Intellectual excitement in the land of Oz

Or how I exposed the great Al Jazeera scam in a bastion of liberalism

September 29, 2008
Fred Hutchison, RenewAmerica analyst

I was invited by the Defender's Council of Vermont to debate with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) concerning an Al Jazeera channel on Burlington Telecom (BT). The debate was scheduled for September 17th, which is Constitution Day, the 221st anniversary of the signing of the American Constitution.

The debate was intended to demonstrate freedom of speech, which is a right enshrined in the first amendment to the Constitution. Unfortunately, the man from the ACLU cancelled out, so I gave a speech instead. The Defender's Council scheduled a long question and answer and discussion period afterward, so that we could still demonstrate the principle of freedom of speech.

The speech was filmed for Vermont public television. I hope to obtain a video recording of the speech.

Appendix A of this essay is a reader-friendly version of my speech notes. Appendix B is a reconstruction of the highlights of the discussion section that followed the speech.

Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore

During the trip, I told my traveling companion several jokes in which I referred to the American heartland as "Kansas" and Burlington, Vermont, as "Oz." With the exception of San Francisco, Burlington is probably the most liberal city in America. From my perspective as a conservative, I like to think of it as "the land of Oz."

Burlington is the home of the very beautiful, but very liberal, University of Vermont. It is a favored summer home for rich liberals from New York and is a snappy commute to Manhattan by executive jet. A sweet way of life for those with the big bucks. The beautiful homes sell for double or triple the price of equivalent homes in the Midwest.

Nestled on the east bank of Lake Champlain in the northwest corner of Vermont, the scenery is stunning. It is a marvelous place for sailing and water sports. Looking west across the lake, one can see the Adirondack Mountains of New York state. Looking east, one can see the Green Mountains made famous by Ethan Allen's Green Mountain Boys. From a good vantage point, one can see Canada on the horizon, 35 miles due north. Montreal, Quebec, is another 35 miles northwest from the border.

I have never seen a more beautiful city than Burlington, Vermont. The "Emerald City of Oz" is dazzling to hicks from "Kansas." But do they have a wizard? Is there a curtain that can be pulled back to reveal a con-man pulling the levers? Read Appendix A to find out.

Intellectual excitement and public speaking

When I consider whether or not to accept a speaking invitation, one of the questions I ask myself is whether the theme is intellectually interesting. I have spent my life chasing after intellectual excitement. I will be highly motivated to prepare and deliver a good speech if the topic is intellectually intriguing and fascinating to me. However, if I am bored with the subject matter, I am not so sure I can prepare and deliver a speech of high quality that will move an audience.

I consider myself the exact opposite of Barack Obama. During the presidential primaries, he aroused large crowds to hysteria with speeches that were free of content. Cotton candy speeches and euphoria. After winning the nomination, he added content to his speeches — but the excitement of his speeches fell off in direct proportion to the amount of solid content.

In contrast, I get pumped up if I can give an intellectually meaty speech of original content, but I suffer terminal boredom if the sponsors of my speech demand cotton candy. I can put the audience to sleep with cotton candy, but have found I can arouse them to enthusiasm with meaty ideas.

Do they throw tomatoes?

Amazingly, all the liberals in the audience were on my left and all the conservatives were on my right. Do people instinctively organize themselves this way?

My host warned me that I might be treated roughly by hostile partisans in the audience. My running joke was that I had been practicing dodging the tomatoes.

The Oz folks did not throw tomatoes. Sometimes they grinned, and sometimes they looked down at the floor and glowered. During the question and answer session, they all came alive and were intellectually excited.

The moral of the story is that intellectually stimulated liberals do not throw tomatoes. Only bored ones do that. When they are intellectually excited, they forget to be rude and insulting and are eager to join the party! If conservatives would stop being boring, perhaps liberals would stop being disruptive.

Ah, intellectual excitement!

I was grinning with intellectual satisfaction as I gave the speech, as well as during the question and answer and discussion section.

The audience participation after the speech was very prolonged and spirited. There was no hostility or ill will. The distinguished senior liberal in the front row, far left, began by saying that I am a strong speaker. Those who disagreed with me said so in no uncertain terms, but they were courteous and respectful to me.

No one questioned my two major propositions! According to the formal rules of collegiate debate — I won!

Both sides were deeply interested in the first principles of political philosophy. I have been interested in political philosophy since my teens. I admired the cleverness and astuteness of the philosophical comments coming from the left. The Burlington liberals are not fools. They are the cream of the progressive movement.

Fortunately, I was well prepared to answer all their philosophical objections except one. We were blessed with three admirable political philosophers in the conservative ranks, and one of them jumped in and answered the one question I was not prepared for before I could clear my throat.

There were three things I wanted to say, but for tactical reasons did not want to be the one to broach the subject. In all three cases, someone in the crowd introduced the subject, and I took it from there.

My friends, this exercise of freedom of speech was exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. This was a perfect way to celebrate Constitution Day.

Scroll down to Appendix A and Appendix B for the speech and discussion.

---

APPENDIX A: Reader-friendly version of the speech

How Free is Free Speech?

Speech given by Fred Hutchison in Burlington, Vermont, on Constitution Day, 9/17/08

Subject: The Al Jazeera channel on Burlington Telecom (BT)

Introduction

Thank you for coming to help us celebrate Constitution Day. The Constitution was signed 221 years ago today.

The Defenders Council of Vermont invited me to come and debate the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). We believe in freedom of speech and want both sides of an issue to be heard. Unfortunately, the ACLU representative cancelled out — so this will be a speech and not a debate.

My sponsor requested that I emphasize the concept of free speech in recognition of Constitution Day. They have allocated a generous amount of time for questions, answers, and discussion so that free speech might prevail.

The paradox of free speech

According to tabulations of opinion that are part of the public record, many of those who want an Al Jazeera English (AJE) cable channel on Burlington Telecom (BT) give their reasons as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, democracy, and because they want other points of view. But did you know that some of those who do not want an AJE channel on BT also give some of the same reasons? For example, some do not want AJE precisely because they believe in freedom of speech.

How can this be? Well, it comes down to two factors: 1) The ACLU might differ with us in their understanding of what Al Jazeera is. 2) The ACLU might differ with us in their understanding about what happened in the decision-making process that led to the addition of an AJE channel to BT's line up.

My case today is twofold:

Proposition #1: The Emir of Qatar owns and controls Al Jazeera (AJ). He does not have the slightest interest in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, democracy, and openness to other points of view. He uses AJ to glorify himself and to gain political influence in the world.

Proposition #2: The people in the Burlington municipal government who aggressively pushed through the decision to put the Al Jazeera — English (AJE) channel on BT claim to care about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and democracy — but they do not. They rigged the public review process to favor AJE partisans and muffled those who oppose AJE. They suppressed the democratic process and free speech.

I hope to convince you that these two propositions are true by using facts and logic. If you agree with these propositions, you will realize that it is time for the citizens of Burlington to rise up and restore free speech, democracy, and the due course of law.

Now let us consider our case:

Resolved: The Emir of Qatar who owns and controls AJ cares nothing for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or democracy.

Consider the facts: Al Jazeera (AJ) was founded in 1996 with a grant of $160 million from the Emir of Qatar. AJ continues to receive $30 million annually from the Emir. Only 40% of their revenues come from advertising.

AJ is not self-supporting like CNN, but is financially propped up by the Emir. If AJ had to compete on the free market with CNN, it would perish. However, AJ does not have to pander to commercial sponsors to survive. AJ must pander to the Emir of Qatar.

The Emir can well afford this largess because he is one of the richest men in the world — because Qatar sits upon a rich oil deposit. AJ comes to you not by courtesy of its commercial sponsors, but through the oil wealth of the Persian Gulf.

AJ is operated by the Emir's third cousin. AJ is a family firm — and that family is the royal house of Qatar.

What does the Emir think about democracy and freedom of speech?

The Emirate is a monarchy — a hereditary monarchy. The Emir is not elected, but was born to sit on the throne. Qatar has an absolute monarchy. The Emir has absolute power. He is a dictator.

Elected officials in Qatar may give advice to the government, but they have no power. The Emir has set up a phony democracy as window dressing to impress the West — but he will not share real power.

The Emir seized power from his father in a palace coup. All usurpers of power fear that someone else will steal their power. The Emir has made sure that no one in Qatar has any real power but him. So much for democracy.

The Emir is the only one in Qatar who has freedom of speech. He is unaccustomed to having anyone disagree with him. So much for freedom of speech.

The Emir has surrounded himself with relatives. We would call it nepotism. They call it royalty. The appointment of his cousin to run AJ was not based on merit. It was based on family loyalty. The Emir appointed his cousin to make sure he has tight control of AJ.

Fawning sycophants carry out the will of the Emir. When the will of the Emir clashes with the imperatives of professional journalism, the will of the Emir always prevails.

What is the Emir's agenda?

The Emir and his counselors are secretive about the development of policy. Dictators are invariably secretive because if the public was aware of the plotting and conniving behind the scenes and the arbitrary abuse of power, the dictator would lose face before the public, and his public cult of personality would lose respect.

How then can we get a sense for what the Emir cares about so we can understand the policies of Al Jazeera? What is the Emir's agenda?

Analysis point #1: What do minor kings care about? History teaches that minor kings care about image and influence. Minor kings are jealous of the glory of greater kings — so their policies are designed to promote the greater glory of their own throne. Minor kings are anxious about hanging on to power, so they seek political influence with great powers outside their realm.

Analysis point #2: The king cares about Al Jazeera (AJ). If he did not care about AJ, he would not pay a king's ransom to support it. Why does he care about it? Two possible reasons: a) AJ gives him international prestige; b) AJ gives him international influence.

Let us take a closer look at AJ to determine if their journalistic bias can be reconciled with the glory and influence of the Emir. Let us examine several controversial things AJ is doing and see if they reflect professional journalism or the mindset of the Emir.

Fasten your seat belts. We are about to plunge into the controversial part of the talk.

Is Al Jazeera (AJ) the mouthpiece of Al Qaida?

Al Jazeera — English (AJE) spokesmen claim that AJ was never anti-American and was never the mouthpiece of Al Qaida. Yet only last week (9/9/08), the New York Times published an Associated Press (AP) report about an AJ broadcast of a crazy rant by Al Qaida's #2 man, Ayman Al Zawahiri. The AP did not know how AJ obtained of the recording.

Al Zawahiri's message was nuts because it accused the Americans of being in league with Iran. The message was anti-American and characterized American troops in Iraq as "crusaders and occupiers." The message was anti-Israel because it called for continued jihad to liberate Palestine from Israel. Al Zawahiri criticized Hezbollah for its lack of victories against Israel.

AJE's website carried the story in much greater detail than the NYT — but AJE failed to mention that the news story came from an AJ broadcast. Could it be that AJE wants to influence you, but does not want you to know that AJ is the mouthpiece for Al Qaida?

The AJE spokesmen have told you that AJ has never been the mouthpiece for Al Qaida — they told you that AJ did not give the microphone to bin Laden to gloat over the fall of the Twin Towers, that they did not film or air the beheading of journalists or the torture of Americans.

But only last week the AJE website was still the mouthpiece of Al Qaida. How can you regard this kind of material as the work of professional journalism? It is propaganda coming from the palace of Qatar. Furthermore, AJE is covering up its continuing complicity as the facilitator of Al Qaida.

Is Al Jazeera (AJ) anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-terrorist?

Well, it is clear that Al Qaida is anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-terrorist. It is also clear that AJ is the facilitator of Al Qaida.

On 9/11/08 — a week ago — the AJE web site had a article that was both pro-Al Qaida and anti-Israel, and another piece that was an anti-American rant.

The pro-Al Qaida piece cited an unidentified "opinion poll of the world." I am a former expert on statistical sampling. I trained hundreds of people on statistical sampling and wrote technical bulletins on statistical sampling. The population to be polled must be precisely defined, and the sample must be randomly selected. Every part of the population must have an equal chance to be chosen for the sample. In my expert opinion, it is impossible to take an opinion poll of the world without massive distortion of the results!

According to AJ's fanciful world poll, 50% of the people of the world do not believe that Al Qaida was responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers. According to this strange poll, 43% of the people of Egypt and Jordan believe that Israel was responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers.

AJ's hokey poll would have us exonerate Al Qaida and blame Israel. I can imagine that the Emir of Qatar believes this stuff, but I cannot believe that any professional journalist at BBC or CNN would take this preposterous poll seriously.

On the same day, AJE had an interview with the notorious leftist Howard Zinn. Zinn said that America needs a "rebellion" and that America is an expansionist oppressor nation and suppresses the voices of internal dissent. The AJE interviewers treated Zinn as some kind of wise elder statesman

But who is Howard Zinn? He was an adviser to the campus leftists who rioted during the 60's. Like Jane Fonda, he went to Hanoi during the Vietnam War. He was an associate of Noam Chomsky and Daniel Berrigan in militant leftist projects.

If you bring AJ into your home via cable TV, will you be hearing from people like Howard Zinn, Jane Fonda, and Noam Chomsky, and urged to join a leftist revolt against America?

Does Al Jazeera — English (AJE) have an extreme anti- Israel bias?

Yes! Every day I have been reading AJE's website. A couple times a week, some unfair slam against Israel is published on that website. The Emir is giving red meat to the Arab street, where the hatred of Israel perseveres like an unholy sickness.

The Al Qaida rant of 9/9/08 — a week ago — was full of hate and rage against Israel. The phony poll two days later planted the suggestion that Israel destroyed the Twin Towers. AJE does indeed have an extreme anti-Israel bias.

Why does the Emir care about Al Qaida?

The Emir of Qatar, King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia, and Osama Bin Laden all belong to the radical Wahhabi sect. They were all born on the Arabian peninsula. Al Jazeera means "the peninsula."

By being the mouthpiece of bin Laden, the Emir became one of the most influential men on the Arabian peninsula, and a hero to the Wahhabi extremists. By playing this game, he ingratiates himself with the rich and powerful king Abdulla and the house of Saud. In that part of the world, tribal solidarity and Islamic passions trump all other considerations.

Is Al Jazeera-English (AJE) politically non-partisan?

AJE loves Barack Obama, but hates John McCain. In a recent story on the web, AJE told several lies about McCain and passed it off as news and not opinion. What is going on here? What is the Emir up to?

Perhaps the Emir has no fear of Obama and supposes he could influence Obama through diplomacy. Obama's father was partly Arab and was a practicing Muslim. Perhaps the Emir supposes Barack would be more simpatico with him than McCain. The Emir might fear the gritty McCain and might suppose that he could not influence McCain.

Whatever you might think of Obama or McCain is besides the point in this forum. The point is, how do you feel about a foreign monarch's attempt to influence American elections?

Why is Al Jazeera-English (AJE) trying to gain a foothold in America?

Why is AJE trying to get a foothold in America by going to places like Burlington, Vermont? After the two Gulf Wars, the Emir fears America — yet hopes for the protection of America. America saved Kuwait in the first Gulf War. Both Kuwait and Qatar are small, oil-rich nations situated on the Persian Gulf.

Qatar exports oil via tanker ships through the Persian Gulf — and needs protection because Iran has threatened to shut down the Gulf. The Emir needs influence in America to warn America not to provoke Iran, but also wants to encourage America to be the defender of the Persian Gulf if Iran tries to close it down.

The scary, saber-rattling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president of Iran in 2005. AJE, the English version of Al Jazeera, started broadcasting in 2006. Is this a coincidence? Or is the Emir desperate for American protection against Iran?

The Emir hopes to influence public opinion and foreign policy in America. To this end, he has spent a lot of money to create AJE, burnish its image, and market it to the West. That is why the Emir is pushing hard to get an AJE channel on Burlington Telecom.

Proposition #2: The decision-making process for establishing the Al Jazeera — English (AJE) channel on Burlington Telecom (BT) was arbitrary, unprofessional, extra-legal, undemocratic, and contrary to the values of free speech and the constitutional principle of no taxation without representation.

As a former technical expert in the legal compliance audits of Ohio state agencies and local government entities, I shall assess the process that was followed to decide to add the AJE cable channel, subsequently to delete AJE, and finally to retain AJE. If I were the auditor, I would write several citations.

Adding Al Jazeera- English (AJE)

On 12/06/07, Tim Nulty, General Manager of Burlington Telecom (BT) added an AJE channel. (BT is owned by the City of Burlington and offers cable TV to subscribers.)

1. Nulty had no "carriage policy" (authorization process) to add new channels. He arbitrarily used his own decision-making process.

2. Nulty had no legal authority to make the decision to add a cable channel in the absence of an official carriage policy. Keep in mind that BT is not a private business, where the executives have freewheeling power to make decisions. BT is an agency of municipal government, where the decision maker must have legal authority.

3. Nulty's assumption of arbitrary power violates the constitutional principle of no taxation without representation.

It is true that AJE is free of charge, owing to the unlimited largess of the Emir of Qatar. However, if an AJE channel makes BT controversial, and BT loses subscribers, BT might not be able to meet debt service. In such a case, the taxpayers of Burlington must pay the bill. That would be taxation without representation.

4. Nulty failed to make a contract with AJE. He had a contract for all the other channels. A lawyer told me that the lack of a contract could subject BT and the City of Burlington to lawsuits.

Was the lack of a contract careless, or was it a means of avoiding public review?

5. A handshake agreement by a government official with a vendor and the lack of a written legal contract is illegal in Ohio. It probably is also illegal in Vermont.

6. In Ohio, all decisions involving taxes must have the approval of the legislature. I presume this is also true in Vermont.

The general manager made it up as he went along

On 12/07/07 (the next day), Nulty created a new carriage policy — apparently to legitimize the decision he had already made.

1. Nulty had no authority to create a carriage policy. There were no hearings or authorizations from the city council or the mayor about the carriage policy. A public official cannot create the authority under which he works. This is a government of laws, not of men. That means that government officials cannot create arbitrary powers for themselves.

2. One cannot authorize a decision using an authorization process that comes into being after the decision was made.

3. One cannot authorize his own decisions. One cannot seize discretionary decision-making powers on his own authority. Discretionary decision-making powers must be defined through law or through administrative procedures that have the color of law, or through government program rules.

4. Chris Burns, the General Manager who succeeded Nulty, criticized Nulty's carriage policy as vague and offering little practical guidance. Nulty devised a carriage policy that let him do what he wants.

Deleting Al Jazeera — English (AJE)

May 2008: Chris Burns, the new General Manager of Burlington Telecom, decided to take AJE off the air. His reasons are:

1. Citizen complaints. At last, democracy and freedom of speech were taken into account.

2. Having a controversial cable channel is a bad programming strategy for a start-up operation, because a rapid increase in subscriptions is necessary for survival, and controversy can be fatal. BT depends upon fees paid by subscribers who can cancel if they are offended. These are sound business considerations.

As we have seen, AJE's facilitation of Al Qaida, its featuring of leftists, its hostile coverage of the Iraq war, its anti-Israel bias, and its partisan bias towards American elections makes it controversial.

3. Burns was concerned that AJE lacked a contract. The lack of a contract is illegal and exposes Burlington to lawsuits.

A flurry of activity

Mr. Burns' decision to drop AJE set Burlington Mayor Kiss off into a flurry of activity. Mayor Kiss invented his own ad hoc process for reviewing Burns decision.

Mayor Kiss had no interest in the process when Nulty was calling the shots. Could it be that Mayor Kiss' sudden interest in the process began when Burns made a decision he did not like?

The mayor made it up as he went along

The Burlington Cable Advisory Committee (BCAC) and the Burlington Telecom Advisory Committee (BTAC) were mandated by the state for airing citizen complaints. The committees have no state authority for giving advice on programming. They mandated themselves to be part of the process for programming decisions. This move is best understood in light of the fact that the committees are full of people appointed by Mayor Kiss.

Mayor Kiss used the committees as part of an ad hoc decision-making process in the absence of a workable carriage policy. Mayor Kiss made up his own process, just as Nulty had done.

The mayor appointed the members of both committees. The two committees were virtually identical in membership. The committees were unrepresentative of the citizens of Burlington. Several committee members are outspoken public advocates for Al Jazeera. Greg Eppler-Wood is the chairman of both committees. He praised AJE on television. Shakintala Rao is on the BCAC. She published an essay that was favorable to AJE. She is married to Joe Rinert, who works for Mayor Kiss. Jan Schultz sits on both committees. She also sits on the board of the Peace on Justice Center, which is pro AJE.

The groups in Burlington who oppose an AJE channel, such as veterans and Jews, are not represented on these committees. So much for democracy and freedom of speech.

First public hearing

One day before the first meeting, it was publically announced that citizens could testify. Did the committee hope that no one would show up? A one-day notice is illegal in Ohio.

Citizens were given one minute to speak. That was a farce. It was a charade of free speech, while denying the citizens of an authentic chance to express their opinions.

No special speaker who represents the views of citizens of Burlington who oppose an AJE channel has ever been invited by the committees at any time.

Second public hearing (6/11/08)

Citizens could speak for three minutes. Only a trained public speaker can make much headway in three minutes. I can do it when I prepare for it, because I have done a fair amount of public speaking, but most ordinary citizens do not get very far beyond the introduction in three minutes.

People from outside Burlington were allowed to speak. News coverage with a pro-AJ bias drew in readymade partisans in favor of an AJ channel. The press was invited. Tony Burman, director of AJE, attended. He was the celebrity advocate for AJE. No celebrity advocate of those opposing an AJE channel was invited. It was a set-up job.

The committee did not invite the military veterans of Burlington to send a spokesman. They did not invite the Jews of Burlington to send a representative. This was not an exercise in American town hall democracy and freedom of speech. This was a partisan political rally posing as democracy.

The camel got its nose in the tent

Why did Tony Burman, the director of AJE, come to tiny Burlington? Al Jazeera has gone to a lot of trouble and spent a lot of the Emir's money to create AJE. They want to break into the American market to influence American public opinion and American foreign policy — for the Emir. Burlington Telecom is one of two cable systems in America to give AJE a cable channel — but the other system is privately owned. Burlington is a pioneer and a guinea pig for AJE in America.

Picture the Emir riding a camel, and America as a tent. Burlington Telecom (BT) is the opening in the tent to get the camel's nose in. But once the camel gets his nose in the tent, the entire camel will soon be in the tent. Today, Burlington — Tomorrow, America.

Report of the committees

Both committees recommended that BT continue its AJE cable channel. The committees recommended that BT adopt a new carriage policy because the present carriage policy is inadequate. By doing so, they are admitting that their recommendation is invalid. The only valid recommendation is one that is the result of a valid process as defined by an adequate and authorized carriage policy. Therefore, the committee's recommendations have no validity.

The city has finally negotiated a contract with Al Jazeera. Because of the ad hoc, extra legal decision-making process that was used, it is questionable whether the city had the authority to make that contract.

Conclusions:

The Emir of Qatar owns and controls Al Jazeera (AJ). He does not have the slightest interest in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, democracy, and openness to other points of view. He uses AJ to glorify himself and to gain political influence in the world.

The people in the Burlington municipal government who aggressively pushed through the decision to put the AJE channel on BT claim to care about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and democracy — but they do not. They rigged the public review process to favor AJE partisans and muffled those who oppose AJE. They suppressed the democratic process and free speech.

APPENDIX B: Highlights of the question and answer and discussion period

The nature of human rights

No one directly questioned my two propositions, but everyone seemed eager to discuss political philosophy — which is a specialty of mine.

A couple of the conservative political philosophers were intensely interested in the source, nature, and limits of our rights. One of them wanted to distinguish between natural rights and positive rights.

I explained that the question is whether our rights come from natural law or from the government. I pointed out that if man has a nature, he has rights and duties in accord with that nature. Such rights are specific and unchanging. In this case, government discovers rights and does not create them.

Jefferson based the Declaration of Independence on natural law and frankly said that the Creator endows men with rights. He mentioned "nature and nature's God" to make it clear he was talking about natural law. Natural law principles can be developed either on the grounds of God or on the grounds of nature — that is to say, human nature. However, since God is the designer and creator of human nature, the arguments are much the same, whether you start from God or nature.

If man has no innate nature but is a changing construct of culture and society, then human rights are politically and culturally determined and are not innate or sacred. In this case, a judge or a legislature can arbitrarily invent rights or abolish rights.

Madison was informed by natural law philosophers when he wrote the Constitution. Freedom of speech was included in the First Amendment to the Constitution because it is an inalienable right based upon natural law principles. Therefore, it cannot be justly taken away by government.

A liberal in the audience cited two great natural law philosophers, St. Thomas Aquinas and Baron Montesquieu. He claimed that according to their philosophy, what you choose is determined by nature — which makes the natural law argument moot. I corrected him and said that both Aquinas and Montesquieu believed that reason and free will is in accord with human nature and natural law. What you choose is not pre-determined. I emphasized that the American founders followed natural law philosophy according to this view of human nature.

I attempted to show this man that he was going down the specious road of determinism — which reduces man to being a mere automaton. He cut me off and would not let me go there. I don't blame him. A debate about determinism is one he was doomed to lose.

I did not have a chance to say so, but he was confused by the concept of nature. Natural law deals with innate human nature. He was thinking of man as a construct of nature — as nature is understood by scientific naturalism. How he managed to project that view of nature into the ideas of Aquinas and Montesquieu is beyond me. The man reads the right philosophers, but is determined to misconstrue them by projecting his own world view upon them.

A liberal in the audience asked if Al Jazeera has the right to freedom of speech — and therefore has the right to their own channel. The topic for general discussion switched to the subject of who has the right to the microphone.

Who has the right to the microphone?

A conservative political philosopher in the crowd argued that freedom of speech does not guarantee everyone full access to every microphone. Al Jazeera does not have a constitutional right to have a cable channel on Burlington Telecom. But they are free to go out and get their own microphone, to start their own station, or to market themselves to privately-owned cable companies that are free to decide whether or not to carry their channel.

However, Burlington Telecom is municipally owned, and is therefore a public channel. Therefore, they must concern themselves with the public interest, democracy, and the question of how to air various points of view. I pointed out that this is why the process of choosing and excluding channels must be guided by a legally defined process that is rational and open to public purview.

A liberal raised the hypothetical question of a Zoroastrian channel. I conceded that the democratic process is no guarantee that there can never be a nutty outcome. However, a rational process that is open to public purview cuts down on arbitrary and biased decisions and works against extreme and marginal programming.

The conversation between conservatives and liberals evolved into a general understanding that precisely because Burlington Telecom is politicized, they must of necessity face many impossible programming dilemmas. Someone raised the option of privatizing Burlington Telecom.

As a guest in Burlingington, I did not want to be the one who originally proposed this option. However, once the option was offered by someone else, I was off to the races.

I said, "As long as Burlington Telecom is an agency of municipal government, it must of necessity become politicized! Because it must inevitably be politicized, the programming dilemmas will be insurmountable. The only solution is to privatize Burlington Telecom. Freedom of the press assumes that the press (or news media) is separate from the government and can criticize the government. This is not possible when the government owns the press." This decisive argument brought a sea change to the discussion.

What was the original mission of Burlington Telecom?

A liberal pointed out that the original vision of Burlington Telecom was to be the foundation for a high technology center in Burlington. A second reason was to avoid the high charges of commercial cable providers.

A Jewish rabbi pointed out that this is what was sold to the city, but that Nulty took Burlington Telecom in a very different direction. The original dreams never materialized. I pointed out that Nulty had no authority to steer Burlington Telecom in a direction other than that which was originally authorized by the city council.

What then shall we do?

Someone asked for my suggestion about what was their recourse as citizens. Here again, I felt that I was the wrong one to introduce the subject. But now that the subject was introduced, I responded, "The American Revolution was a fight for the right to petition the government for redress of grievances."

I suggested that they petition the Auditor of the State of Vermont to do a compliance audit of Burlington Telecom. Beyond that, they should seek legal advice as to other forms of legal redress for the illegal acts that were committed by the government officials of Burlington.

Final rejoinders

One of the liberals asked if I would be happy if due process of law was followed and Al Jazeera was chosen anyway. I said I would not be happy, but would have no grounds to challenge it legally.

The distinguished senior liberal made a couple of final feeble arguments in defense of Al Jazeera. He compared Al Jazeera on the left to Fox News on the right. I characterized that as a moral equivalence that is not equivalent. Fox is a private news organization, and must support itself with advertizing and lives or dies by its popularity with the viewing public. The journalistic policies are not rigidly controlled by the owner — who is satisfied with profitability. Al Jazeera is an extreme and radically different kind of entity, as we have discovered.

The distinguished liberal made one more stab at it. He said that Al Jazeera — English has changed and no longer programs controversial subject matter. I responded that I had originally expected this to be the case, but after studying the Al Jazeera — English web site, had found that they had not mended their ways.

Afterglow

The high spirits I enjoyed as I mingled with the crowd lingered for hours afterward. This is living — to speak truth to a group of people and to freely discuss it with them. To leave knowing that I may have done some good for Vermont and for my country. The whole event was filmed with the purpose of broadcasting it on Vermont public television — so some real change might well come as a result.

As the natural law philosophers teach, using one's God-given gifts to let the truth be known for the good of one's country is a path that can lead to the full flourishing of human nature. John F. Kennedy summarized a concept of Aristotle when he defined happiness as "the full use of the vital powers along the lines of excellence." I had a taste of this kind of happiness in Vermont. I had joy in the land of Oz.

 Click here to see a video of Fred's speech

---

© Fred Hutchison