Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court approved New London, Connecticut's attempts to forcibly seize several private homes so the city could sell the land to a developer who wanted to build a huge commercial complex. This was a result of the Court's refusal to be 'activist' and of its reflexive deference to legislatures at the expense of individual Constitutional rights. Do rights really exist if they can be erased by a few politicians? I objected to this on several levels.
The most straightforward objection is that the ruling was based on a misinterpretation of a fairly straightforward constitutional clause. New London used eminent domain to seize the houses. The 5th Amendment to the document concludes: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Eminent domain is authorized in the Constitution, but not in the way New London used it. Typically, eminent domain is used for infrastructure projects like roads and bridges, stuff that is open to and used by the public.
The developers New London wanted to give the forcibly seized land to wanted to build a hotel, health club and offices. The idea is that the public will derive a benefit because these commercial enterprises will generate more tax revenue than would simple houses. That tax revenue could be used to improve services or lower the property tax rate.
There's one problem: the Constitution authorizes land be taken for public USE, not simply for some alleged public BENEFIT. Unless New London residents can stay for free in the hotel or use the health club for free, then the complex is not intended for public USE. If the complex's owners can ban protesters or other expressions of free speech (something that can't be done on public land), then the complex is not intended for public use.
I also opposed this because I was afraid eminent domain would be used for social engineering, to kick out poor or middle income residents and replace them with rich people or with businesses that cater to rich people.
"Far-fetched, Chicken Little rantings!" you say.
It's already happening in Riviera Beach, Florida, according to this article in The Los Angeles Times,
In what has been called the largest eminent-domain case in the nation, the mayor and other elected leaders want to move about 6,000 residents, tear down their homes and use the emptied 400-acre site to build a waterfront yachting and residential complex for the well-to-do.
According to the city, the project create a city respected for its community pride and purpose and reshape it into a most desirable urban [place] to live, work, shop, and relax for its residents, business and visitors.
Almost 20 percent of the city's population would be forcibly evicted (with compensation, because apparently that makes it ok) as a result of this social engineering monstrosity.
Economic conventional wisdom tells us that respect for private property is the anchor of our entire capitalist system, a main reason why the US is more prosperous than African and Latin American countries. But does private property really exist if the government can just seize it to you and give to big developers on a whim?
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Friday, December 09, 2005
Thanks for nothing FIFA!
Could someone explain to me this?
The US has won two of their last three competitive matches against Mexico, including a famous 2-0 win in the last World Cup in Korea. The US won the most recent CONCACAF (North/Central America and Carribbean) championship with Mexico crashing out at the quarterfinal stage. The US also won the CONCACAF World Cup qualifying group, ahead of Mexico. Yet somehow Mexico got a top seed for the 2006 World Cup qualifying draw and the US didn't. (In reality, neither deserved it, but certainly Mexico was less deserving)
As a result, the US got paired with European powerhouses Italy and the Czech Republic as well as four-time African champions Ghana.
Mexico will have to face perpetual underachiever Portugal and minnows Iran and Angola.
Thanks for nothing FIFA!
(Incidentally, several non-seeded countries, like the Czech Republic, Holland and the US, were ranked above seeded countries like England and Italy, in FIFA's computer rankings. I realize that the rankings generated by soccer's world governing body are completely worthless from a sporting perspective. But if FIFA is not even going to use them to figure out seeds, then why bother having them at all? What's point of saying the Czechs are #2 in the world if six lower ranked teams are going to get preferential treatment come seeding time?)
The US has won two of their last three competitive matches against Mexico, including a famous 2-0 win in the last World Cup in Korea. The US won the most recent CONCACAF (North/Central America and Carribbean) championship with Mexico crashing out at the quarterfinal stage. The US also won the CONCACAF World Cup qualifying group, ahead of Mexico. Yet somehow Mexico got a top seed for the 2006 World Cup qualifying draw and the US didn't. (In reality, neither deserved it, but certainly Mexico was less deserving)
As a result, the US got paired with European powerhouses Italy and the Czech Republic as well as four-time African champions Ghana.
Mexico will have to face perpetual underachiever Portugal and minnows Iran and Angola.
Thanks for nothing FIFA!
(Incidentally, several non-seeded countries, like the Czech Republic, Holland and the US, were ranked above seeded countries like England and Italy, in FIFA's computer rankings. I realize that the rankings generated by soccer's world governing body are completely worthless from a sporting perspective. But if FIFA is not even going to use them to figure out seeds, then why bother having them at all? What's point of saying the Czechs are #2 in the world if six lower ranked teams are going to get preferential treatment come seeding time?)
Clear as mud
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice insisted that rules against torture apply to American personnel, whether they are inside or outside the United States.
It's very charitable of her, but I don't know if how much it really clarifies
After all, high-ranking administration officials can't even agree amongst themselves about what those rules are!
It's very charitable of her, but I don't know if how much it really clarifies
After all, high-ranking administration officials can't even agree amongst themselves about what those rules are!
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Paper to pedestrians: Drop Dead!
The outgoing mayor and council in Glens Falls approved a multi-million dollar roundabout for the five-corner intersection in the city's downtown. Mayor-elect Roy Akins said he would revisit the boondoggle. He was taken to task for it in a snide little editorial (do they write any other kind?) in The Post-Star.
The paper writes:
Read this out loud.
One Mississippi. Two Mississippi. Three Mississippi. Four Mississippi ...
... five Mississippi. Six Mississippi. Seven Mississippi. Eight Mississippi. Nine Mississippi. Mississippi. 11 Mississippi. 12 Mississippi. 13 Mississippi. 14 Mississippi. 15 Mississippi. 16 Mississippi. 17 Mississippi. 18 Mississippi. 19 Mississippi. 20 Mississippi. 21 Mississippi. 22 Mississippi. 23 Mississippi. 24 Mississippi. 25 Mississippi. 26 Mississippi. 27 Mississippi. 28 Mississippi. 29 Mississippi. 30 Mississippi. 31 Mississippi. 32 Mississippi. 33 Mississippi. 34 Mississippi. 35 Mississippi. 36 Mississippi. 37 Mississippi. 38 Mississippi. 39 Mississippi. 40 Mississippi. 41 Mississippi. 42 Mississippi. 43 Mississippi. 44 Mississippi. 45 Mississippi. 46 Mississippi. 47 Mississippi. 48 Mississippi. 49 Mississippi. 50 Mississippi. 51 Mississippi. 52 Mississippi. 53 Mississippi. 54 Mississippi. 55 Mississippi. 56 Mississippi. 57 Mississippi. 58 Mississippi. 59 Mississippi. 60 Mississippi. 61 Mississippi. 62 Mississippi. 63 Mississippi. 64 Mississippi. 65 Mississippi. 66 Mississippi. Mississippi. 67 Mississippi. 68 Mississippi. 69 Mississippi. 70 Mississippi. 71 Mississippi. 72 Mississippi. 73 Mississippi. 74 Mississippi. 75 Mississippi. 76 Mississippi. 77 Mississippi. 78 Mississippi. 79 Mississippi. 80 Mississippi. 81 Mississippi. 82 Mississippi. 83 Mississippi. 84 Mississippi. 85 Mississippi. 86 Mississippi. 87 Mississippi. 88 Mississippi. 89 Mississippi. 90 Mississippi. 91 Mississippi. 92 Mississippi. 93 Mississippi. 94 Mississippi. 95 Mississippi. 96 Mississippi. 97 Mississippi. 98 Mississippi. 99 Mississippi. 100 Mississippi. 101 Mississippi. 102 Mississippi. 103 Mississippi. 104 Mississippi. 105 Mississippi. 106 Mississippi. 107 Mississippi. 108 Mississippi. 109 Mississippi. 110 Mississippi. 111 Mississippi. 112 Mississippi. 113 Mississippi. 114 Mississippi. 115 Mississippi. 116 Mississippi. 117 Mississippi. 118 Mississippi. 119 Mississippi. 120 Mississippi.
One hundred-twenty seconds. Two minutes. That's how long it can take for just one turn of the traffic light at the five-way intersection in downtown Glens Falls. That's how much time you waste sitting in your car waiting to get to your destination. And that's assuming you get through the intersection the first time. If you don't make it, you have to start the count over. One Mississippi. Two Mississippi ...
In a roundabout, traffic is moving constantly. That's the roundabout's appeal.
It's also its downfall.
While non-stop traffic is great for drivers, it's hell for pedestrians. How can you cross the street if there's never a break in traffic?
If the roundabout is constructed, pedestrians may have to wait through SEVERAL '120 Mississippi' in order to simply cross the street, especially during rush hours.
And before dismissing such analysis as the ideological rantings of a leftie/Green/utopian as some might, it's worth noting one simple, indisputable fact: in order to be a customer at any downtown business, except Burger King's drive-thru, you must leave your car and WALK into a building. (Unless you're one of those countercultural freaks who doesn't drive everywhere in the first place)
But this fact wasn't considered when the roundabout was being discussed.
And this really gets to the heart of the debate over downtown's future: pedestrians (and bicyclists and users of public transportation) are never taken into consideration when such discussions occur.
(Actually, the editorial did make a token reference to pedestrians. The essence was "It's already hard for pedestrians to cross the street and they're used to the hassle, so who cares if it gets a little harder?")
The outgoing administration and The Post-Star aren't overtly hostile to pedestrians; they're not advocating walkers be run over. Pedestrians simply don't enter into their mindset. They just don't factor pedestrians in to any equation. And it really doesn't make sense.
As I mentioned before, in order to be frequent a downtown business, you MUST become a pedestrian. Yet the roundabout's purpose is to make it easier to drive through the business district without stopping or slowing down?
The roundabout will make it harder for people to be pedestrians and thus frequent downtown shops and restraurants while making it easier to drive past those places without giving them a second look. The Northway (Interstate 87 from Albany north to the Canadian border) offered the same 'convenience' and we see how it ruined the business districts of countless Adirondack towns.
So why does The Post-Star think this is such a brilliant idea?
The incoming mayor shouldn't revisit the counterproductive boondoggle roundabout; he should summarily rubbish the idea altogether.
Update: The very same issue of the paper notes that the city's debt is approaching $17 million. The roundabout boondoggle would add at least another $3 million to that total.
The paper writes:
Read this out loud.
One Mississippi. Two Mississippi. Three Mississippi. Four Mississippi ...
... five Mississippi. Six Mississippi. Seven Mississippi. Eight Mississippi. Nine Mississippi. Mississippi. 11 Mississippi. 12 Mississippi. 13 Mississippi. 14 Mississippi. 15 Mississippi. 16 Mississippi. 17 Mississippi. 18 Mississippi. 19 Mississippi. 20 Mississippi. 21 Mississippi. 22 Mississippi. 23 Mississippi. 24 Mississippi. 25 Mississippi. 26 Mississippi. 27 Mississippi. 28 Mississippi. 29 Mississippi. 30 Mississippi. 31 Mississippi. 32 Mississippi. 33 Mississippi. 34 Mississippi. 35 Mississippi. 36 Mississippi. 37 Mississippi. 38 Mississippi. 39 Mississippi. 40 Mississippi. 41 Mississippi. 42 Mississippi. 43 Mississippi. 44 Mississippi. 45 Mississippi. 46 Mississippi. 47 Mississippi. 48 Mississippi. 49 Mississippi. 50 Mississippi. 51 Mississippi. 52 Mississippi. 53 Mississippi. 54 Mississippi. 55 Mississippi. 56 Mississippi. 57 Mississippi. 58 Mississippi. 59 Mississippi. 60 Mississippi. 61 Mississippi. 62 Mississippi. 63 Mississippi. 64 Mississippi. 65 Mississippi. 66 Mississippi. Mississippi. 67 Mississippi. 68 Mississippi. 69 Mississippi. 70 Mississippi. 71 Mississippi. 72 Mississippi. 73 Mississippi. 74 Mississippi. 75 Mississippi. 76 Mississippi. 77 Mississippi. 78 Mississippi. 79 Mississippi. 80 Mississippi. 81 Mississippi. 82 Mississippi. 83 Mississippi. 84 Mississippi. 85 Mississippi. 86 Mississippi. 87 Mississippi. 88 Mississippi. 89 Mississippi. 90 Mississippi. 91 Mississippi. 92 Mississippi. 93 Mississippi. 94 Mississippi. 95 Mississippi. 96 Mississippi. 97 Mississippi. 98 Mississippi. 99 Mississippi. 100 Mississippi. 101 Mississippi. 102 Mississippi. 103 Mississippi. 104 Mississippi. 105 Mississippi. 106 Mississippi. 107 Mississippi. 108 Mississippi. 109 Mississippi. 110 Mississippi. 111 Mississippi. 112 Mississippi. 113 Mississippi. 114 Mississippi. 115 Mississippi. 116 Mississippi. 117 Mississippi. 118 Mississippi. 119 Mississippi. 120 Mississippi.
One hundred-twenty seconds. Two minutes. That's how long it can take for just one turn of the traffic light at the five-way intersection in downtown Glens Falls. That's how much time you waste sitting in your car waiting to get to your destination. And that's assuming you get through the intersection the first time. If you don't make it, you have to start the count over. One Mississippi. Two Mississippi ...
In a roundabout, traffic is moving constantly. That's the roundabout's appeal.
It's also its downfall.
While non-stop traffic is great for drivers, it's hell for pedestrians. How can you cross the street if there's never a break in traffic?
If the roundabout is constructed, pedestrians may have to wait through SEVERAL '120 Mississippi' in order to simply cross the street, especially during rush hours.
And before dismissing such analysis as the ideological rantings of a leftie/Green/utopian as some might, it's worth noting one simple, indisputable fact: in order to be a customer at any downtown business, except Burger King's drive-thru, you must leave your car and WALK into a building. (Unless you're one of those countercultural freaks who doesn't drive everywhere in the first place)
But this fact wasn't considered when the roundabout was being discussed.
And this really gets to the heart of the debate over downtown's future: pedestrians (and bicyclists and users of public transportation) are never taken into consideration when such discussions occur.
(Actually, the editorial did make a token reference to pedestrians. The essence was "It's already hard for pedestrians to cross the street and they're used to the hassle, so who cares if it gets a little harder?")
The outgoing administration and The Post-Star aren't overtly hostile to pedestrians; they're not advocating walkers be run over. Pedestrians simply don't enter into their mindset. They just don't factor pedestrians in to any equation. And it really doesn't make sense.
As I mentioned before, in order to be frequent a downtown business, you MUST become a pedestrian. Yet the roundabout's purpose is to make it easier to drive through the business district without stopping or slowing down?
The roundabout will make it harder for people to be pedestrians and thus frequent downtown shops and restraurants while making it easier to drive past those places without giving them a second look. The Northway (Interstate 87 from Albany north to the Canadian border) offered the same 'convenience' and we see how it ruined the business districts of countless Adirondack towns.
So why does The Post-Star think this is such a brilliant idea?
The incoming mayor shouldn't revisit the counterproductive boondoggle roundabout; he should summarily rubbish the idea altogether.
Update: The very same issue of the paper notes that the city's debt is approaching $17 million. The roundabout boondoggle would add at least another $3 million to that total.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Pro-war pols visit upstate New York
Two visits yesterday by political illuminati made news in upstate New York's media today.
Vice-President Dick Cheney paid a visit to Fort Drum, near Watertown, in northern New York. He offered the usual strident rhetoric about fighting against Evil, struggling for freedom and liberty (said breathlessly) and the like. No mention of how torture (which he so eagerly defended) fits into that whole freedom and liberty thing.
He offered the usual vague platitudes like 'Stay the course' and 'Don't cut and run' without bothering to get specific about what that course is. He surely hopes that the self-righteous indignation in his tone will mask the lack of substance of his words. To the administration, warmed over cliches, obfuscation, deception and belligerent rhetoric are substitutes for a real, well-thought out plan.
Near the end of a North Country Public Radio report on Cheney's visit, a reporter interviewed an anti-war protester who'd gathered some distance away (because of 'security reasons'). The protester said he had a sign that read, "Torture and prisoner abuse is never justified."
He said one genius passerby rolled down his window and told the protester, "If you don't like it, why don't you move to Iraq?"
That's about as brilliant as saying, "If you don't like traffic, why don't you move to Los Angeles?"
Closer to home, Sen. Hillary Clinton attended a local Democratic county fundraiser and a few other events.
Clinton was met by a number of Democratic and liberal anti-war activists protesting her support for the Iraq aggression.
Well, she would've been met by the protesters except she slipped in the back door so as to avoid them. Perhaps she has more in common with the president than she realizes.
One man was protesting separately Clinton's position on partial birth abortion. If he believes that the procedure constitutes the killing of innocent human life, then perhaps he has more in common with the anti-war protesters than he realizes.
Update: Rather than work on a viable resolution to the Iraq mess, Clinton has been busy pandering to the right (her natural consistuency, of course) by proposing a ludicruous bill criminalizing flag burning. Rather than address serious problems, she's spending time on this never-was-an-issue.
[T]he senator's staff did not have any immediate examples of actual New York flag-burnings in the recent past, notes a New York Times editorial. It's telling that an almost non-existent thing like flag burning outrage her but war does not. Political protest should be criminalized, but not international aggression.
Hurting a veteran's feelings may be socially unacceptable, but it shouldn't be a criminal offense... though this seems to be the direction the country's going in.
Vice-President Dick Cheney paid a visit to Fort Drum, near Watertown, in northern New York. He offered the usual strident rhetoric about fighting against Evil, struggling for freedom and liberty (said breathlessly) and the like. No mention of how torture (which he so eagerly defended) fits into that whole freedom and liberty thing.
He offered the usual vague platitudes like 'Stay the course' and 'Don't cut and run' without bothering to get specific about what that course is. He surely hopes that the self-righteous indignation in his tone will mask the lack of substance of his words. To the administration, warmed over cliches, obfuscation, deception and belligerent rhetoric are substitutes for a real, well-thought out plan.
Near the end of a North Country Public Radio report on Cheney's visit, a reporter interviewed an anti-war protester who'd gathered some distance away (because of 'security reasons'). The protester said he had a sign that read, "Torture and prisoner abuse is never justified."
He said one genius passerby rolled down his window and told the protester, "If you don't like it, why don't you move to Iraq?"
That's about as brilliant as saying, "If you don't like traffic, why don't you move to Los Angeles?"
Closer to home, Sen. Hillary Clinton attended a local Democratic county fundraiser and a few other events.
Clinton was met by a number of Democratic and liberal anti-war activists protesting her support for the Iraq aggression.
Well, she would've been met by the protesters except she slipped in the back door so as to avoid them. Perhaps she has more in common with the president than she realizes.
One man was protesting separately Clinton's position on partial birth abortion. If he believes that the procedure constitutes the killing of innocent human life, then perhaps he has more in common with the anti-war protesters than he realizes.
Update: Rather than work on a viable resolution to the Iraq mess, Clinton has been busy pandering to the right (her natural consistuency, of course) by proposing a ludicruous bill criminalizing flag burning. Rather than address serious problems, she's spending time on this never-was-an-issue.
[T]he senator's staff did not have any immediate examples of actual New York flag-burnings in the recent past, notes a New York Times editorial. It's telling that an almost non-existent thing like flag burning outrage her but war does not. Political protest should be criminalized, but not international aggression.
Hurting a veteran's feelings may be socially unacceptable, but it shouldn't be a criminal offense... though this seems to be the direction the country's going in.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
"All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." -Lord Acton
One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration is its refusal to listen to anything that goes against its preconceived notions. Another is its use of overt politicization and cronyism to ruin previously competent organizations.
The results of cronyism at the Federal Emergency Management Agency became apparent during Hurricane Katrina. It was reported that five of the top eight officials [going into Katrina] at FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had little experience in handling disasters and owed their jobs to their political ties to Bush..
It is unprecedented to appoint friends to high ranking positions? Of course not. But a smart president will make sure such appointees are surrounded by well-qualified deputies.
The administration also sabotaged the previously non-partisan Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB was designed to be a shield for public broadcasting from political pressure. But former director Ken Tomlinson was a beacon of partisanship, hiring G.O.P. consultants as ludicrous bias-control monitors, notes a New York Times editorial. Ludicrous to the point that Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican and friend of the president, was absurdly labelled by Tomlinson's snoopers as 'anti-Bush.'
Furthermore, the monitoring activity concluded PBS (public television) liberal bias primarily on the basis of a single program, NOW with Bill Moyers, instead of looking at the totality of PBS' public affairs output. The same applied to National Public Radio and the Diane Rehm Show. Conveniently, alleged liberal bias in public broadcasting is something the far right has complained about for years. The monitors concluded exactly what they were paid to conclude. Pre-conceived notions were affirmed.
Even more ludicrous is that Tomlinson recruited as his successor, Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. So a woman who was named to lead what's supposed to be non-partisan corporation held a previous job whose SOLE PUPROSE is partisan activity. It would be as if a future Democratic president appointed Howard Dean to the same position.
Tomlinson was involved in the creation of a PBS show, the conservative Journal Editorial Report, in violation of the CPB's own guidelines. This, according to a report issued by the CPB's independent inspector general.
Now we find out another example of Republican corruption: "gerrymandering in Texas.
Bush Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan, reports The Washington Post.
The lawyers are civil service bureaucrats there on merit. Senior officials are political appointees of the administration of the day.
(Former GOP majority leader DeLay has since been indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges)
Gerrymandering isn't a uniquely GOP phenemon. Here in New York state, it's a bipartisan affair. Senate Republicans collude with Assembly Democrats to protect incumbent majority party legislators as much as possible. The difference is that they are clever enough to do it in a way that barely passes the legality test.
Though not particularly 'sexy,' I happen to think gerrymandering is a big issue. Legend has it that because of this manipulation, the New York state legislature has a higher incumbent re-election rate than the communist Chinese National Assembly. In the 2004 elections, four incumbent senators (there are 62 seats in the chamber) were defeated at the polls... and this was considered a revoution! Gerrymandering is the best way to minimize accountability for legislators and it must not be tolerated.
That's why each state should have an independent electoral redistricting commission, instead of having it done by partisan legislators who have a vested interest in preserving their jobs. To my knowledge, Iowa is the only state that has such a commission... and it has the highest proportion in the country of competitive Congressional races.
And a finally come these comments from Rep. John Murtha. The hawkish, pro-military Democrat made waves recently by calling for a speedy (not immediate) withdrawal from Iraq. But the more interesting remarks came yesterday. He claims that US commanders on the ground in Iraq support withdrawal but are afraid to make their position known to the president for fear they will be fired. It is more than plausible, in a Bush administration that equates disagreement with disloyalty.
Unfortunately, it's precisely the administration's refusal to consider unpleasant facts that led to the mess in Iraq in the first place.
Some critics of the president maliciously revel in calling him an idiot or stupid. I don't know what his IQ is and I really don't care. To belittle his intelligence is not only mean-spirited and reflects worse on the taunter than on the president, but it completely misses the point. The biggest character flaw of both the president and the vice-president isn't their intelligence; by all accounts, the vice-president is extremely smart and intelligence isn't an issue of character anyway. Their grossest character flaw is that they are closed-minded.
Everyone makes poor decisions, but closed-minded people make them more often and more grieviously because they won't listen to anyone else. And closed-minded people choose not to see their mistakes, or simply refuse to acknowledge that they make any. As a result, their mistakes are prolonged by their refusal to change course when cirumstances would logically dictate as much. Staying the course isn't courageous when it means beating your head against a stone wall a few hundred more times in the hopes that your head is so special and your will so strong that you can defy the laws of physics; it's simply stupid.
One of the hallmarks of the Bush administration is its refusal to listen to anything that goes against its preconceived notions. Another is its use of overt politicization and cronyism to ruin previously competent organizations.
The results of cronyism at the Federal Emergency Management Agency became apparent during Hurricane Katrina. It was reported that five of the top eight officials [going into Katrina] at FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had little experience in handling disasters and owed their jobs to their political ties to Bush..
It is unprecedented to appoint friends to high ranking positions? Of course not. But a smart president will make sure such appointees are surrounded by well-qualified deputies.
The administration also sabotaged the previously non-partisan Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). The CPB was designed to be a shield for public broadcasting from political pressure. But former director Ken Tomlinson was a beacon of partisanship, hiring G.O.P. consultants as ludicrous bias-control monitors, notes a New York Times editorial. Ludicrous to the point that Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican and friend of the president, was absurdly labelled by Tomlinson's snoopers as 'anti-Bush.'
Furthermore, the monitoring activity concluded PBS (public television) liberal bias primarily on the basis of a single program, NOW with Bill Moyers, instead of looking at the totality of PBS' public affairs output. The same applied to National Public Radio and the Diane Rehm Show. Conveniently, alleged liberal bias in public broadcasting is something the far right has complained about for years. The monitors concluded exactly what they were paid to conclude. Pre-conceived notions were affirmed.
Even more ludicrous is that Tomlinson recruited as his successor, Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee. So a woman who was named to lead what's supposed to be non-partisan corporation held a previous job whose SOLE PUPROSE is partisan activity. It would be as if a future Democratic president appointed Howard Dean to the same position.
Tomlinson was involved in the creation of a PBS show, the conservative Journal Editorial Report, in violation of the CPB's own guidelines. This, according to a report issued by the CPB's independent inspector general.
Now we find out another example of Republican corruption: "gerrymandering in Texas.
Bush Justice Department lawyers concluded that the landmark Texas congressional redistricting plan spearheaded by Rep. Tom DeLay (R) violated the Voting Rights Act, according to a previously undisclosed memo obtained by The Washington Post. But senior officials overruled them and approved the plan, reports The Washington Post.
The lawyers are civil service bureaucrats there on merit. Senior officials are political appointees of the administration of the day.
(Former GOP majority leader DeLay has since been indicted on money laundering and conspiracy charges)
Gerrymandering isn't a uniquely GOP phenemon. Here in New York state, it's a bipartisan affair. Senate Republicans collude with Assembly Democrats to protect incumbent majority party legislators as much as possible. The difference is that they are clever enough to do it in a way that barely passes the legality test.
Though not particularly 'sexy,' I happen to think gerrymandering is a big issue. Legend has it that because of this manipulation, the New York state legislature has a higher incumbent re-election rate than the communist Chinese National Assembly. In the 2004 elections, four incumbent senators (there are 62 seats in the chamber) were defeated at the polls... and this was considered a revoution! Gerrymandering is the best way to minimize accountability for legislators and it must not be tolerated.
That's why each state should have an independent electoral redistricting commission, instead of having it done by partisan legislators who have a vested interest in preserving their jobs. To my knowledge, Iowa is the only state that has such a commission... and it has the highest proportion in the country of competitive Congressional races.
And a finally come these comments from Rep. John Murtha. The hawkish, pro-military Democrat made waves recently by calling for a speedy (not immediate) withdrawal from Iraq. But the more interesting remarks came yesterday. He claims that US commanders on the ground in Iraq support withdrawal but are afraid to make their position known to the president for fear they will be fired. It is more than plausible, in a Bush administration that equates disagreement with disloyalty.
Unfortunately, it's precisely the administration's refusal to consider unpleasant facts that led to the mess in Iraq in the first place.
Some critics of the president maliciously revel in calling him an idiot or stupid. I don't know what his IQ is and I really don't care. To belittle his intelligence is not only mean-spirited and reflects worse on the taunter than on the president, but it completely misses the point. The biggest character flaw of both the president and the vice-president isn't their intelligence; by all accounts, the vice-president is extremely smart and intelligence isn't an issue of character anyway. Their grossest character flaw is that they are closed-minded.
Everyone makes poor decisions, but closed-minded people make them more often and more grieviously because they won't listen to anyone else. And closed-minded people choose not to see their mistakes, or simply refuse to acknowledge that they make any. As a result, their mistakes are prolonged by their refusal to change course when cirumstances would logically dictate as much. Staying the course isn't courageous when it means beating your head against a stone wall a few hundred more times in the hopes that your head is so special and your will so strong that you can defy the laws of physics; it's simply stupid.
Friday, December 02, 2005
If only Bush had listened to... himself
Forget the fact that the president didn't listen anyone else who didn't tell him what he wanted to hear on Iraq. Imagine how much trouble would've been avoided if he'd simply listened to... himself.
"Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the [Balkan] peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious."
-George W. Bush, presidential debate, October 11, 2000.
Other choice quotes from him on that date:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be."
"I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use."
"Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the [Balkan] peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious."
-George W. Bush, presidential debate, October 11, 2000.
Other choice quotes from him on that date:
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be."
"I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use."
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Trade Mike O'Connell!
Usually when I write about sports, it's about soccer. But I'm going to touch on a little ice hockey news today.
I was floored to read this morning that the Boston Bruins had traded Joe Thornton. The B's sent their captain, best player, team leader and public face of the team to San Jose for three average players.
Boston has been struggling this year, due mainly to their inability to win close games; they're 2-11 in games decided by one goal. Their defense is weak and they lack players with grit and character. So the solution is to get rid of their leading scorer, a player who combines skill and power. Their solution is to get rid of the one player who strikes fear into the heart of opposing defenses and coaches. Their solution is to get rid of such their only player capable of carrying the team when necessary.
This is a way for the team to say to it's fans, "We're throwing in the towel already and admitting that this is going to be YET ANOTHER wasted season." Years of patiently building a team around captain Thornton have been thrown out the window and Bruins fans will suffer at least five more years of "re-building" that the management will probably fine some way to screw up in the end as well.
Harry Sinden served as Bruins' general manager from 1972, a few months after Boston's last Stanley Cup title, until 1996. Current GM Mike O'Connell apprenticed under Sinden and then succeeded him. Sinden was legendary for making stupid moves that screwed up successful teams. And apparently he passed his "knowledge" along to protégé O'Connell.
The Sinden/O'Connell 33 year reign of incompetence has exactly coincided with the longest period in team history without a Stanley Cup. When they trade one of their best player for a trio of question marks, you come to understand why.
Update: Widely respected Boston Globe columnist Kevin Paul DuPont offers a dissenting view.
Update 2: I guess this shows how much I know.
I was floored to read this morning that the Boston Bruins had traded Joe Thornton. The B's sent their captain, best player, team leader and public face of the team to San Jose for three average players.
Boston has been struggling this year, due mainly to their inability to win close games; they're 2-11 in games decided by one goal. Their defense is weak and they lack players with grit and character. So the solution is to get rid of their leading scorer, a player who combines skill and power. Their solution is to get rid of the one player who strikes fear into the heart of opposing defenses and coaches. Their solution is to get rid of such their only player capable of carrying the team when necessary.
This is a way for the team to say to it's fans, "We're throwing in the towel already and admitting that this is going to be YET ANOTHER wasted season." Years of patiently building a team around captain Thornton have been thrown out the window and Bruins fans will suffer at least five more years of "re-building" that the management will probably fine some way to screw up in the end as well.
Harry Sinden served as Bruins' general manager from 1972, a few months after Boston's last Stanley Cup title, until 1996. Current GM Mike O'Connell apprenticed under Sinden and then succeeded him. Sinden was legendary for making stupid moves that screwed up successful teams. And apparently he passed his "knowledge" along to protégé O'Connell.
The Sinden/O'Connell 33 year reign of incompetence has exactly coincided with the longest period in team history without a Stanley Cup. When they trade one of their best player for a trio of question marks, you come to understand why.
Update: Widely respected Boston Globe columnist Kevin Paul DuPont offers a dissenting view.
Update 2: I guess this shows how much I know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)