On the recent Supreme Court decision to allow local governments to sieze private property for economic development:
Eminent development - Supreme Court sides with rich vs. poor
"Jobs, jobs, jobs," is the eternal cry of the economic development lobby, which always stands to profit from whatever abomination is about to be foisted on the public. I'm not arguing that bigger is better or worse, I'm arguing that local governments are likely to seize on any chance to increase their tax base. We've got places in Texas that beg for prisons, chemical complexes, even nuclear waste dumps.
What it doesn't mean is a better place to live, which I gather is what the Supreme Court majority had in mind with this decision. Those who naively trust local governments to make wise decisions clearly haven't been paying attention. The main difference between the feds and the locals is that it costs more to buy the feds. And I don't like cynics.
People have the most remarkable ability to convince themselves that what they are doing is for the greater good if they are also making a great deal of money out of it. Or, as Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
People excuse this kind of thing by saying, "You can't stop progress." "Progress" of this sort doesn't happen through some inexorable law, it usually happens because the law and the political system have been bought by huge economic interests. Corporations can file lawsuits and defend lawsuits longer than a normal human can live, and they can make more generous campaign contributions than any seven homeowners will ever be able to come up with.
On the Downing Street memo:
Dismissing Downing Street - Just because everyone knew it was a setup doesn't mean it's not news
The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have all gone way out of their way to deny that the Downing Street Memos (it's now plural) are news. Like many of you, during the entire lead-up to the war with Iraq, I thought the whole thing was a set-up.
I raise this point not to prove how smart we are, but to emphasize that I followed the debate closely and probably unconsciously searched for evidence that reinforced what I already thought. Most people do that. I read some of the European press and most of the liberal publications in this country. I read the Times, the Post, the Wall Street Journal and several Texas papers every day. It's my job.
But when I read the first Downing Street Memo, my eyes bugged out and my jaw fell open. I could not believe what I was reading. It was news to me, and as I have tried to indicate, I'm no slouch at keeping up. Yes, it has long seemed to me the administration had been planning the war for months before it began its pubic relations campaign to scare a skeptical public.
That was no easy task. Public opinion was still evenly divided at the time we invaded. The administration actually said it could invade another country without even consulting Congress or the United Nations. Pretty much everything that followed was a charade.
It was always weird that the White House kept saying it knew Saddam Hussein had WMD, but it would never tell the U.N. inspectors where.
The very prestigious papers [New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times] that are now dismissing the Downing Street Memos have already themselves admitted that their pre-war coverage was -- I don't know, you pick the adjective. Slack? Inadequate? Less than rigorous? Wrong? And now they're saying, oh hell, this isn't news, we knew it all along.
Michael Kinsley out at the Los Angeles Times, which has certainly done some commendable reporting on this war and taken the heat for it, too, also dismisses the memos. I don't get it. You suddenly get evidence -- I don't know if it proves or just strongly suggests -- that this administration lied to all of us about war, and your reaction is not to go after the administration, but to dismiss the evidence? And to put down the people who are calling you screaming about why you haven't bothered to mention it? What is wrong with this picture?
Also aggravating, the Republicans in Congress refuse to allow hearings. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan held "Democratic hearings," without the R's, in a room described as a large closet, because they were not allowed to use an actual hearing room. Under these difficult circumstances, 30 Democratic representatives persisted in asking the important question, "Were Americans deliberately misled in the lead-up to this war?" When did we come to the point where the minority has no place?
I don't know if these memos represent an impeachable offense -- although I must say, I don't want to bring up the Clinton comparison again. But they strike me as a hell of lot worse than anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated.
On the Bush administration:
The definition of insanity - Bush appointments and comments clearly indicate he's not learning from his mistakes
Sometimes you look at the people Bush appoints to high public office and the only possible response is, "What were they thinking?"
Zalmay Khalilzad for U.S. ambassador to Iraq? Why not just send Richard Perle? Khalilzad is a second-rank neo-con with all the same credentials as the rest of those bozos -- pre-emptive war, world hegemony, Project for a New American Century... the whole stinking lot of it. Plus, he's been a big booster for Iran's ayatollahs, the Afghani Mujahideen and the Taliban, not to mention an oil company consultant. Isn't that just jim-dandy?
What this tells us is that the administration has learned exactly nothing from the past three years of insurgency in Iraq. The 1,700-dead, $1 billion-a-week mistake will continue to be run in exactly the same way we have already proved doesn't work.
It's like Ben Franklin's definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.
As one who has long argued that George W. Bush is not stupid, I must admit that not learning from your mistakes is a prime signal of stupidity. But of course, in order to learn from your mistakes, you have to recognize you made them.
On business clout and influence in politics:
Turning up the sleaze - Welcome to the age of government by transaction
A jaw-dropping article in The Texas Observer shows that two lobbying clients of Jack Abramoff paid $25,000 to Grover Norquist's group for a lunch date and meeting with President George W. Bush in May 2001. Abramoff brought the Indian chiefs to the White house at the request of Norquist, a leading "movement conservative" in Washington. In addition, Abramoff obtained $2.5 million in contributions from the Indians for a nonprofit foundation run by his wife and himself.
The White House guests were the chiefs of two of the six casino-rich Indian tribes represented by Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon, former top aide to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. The $25,000 check from the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana is made out to Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax group founded and directed by Norquist.
Norquist, Abramoff and Karl Rove have worked together for 30 years, since they were national leaders of the College Republicans. Norquist, DeLay and Abramoff are all key players in the "the K Street Project" to turn the Washington lobby corps into an arm of the Republican Party.
For an overview of the entire Abramoff scandal and its relation to Tom DeLay and the K Street Project -- and what all this means in terms of Washington sleaze -- see an article by Elizabeth Drew, "Selling Washington," in the June 23 issue of The New York Review of Books. Drew and other students of Washington corruption conclude what we have here is not so much a difference in kind as in degree of corruption -- but of a degree that's making a difference in everything.
Drew writes, "The effects of the new, higher level of corruption on the way the country is governed are profound. Not only is legislation increasingly skewed to benefit the richest interests, but Congress itself has been changed. The head of a public policy strategy group told me: 'It's not about governing any more. The Congress is now a transactional institution. ...' The theory that ours is a system of one-person, one-vote, or even that it's a representative democracy, is challenged by the reality of power and who really wields it. (Massachusetts Rep.) Barney Frank argues that 'the political system was supposed to overcome the financial advantage of the capitalists, but as money becomes more and more influential, it doesn't work that way.'"
Molly has lots of material which you should go give it a look. Go here for a list of her opinion columns.
Technorati Categories: Opinion, Politics, Random Thoughts.
RSS
No comments:
Post a Comment