's because the just put it out there you know. I agree with what you're saying that they kind of have this same anti-establishment feel but it's so hard to vote for for someone like Bernie wants US radical change people's lives are good right now. You know you have the economy that trump touted during the state of the Union. You people are working on It seems so unlikely to me that people would say yeah. Let's change everything. Let's burn down when it's working for the majority of two and especially since Bernie as a socialist list. My hope is that this is still America and we're not quite there yet. Another young people who were there that think socialism might be a great alternative to capitalism. Something I think this shows the greatest difference you can possibly show going into an election a guy who's overseeing a great economy for for four years and who is a hardcore hardcore capitalist and a socialist curmudgeon. WHO's seventy eight years old? I mean I think that's a great economy That that trump could exploit whereas does with Buddha judge who I don't think is that strong either And it seems like you don't go from South Bend Indiana mayor to President of the United States. Although there was a country where can happen. It's here thank you. Don't go from reality. Show host president if that happened but Budi judge has has one other thing going for him and that's identity politics and you've got to be a little bit careful with him because of what you say and trump isn't careful and he could run into trouble I think. Yeah I mean my concern with with with Buddha judges his his youth and I think he could definitely use that to his advantage. But it is as far as Bernie and socialism. I mean like Josh like Josh Nine you as well like we were born in in in an era where like the Cold War is like a distant memory the most people of Dr Generation. Wow we have no recollection of what socialism even is the here it. There's like some scary S. word but they don't exactly know what it means. They don't remember the bread lines in the former Soviet Union or or the Eastern Bloc states countries and and they're not learning it at school either so when you call someone a socialist. They'll think. Oh Yeah it's like the Norway pavilion at Epcot They're completely disconnected from it. So have to be the baby. Maybe boomers who understand that and don't vote for for Bernie Sanders hopefully still will we like the the people have educated on it. Yeah