This essay is part of an occasional feature on this blog that presents compelling stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, IsraelStine and the Trumped Up Enemy of the Month. A list of all pieces in this series can be found found here.
Today is World Humanitarian Day. The date was chosen because it marked the anniversary of the homicide bombing of the UN compound in Baghdad which killed 22 UN workers including former Human Rights Commissioner Sergio Vieria de Mello.
Humanitarian aid workers have always been in harm's way but they are suffering greater and greater numbers of casualties in recent years. This is not down to bad luck but rather to an intentional strategy by warring parties.
As a Peace Corps Volunteer in Guinea, which at the time hosted one of the largest refugee populations in the world, I made the acquaintance of many humanitarian aid workers. I visited a refugee camp and it gave me some idea of the absolutely miserable conditions these aid workers labor under.
Because of this and other direct interactions, I've come to consider humanitarian aid workers as the heroes of Humanity. The majority of western aid workers are people who could easily have remained at home in comfortable, air-conditioned apartments in London or New York but have chosen of their own free will to go to the worst places in the world in order to feed the starving and heal the sick.
It's also worth remembering that most big aid organizations also rely heavily on staff who are nationals of the countries in question. These are people who could very easily and understandably flee the conflict in their land but choose to stick around and help people who would otherwise suffer in misery or die.
I can think of no more noble calling.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Terrorism works by provoking self-destruction
There's been a lot of controversy about the mosque and community center to be built several blocks away from the Ground Zero site in Manhattan. Apparently, some people truly believed the line that 'they' hate us for our freedom so they're trying to remedy this problem by eradicating the freedom part.
Do opponents of the project object to its services for the elderly? Its day care program? The 9/11 memorial that it will house?
The religious bigotry underpinning the controversy has been whipped by venal, self-serving politicians, who are behind most forms of bigotry. The issue was first seized upon by Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino. These Republican candidates for governor are light years behind in the polls to Democratic front-runner Andrew Cuomo and they fabricated this issue in a pathetic attempt to get people to pay attention to them.
The hypocrisy was amplified when both of these 'men' proposed using eminent domain to stop the project. So these conservatives, who brag about supporting 'limiting government,' proposed using the government bludgeon to suppress both freedom of religion and private property rights.
Of course, the usual cacaphony of hatemongers like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck didn't miss their chance to stoke the fires of ignorance.
Some claim that their opposition is not to any mosque/community center but only to the location of this particular one. Those this page shows some of the other things that are even closer to sacred site.
There are no doubt some who oppose the project solely because its location. Perhaps in an ideal world, it would not have been built so close to the former Twin Towers' site. However, as the project's spokesman pointed out, real estate in lower Manhattan is neither abundant nor cheap.
But the reality is that much of the opposition is really based on religious bigotry. This article in The New York Times points out that opposition has arisen mosque building projects in places like Tennessee, Wisconsin and California.
As a representative of a California mosque/community center project pointed out, local Muslim families had contributed to the local food bank, sent truckloads of supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council. "We do all these activities and nobody notices,” he said. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue.”
For some, 'too close to Ground Zero' for an Islamic site really means 'anywhere in America.'
If this is what Sarah Palin's sickening 'real America' is all about, then I'll stay here in the 'fake America' that was founded as a haven for religious tolerance and believes in freedom and other civilized values.
A good part of our foreign policy is based encouraging moderate Muslims to stand up for themselves against the violent, extremist strand of their faith and to support them when they do. So what's our strategy at home? To tar them all with the same brush. To act like all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and that they should all face the collective punishment of being allowed nowhere even remotely near the site.
Yogi Berra famously said the secret of baseball management was to keep the guys who hated you away from the guys who were undecided.
It's a good national security strategy too, one that conservatives would be wise to follow.
Do opponents of the project object to its services for the elderly? Its day care program? The 9/11 memorial that it will house?
The religious bigotry underpinning the controversy has been whipped by venal, self-serving politicians, who are behind most forms of bigotry. The issue was first seized upon by Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino. These Republican candidates for governor are light years behind in the polls to Democratic front-runner Andrew Cuomo and they fabricated this issue in a pathetic attempt to get people to pay attention to them.
The hypocrisy was amplified when both of these 'men' proposed using eminent domain to stop the project. So these conservatives, who brag about supporting 'limiting government,' proposed using the government bludgeon to suppress both freedom of religion and private property rights.
Of course, the usual cacaphony of hatemongers like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck didn't miss their chance to stoke the fires of ignorance.
Some claim that their opposition is not to any mosque/community center but only to the location of this particular one. Those this page shows some of the other things that are even closer to sacred site.
There are no doubt some who oppose the project solely because its location. Perhaps in an ideal world, it would not have been built so close to the former Twin Towers' site. However, as the project's spokesman pointed out, real estate in lower Manhattan is neither abundant nor cheap.
But the reality is that much of the opposition is really based on religious bigotry. This article in The New York Times points out that opposition has arisen mosque building projects in places like Tennessee, Wisconsin and California.
As a representative of a California mosque/community center project pointed out, local Muslim families had contributed to the local food bank, sent truckloads of supplies to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and participated in music nights and Thanksgiving events with the local interfaith council. "We do all these activities and nobody notices,” he said. “Now that we have to build our center, everybody jumps to make it an issue.”
For some, 'too close to Ground Zero' for an Islamic site really means 'anywhere in America.'
If this is what Sarah Palin's sickening 'real America' is all about, then I'll stay here in the 'fake America' that was founded as a haven for religious tolerance and believes in freedom and other civilized values.
A good part of our foreign policy is based encouraging moderate Muslims to stand up for themselves against the violent, extremist strand of their faith and to support them when they do. So what's our strategy at home? To tar them all with the same brush. To act like all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and that they should all face the collective punishment of being allowed nowhere even remotely near the site.
Yogi Berra famously said the secret of baseball management was to keep the guys who hated you away from the guys who were undecided.
It's a good national security strategy too, one that conservatives would be wise to follow.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
George W. Bush was a socialist
"When I give food to the poor, I'm called a saint. When I ask why they are poor, I'm called a communist." -Archbishop Dom Helder Camara.
I was biking home from work today when I saw a bunch of signs tacked to telephone poles, all of which read, "Obama is a socialist and hates our nation" or something similarly unhinged. It's not really breaking news that respect has pretty much evaporated in our political dialogue. It's no longer a dialogue, but a series of independent monologues, loudly and furiously screamed. E pluribus unum, no more. But what I've noticed lately is how language has become another casualty of our national rage.
Epithets have become devoid of meaning, other than being an expression of anger. "Obama is a socialist" or "Bush is a Nazi" or "The Tea Party is fascist" don't really have anything to do with accurately reflecting socialism, Nazism or fascism. The appellations now just mean that a speaker doesn't like the object of his hatred.
Take the "Bush is a Nazi" remark. Some call the Bush administration incompetent. I think that undersells their intentions. In my opinion, BushCheney administration did great harm the country, the economy and the Constitution. It had definite authoritarian and hypernationalist instincts as well as a penchant for international aggression. But the sum of this did not make them Nazis or tantamount to them.
The Nazis more than an ordinary, aggressive dictatorship; there are hundreds of those throughout history. What made the Nazis different is that they represented well-planned, large scale and quite intentional mass murder. The BushCheney administration was venal but I think it would've been more than happy to conquer Iraq and its natural resources without the deaths of 700,000 or more Iraqis. The Nazis were purists for a psychopathic ideology; the BushCheney folks were just plain greedy and willing to stop at nothing. Not good, but not the same.
The "Obama is a socialist" slur is another that purges language of any meaning. 'Socialist' has always meant something along the lines of redistributing wealth from the rich to the working class for the purposes of a creating a more equal society. You can argue whether that's good or bad, useful or harmful, but this is what the word has traditionally meant. But in our culture of meaningless language, the name-calling simply means "I don't like him."
The bank bailout takes money from the working class to subsidize rich banks and bankers. Obamacare takes money from the working class and forces them to give to rich, private insurance conglomerates. The health care, pharmaceutical and banking industries overwhelming preferred 'donating' (investing) its money to candidate Obama rather than candidate McCain, so it's little surprise that the current president is so beholden to them.
But these things take money from the working class to give to the rich for the purposes of creating a more unequal society. This is corporatism. It's not socialism. In fact, it's the complete opposite of socialism.
Yet, in the current political culture, Nazi means any enemy of civil liberties and socialist means anyone who supports the use of government for any purpose.
Using those 'contemporary' definitions, Woodrow Wilson was a Nazi and George W. Bush was a socialist.
The words don't really matter. It's the incoherent rage, the idea is that my side is uniquely virtuous and the other side inherently malicious, that's supposed to resonate. It's the intent, not the specifics, that matter.
But while I realize this makes me hopelessly anachronistic, words SHOULD matter.
No matter how much the hateful (Ann Coulters), the shrill (Rachael Maddows) or both of the above (Glenn Becks) may loathe it, their ideological opponents are and will remain Americans. America belongs to all of us, not just any one of us.
There have always been disagreements, often bitter, sometimes bloody, over policy decisions in this country's history. There have always been disagreements about what sort of America its citizens want to live in. But (in the non-bloody cases) the way these disagreements get resolved is by people talking, even arguing, but eventually listening and then trying to come to some sort of consensus.
Americans may honestly disagree over what should be done. But how can they find that consensus if they can't even agree on what basic words mean?
Or maybe crushing honest citizens in the name of ideological is more important than finding that broad but imperfect consensus. Love America by hating Americans.
Welcome to 2010!
I was biking home from work today when I saw a bunch of signs tacked to telephone poles, all of which read, "Obama is a socialist and hates our nation" or something similarly unhinged. It's not really breaking news that respect has pretty much evaporated in our political dialogue. It's no longer a dialogue, but a series of independent monologues, loudly and furiously screamed. E pluribus unum, no more. But what I've noticed lately is how language has become another casualty of our national rage.
Epithets have become devoid of meaning, other than being an expression of anger. "Obama is a socialist" or "Bush is a Nazi" or "The Tea Party is fascist" don't really have anything to do with accurately reflecting socialism, Nazism or fascism. The appellations now just mean that a speaker doesn't like the object of his hatred.
Take the "Bush is a Nazi" remark. Some call the Bush administration incompetent. I think that undersells their intentions. In my opinion, BushCheney administration did great harm the country, the economy and the Constitution. It had definite authoritarian and hypernationalist instincts as well as a penchant for international aggression. But the sum of this did not make them Nazis or tantamount to them.
The Nazis more than an ordinary, aggressive dictatorship; there are hundreds of those throughout history. What made the Nazis different is that they represented well-planned, large scale and quite intentional mass murder. The BushCheney administration was venal but I think it would've been more than happy to conquer Iraq and its natural resources without the deaths of 700,000 or more Iraqis. The Nazis were purists for a psychopathic ideology; the BushCheney folks were just plain greedy and willing to stop at nothing. Not good, but not the same.
The "Obama is a socialist" slur is another that purges language of any meaning. 'Socialist' has always meant something along the lines of redistributing wealth from the rich to the working class for the purposes of a creating a more equal society. You can argue whether that's good or bad, useful or harmful, but this is what the word has traditionally meant. But in our culture of meaningless language, the name-calling simply means "I don't like him."
The bank bailout takes money from the working class to subsidize rich banks and bankers. Obamacare takes money from the working class and forces them to give to rich, private insurance conglomerates. The health care, pharmaceutical and banking industries overwhelming preferred 'donating' (investing) its money to candidate Obama rather than candidate McCain, so it's little surprise that the current president is so beholden to them.
But these things take money from the working class to give to the rich for the purposes of creating a more unequal society. This is corporatism. It's not socialism. In fact, it's the complete opposite of socialism.
Yet, in the current political culture, Nazi means any enemy of civil liberties and socialist means anyone who supports the use of government for any purpose.
Using those 'contemporary' definitions, Woodrow Wilson was a Nazi and George W. Bush was a socialist.
The words don't really matter. It's the incoherent rage, the idea is that my side is uniquely virtuous and the other side inherently malicious, that's supposed to resonate. It's the intent, not the specifics, that matter.
But while I realize this makes me hopelessly anachronistic, words SHOULD matter.
No matter how much the hateful (Ann Coulters), the shrill (Rachael Maddows) or both of the above (Glenn Becks) may loathe it, their ideological opponents are and will remain Americans. America belongs to all of us, not just any one of us.
There have always been disagreements, often bitter, sometimes bloody, over policy decisions in this country's history. There have always been disagreements about what sort of America its citizens want to live in. But (in the non-bloody cases) the way these disagreements get resolved is by people talking, even arguing, but eventually listening and then trying to come to some sort of consensus.
Americans may honestly disagree over what should be done. But how can they find that consensus if they can't even agree on what basic words mean?
Or maybe crushing honest citizens in the name of ideological is more important than finding that broad but imperfect consensus. Love America by hating Americans.
Welcome to 2010!
Friday, August 06, 2010
'Patriots' claim that freedom is for Afghans and Iraqis, not for us Americans
Earlier this week, a federal judge in California ruled that the state's ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. This decision was not unexpected although welcome, as I've never heard a rational, compelling reason why the state should be allowed to discriminate against gays. The case will no doubt go up the judicial food chain.
However, some on the far right are so pissed off because of this ruling by a conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan that they want to impeach him. They want to impeach him for deciding that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution was still valid and should finally, if belatedly, be applied to this group of American citizens. A judge should be impeached for UPHOLDING the Constitution? Bizarroworld indeed.
Apparently, these self-appointed "patriots" believe that freedom (said breathlessly) is for Afghans and Iraqis, not for us Americans.
However, some on the far right are so pissed off because of this ruling by a conservative judge appointed by Ronald Reagan that they want to impeach him. They want to impeach him for deciding that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution was still valid and should finally, if belatedly, be applied to this group of American citizens. A judge should be impeached for UPHOLDING the Constitution? Bizarroworld indeed.
Apparently, these self-appointed "patriots" believe that freedom (said breathlessly) is for Afghans and Iraqis, not for us Americans.
Monday, August 02, 2010
The sleaziest man in Albany deemed a 'hero of reform'
A lot of noise has been made recently by the group NY Uprising, founded by former New York City mayor Ed Koch. The group states three principal goals: non-partisan independent redistricting, responsible budgeting and ethics reform. I support all of these things, as does the truly reform minded Green Party of New York (whose candidates' opinions apparently weren't important enough to Koch's group to solicit).
NY Uprising takes it one step further. It categorically labels those who sign a pledge supporting these three issues as "Heroes of Reform," and those who don't "Enemies of Reform."
I don't like this.
First, I'm not a big fan of this sort of pledge because it essentially reduces complicated issues to black and white, squishing out any nuance.
If I were a politician, I'd be wary about being pressured to sign something by a group trying to put words in my mouth.
Second, it deems people heroes and enemies solely based on whether a politician agrees to someone else's words.
Especially in Albany, talk is cheap.
My local Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward took a shot at Koch's group for exactly this reason.
She wrote: Your lists mean nothing if in fact those who have taken your pledge as reformers have legislative voting records against reform and those named to the list as enemies have consistent reform records.
The ultimate illustration of the meaninglessness Koch's lists is the legislature's most infamous member (a pretty powerful label considering the competition).
You might remember Sen. Pedro Espada as the main instigator of two changes of power in the senate, both exploited by Espada to gain plum leadership positions for himself. Or perhaps you might remember him as the latest legislator to find himself under criminal investigation (for suspected corruption and campaign finance violations). Or maybe you remember him as the guy who dismissed all criticism of his lust for power and alleged corruption as racially motivated.
According to Koch's group, this sleazeball was decreed... (drumroll please)... a Hero of Reform.
If the hope of ethics reform and good governance in New York rests on the shoulders of Pedro Espada, then the state is truly screwed.
NY Uprising takes it one step further. It categorically labels those who sign a pledge supporting these three issues as "Heroes of Reform," and those who don't "Enemies of Reform."
I don't like this.
First, I'm not a big fan of this sort of pledge because it essentially reduces complicated issues to black and white, squishing out any nuance.
If I were a politician, I'd be wary about being pressured to sign something by a group trying to put words in my mouth.
Second, it deems people heroes and enemies solely based on whether a politician agrees to someone else's words.
Especially in Albany, talk is cheap.
My local Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward took a shot at Koch's group for exactly this reason.
She wrote: Your lists mean nothing if in fact those who have taken your pledge as reformers have legislative voting records against reform and those named to the list as enemies have consistent reform records.
The ultimate illustration of the meaninglessness Koch's lists is the legislature's most infamous member (a pretty powerful label considering the competition).
You might remember Sen. Pedro Espada as the main instigator of two changes of power in the senate, both exploited by Espada to gain plum leadership positions for himself. Or perhaps you might remember him as the latest legislator to find himself under criminal investigation (for suspected corruption and campaign finance violations). Or maybe you remember him as the guy who dismissed all criticism of his lust for power and alleged corruption as racially motivated.
According to Koch's group, this sleazeball was decreed... (drumroll please)... a Hero of Reform.
If the hope of ethics reform and good governance in New York rests on the shoulders of Pedro Espada, then the state is truly screwed.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Americans celebrate 45 years of 'socialized medicine'
Single payer health insurance in America is 45 years old today.
Government-provided, national health insurance for all senior citizens was signed into law on this date in 1965.
We've had four and a half decades of Medicare for some. It's about time for Medicare for all.
Government-provided, national health insurance for all senior citizens was signed into law on this date in 1965.
We've had four and a half decades of Medicare for some. It's about time for Medicare for all.
The Wikileaks' revelations will harm Afghans and that shows why we need to get out
The Obama administration freaked out at the historic leak of Afghanistan war documents by the whistleblower website Wikileaks and subsequent publication of articles based on that information by The New York Times, The Washington Post, the UK Guardian and Germany's der Spiegel.
Many people, including Daniel Ellsberg himself, compared the significance of what Wikileaks did to the release of the Pentagon Papers. Though, the respected non-profit journalism organization Pro Publica disagrees.
I tend to side more with Pro Publica. The Wikileaks information paints a damning portrait of a morass that was never going to be winnable, but even though I'm no South Asia expert, there wasn't a lot of stuff I hadn't heard before.
It's certainly important in that it illustrates to governments and bureaucracies that secrets are a lot harder to keep in the Internet age and that's certainly a good thing. Bureaucracies, even those of sainted 'liberal' administrations, tend to loathe transparency even though secrecy is the enemy of democracy and good governance.
As expected, the Obama administration and the Pentagon blasted the leaks, as did Afghan president Hamad Karzai. They all claimed it would put Afghan lives at risk. It goes without saying that there's a huge element of spin in this. 'National security' is the perpetual claim any time anything comes out to offer a real version of reality that contradicts the officially approved version of reality.
Yet here's also an element of truth to the claims.
But I think that element of truth is even more damning to the cause of the eternal occupation. How can the foreign occupation possibly succeed (whatever 'success' means) if Afghans who openly cooperate with it are literally risking their lives?
Americans like to believe we can accomplish anything if we just beat our head against a stone wall a little bit harder and never give up until that wall comes down. But what can we possibly accomplish if Afghans are too fearful to work with us? What kind of Afghanistan can be built if Afghans are too afraid to be a part of its construction?
Or maybe the definition of 'success' has other priorities than the security of Afghans and Americans.
And if there's any doubt that the present sainted 'liberal' administration has no interest in even beginning the dismantling the American empire, look no further than the fact that Pres. Obama has ordered all federal agencies to prepare for a five percent budget cut for the next fiscal year... except for the Pentagon, while will be exempted.
Many people, including Daniel Ellsberg himself, compared the significance of what Wikileaks did to the release of the Pentagon Papers. Though, the respected non-profit journalism organization Pro Publica disagrees.
I tend to side more with Pro Publica. The Wikileaks information paints a damning portrait of a morass that was never going to be winnable, but even though I'm no South Asia expert, there wasn't a lot of stuff I hadn't heard before.
It's certainly important in that it illustrates to governments and bureaucracies that secrets are a lot harder to keep in the Internet age and that's certainly a good thing. Bureaucracies, even those of sainted 'liberal' administrations, tend to loathe transparency even though secrecy is the enemy of democracy and good governance.
As expected, the Obama administration and the Pentagon blasted the leaks, as did Afghan president Hamad Karzai. They all claimed it would put Afghan lives at risk. It goes without saying that there's a huge element of spin in this. 'National security' is the perpetual claim any time anything comes out to offer a real version of reality that contradicts the officially approved version of reality.
Yet here's also an element of truth to the claims.
But I think that element of truth is even more damning to the cause of the eternal occupation. How can the foreign occupation possibly succeed (whatever 'success' means) if Afghans who openly cooperate with it are literally risking their lives?
Americans like to believe we can accomplish anything if we just beat our head against a stone wall a little bit harder and never give up until that wall comes down. But what can we possibly accomplish if Afghans are too fearful to work with us? What kind of Afghanistan can be built if Afghans are too afraid to be a part of its construction?
Or maybe the definition of 'success' has other priorities than the security of Afghans and Americans.
And if there's any doubt that the present sainted 'liberal' administration has no interest in even beginning the dismantling the American empire, look no further than the fact that Pres. Obama has ordered all federal agencies to prepare for a five percent budget cut for the next fiscal year... except for the Pentagon, while will be exempted.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Bits and pieces
LA VICTIMA DE DELITO HABLA ESPANOL
A few towns in rural Washington County, NY recently passed laws mandating English as the sole official language of government communication; though to his credit, the Green mayor of village of Greenwich, David Doonan, categorically refused to entertain such a proposition.
Recently, police in Saratoga Springs responded to a stabbing near the city's famous racetrack. But officers who responded to the scene could not communicate with the victim or any of the witnesses, because they spoke only Spanish. The track attracts a lot short-term workers during the summer, many from Latin American countries.
In response, the city's police department is implementing Spanish-language training for its force and is contemplating giving preference to bilingual officers in future hiring.
It's a good thing for the safety of city residents that the Saratoga Springs PD isn't hampered by an English-only law preventing them from effectively investigating crimes.
***
LEGISLATORS ON VACATION FROM THEIR NON-WORK
In my last post, I lamented the poor state legislators who, unpaid due to the unfinished budget, have to survive on a meager $171 a day per diem. I guess some of them are managing to survive.
Gov. Paterson called a special session of the legislature yesterday and the Senate merely gaveled in and out rather than do its job and work on a budget. The majority Democrats complained that the governor called the session when several of them were on vacation and thus wouldn't have the votes to pass anything anyway. Of course, if they'd passed the budget when it was due on April 1, or any time since, there wouldn't be an issue. The idea that they felt they had done anything to earn a vacation is, in and of itself, appalling.
The outspoken social conservative Democrat Sen. Ruben Diaz blasted the governor for wasting time and money. In other words, he said it's the governor's fault the he and his colleagues refuse to do their jobs.
***
SPEAKING OF USELESS POLITICIANS...
Given the morass in the legislature, it's not surprising little talent is seeking the governor's mansion. Democratic attorney general Andrew Cuomo, the consummate insider, is running as a fake agent of change. I think his campaign handlers have banned him to not mention one single specific or proposition of something, limiting him to mealy-mouthed vague platitudes. His Republican opponents, Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino, are even emptier suits. They've chosen the demagogue route.
Far behind Cuomo in the polls, they have seized on attempts by a moderate Muslim group to build a mosque and community center near Ground Zero in a pathetic attempt to get someone to pay attention to them. They've both expressed support of using eminent domain to block the construction. It's bad enough they're focusing on this issue rather than the state's fiscal mess or corruption in Albany. But now we have the spectacle of so-called conservatives and opponents of big government launching an assault not only on freedom of religion but also on private property rights.
At least the Greens are offering a serious candidate for governor worth your attention, Howie Hawkins, as well as a number of other good candidates for statewide and local office. I've heard Hawkins speak several times and was impressed. He's not nearly as eloquent as the aforementioned empty suits but he's not afraid to get specific and offer concrete ideas, not just empty mom-and-apple-pie platitudes. The current governor is doing a decent job, considering the entrenched opposition. His successor needs both a brain and a spine and Hawkins is, to my knowledge, the only candidate with both.
***
OIL COMPANIES HAVE RUINED AFRICA TOO
The catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico has made Americans aware of the environmental and economic devastation caused by reckless practices of petroleum multinationals. People of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria are far too aware of this, as the public radio show The Story recently explored.
***
40 YEARS OF EARTH DAY
On a more upbeat environmental note, Adirondack Almanack's John Warren has a good piece on the profound legacy of Earth Day, which was first celebrated in 1970.
***
WASTE LOCALLY
The Post-Star has a good editorial (hey it happens! law of averages) on Saturday about the state's now-defunct Empire Zone program, which was a slush fund for businesses. The current head of the Empire State Development Corporation told the daily's editorial board that out of the more than 8,500 companies that had received financial benefits under the old Empire Zone program, two-thirds of them probably would have done what they did anyway - without receiving any benefits at all. We would have gotten all the same economic benefits - jobs, local investment, tax revenue - without a single penny of taxpayer money.
The paper rightly bemoaned this huge waste of tax dollars for little appreciable benefit.
But there's even more waste than just that: the various quasi-public agencies.
The city of Glens Falls alone has: local development corporation, an industrial development agency, a tourism office and an urban renewal agency.
And yet it 'needs' to pay staff and fund these agencies even though they largely duplicate the work of the Warren County economic development corporation, the Warren County tourism office and the bi-county industrial development agency.
I'd urge Post-Star to continue its opposition to waste and do an investigation into the city EDC, IDA and tourism offices to see a) if their existences really justify what we're spending on them and b) if that benefit is really greater than what we'd get simply by using the parallel county agencies.
A few towns in rural Washington County, NY recently passed laws mandating English as the sole official language of government communication; though to his credit, the Green mayor of village of Greenwich, David Doonan, categorically refused to entertain such a proposition.
Recently, police in Saratoga Springs responded to a stabbing near the city's famous racetrack. But officers who responded to the scene could not communicate with the victim or any of the witnesses, because they spoke only Spanish. The track attracts a lot short-term workers during the summer, many from Latin American countries.
In response, the city's police department is implementing Spanish-language training for its force and is contemplating giving preference to bilingual officers in future hiring.
It's a good thing for the safety of city residents that the Saratoga Springs PD isn't hampered by an English-only law preventing them from effectively investigating crimes.
***
LEGISLATORS ON VACATION FROM THEIR NON-WORK
In my last post, I lamented the poor state legislators who, unpaid due to the unfinished budget, have to survive on a meager $171 a day per diem. I guess some of them are managing to survive.
Gov. Paterson called a special session of the legislature yesterday and the Senate merely gaveled in and out rather than do its job and work on a budget. The majority Democrats complained that the governor called the session when several of them were on vacation and thus wouldn't have the votes to pass anything anyway. Of course, if they'd passed the budget when it was due on April 1, or any time since, there wouldn't be an issue. The idea that they felt they had done anything to earn a vacation is, in and of itself, appalling.
The outspoken social conservative Democrat Sen. Ruben Diaz blasted the governor for wasting time and money. In other words, he said it's the governor's fault the he and his colleagues refuse to do their jobs.
***
SPEAKING OF USELESS POLITICIANS...
Given the morass in the legislature, it's not surprising little talent is seeking the governor's mansion. Democratic attorney general Andrew Cuomo, the consummate insider, is running as a fake agent of change. I think his campaign handlers have banned him to not mention one single specific or proposition of something, limiting him to mealy-mouthed vague platitudes. His Republican opponents, Rick Lazio and Carl Paladino, are even emptier suits. They've chosen the demagogue route.
Far behind Cuomo in the polls, they have seized on attempts by a moderate Muslim group to build a mosque and community center near Ground Zero in a pathetic attempt to get someone to pay attention to them. They've both expressed support of using eminent domain to block the construction. It's bad enough they're focusing on this issue rather than the state's fiscal mess or corruption in Albany. But now we have the spectacle of so-called conservatives and opponents of big government launching an assault not only on freedom of religion but also on private property rights.
At least the Greens are offering a serious candidate for governor worth your attention, Howie Hawkins, as well as a number of other good candidates for statewide and local office. I've heard Hawkins speak several times and was impressed. He's not nearly as eloquent as the aforementioned empty suits but he's not afraid to get specific and offer concrete ideas, not just empty mom-and-apple-pie platitudes. The current governor is doing a decent job, considering the entrenched opposition. His successor needs both a brain and a spine and Hawkins is, to my knowledge, the only candidate with both.
***
OIL COMPANIES HAVE RUINED AFRICA TOO
The catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico has made Americans aware of the environmental and economic devastation caused by reckless practices of petroleum multinationals. People of the Niger Delta region of Nigeria are far too aware of this, as the public radio show The Story recently explored.
***
40 YEARS OF EARTH DAY
On a more upbeat environmental note, Adirondack Almanack's John Warren has a good piece on the profound legacy of Earth Day, which was first celebrated in 1970.
***
WASTE LOCALLY
The Post-Star has a good editorial (hey it happens! law of averages) on Saturday about the state's now-defunct Empire Zone program, which was a slush fund for businesses. The current head of the Empire State Development Corporation told the daily's editorial board that out of the more than 8,500 companies that had received financial benefits under the old Empire Zone program, two-thirds of them probably would have done what they did anyway - without receiving any benefits at all. We would have gotten all the same economic benefits - jobs, local investment, tax revenue - without a single penny of taxpayer money.
The paper rightly bemoaned this huge waste of tax dollars for little appreciable benefit.
But there's even more waste than just that: the various quasi-public agencies.
The city of Glens Falls alone has: local development corporation, an industrial development agency, a tourism office and an urban renewal agency.
And yet it 'needs' to pay staff and fund these agencies even though they largely duplicate the work of the Warren County economic development corporation, the Warren County tourism office and the bi-county industrial development agency.
I'd urge Post-Star to continue its opposition to waste and do an investigation into the city EDC, IDA and tourism offices to see a) if their existences really justify what we're spending on them and b) if that benefit is really greater than what we'd get simply by using the parallel county agencies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)