Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberals. Show all posts

Saturday, April 20, 2013

The Paradigm Paradox

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

'It is difficult to understand why so-called "progressive", "liberals", and "leftists," who so vehemently opposed the Vietnam War, now belong to the Council on Foreign Relations.
If you have read this blog before, you must know then that I have serious problems with 'so-called' liberals/progressives not the least of which is that too many lack the courage of their convictions; too many have tried to bargain with Satan. Too many are uncommitted, to be sure. But, more importantly, to what --precisely --should we be committed?

Clinton's 'triangulation' of the center merely encouraged the 'rabid right'. Teddy got it right: speak softly and carry a BIG stick. Too often the 'left wing' (for lack of an accurate term), carries a limp stick if any stick at all.

If the American left were given a 'GOP BUDGET' (like the monies gopps get from elites) the American left would be nuts if did did run rough shod over the 'right', kick 'em in their sorry asses, reduce to rubble and ruins the financial edifices put up by the Axes of K-street and Wall Street.

As for roots, modern 'progressives' should study Teddy: 'speak softly and carry a big stick!'

Now --the rank and file progressive/left leaning liberal is NUTS if he/she sits out an election because a leftist Messiah is not on the ballot!

Progressives should begin renewed organizational efforts from within the Democratic ranks and file. There is no viable 'Progressive party' as such. Read Saul Alinsky, a "leftist" activist, strategist, and tireless champion of progressive causes. Alinsky --sadly --has been adopted by the GOP and cited often in their 'campaign manuals'. I know that because I had procured some even as Tom DeLay was consolidating his base of power in S.E. Texas. In other words, he was gerrymandering the state. The GOP cannot win without cheating!

They are both crooked and stupid --a bad combination!

Apparently, the state has yet to recover from his meddling. Texas had been Democratic, often progressive/liberal. In those days, it was called the GREAT STATE OF TEXAS! With the rise of the GOP crime syndicate it is no longer referred to as 'great': education has declined; pollution has gotten worse; the prisons are full as crime rates always rise under GOP regimes. Declines of all sorts define the crooked, cult-like crime syndicate that is otherwise known as "GOP"!

My point: the GOP has practiced tactics urged by Alinsky. Why the hell have the Democratic party allowed right-wing nuts to have 'adopted' Alinsky's tactics and --worse --using them to subvert the progressive cause in general?
'The fault, Dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings!



Thursday, December 27, 2012

How Keynes Got it Right and the 'Right' Got it Wrong!

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

Many have proposed a 'flat' tax. It sounds good but isn't! Flat taxes are not really 'flat'. Ten percent of the income of a poor or middle person is a much, much greater burden than is the same percentage against the income of a millionaire. The difference is that merely keeping a roof over the family's head and food on the table is a MUCH bigger percentage of income/wealth for a poor or middle class family.

The very, very wealthy, in fact, find it difficult to spend all their wealth. What is left over after the cost of maintaining a villa in Spain or a swanky lodge in the Alps is invested in enterprises that earn even more wealth. Moreover, even Libertarians --if pressed --may admit that 10%, 20%, 30% percent, indeed, any percentage of a poor person's income is a much greater burden than almost any rate on the income of a millionaire! Among the many reasons this is so is that mere necessities --food, water and to varying degrees, shelter --are not only fixed, they will always amount to a much higher PERCENTAGE of a poor or middle class budget than that of the budget of a multi-millionaire or richer.

Libertarians, however, will maintain that income tax is immoral because tax policy may have the effect of re-distributing wealth and income. My reply is that when just one percent of a nation's population owns more than the rest of the population combined, it is time to raise taxes on the very rich.
The whole system is pure criminal as from the installation of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913 by Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Not only the American people suffers, the whole world has been sandwiched by the private banks behind the central banking system.

--G. Edward Griffin, Legalized Plunder of the American People
The best argument against a flat tax, ironically, has come from a so-called 'libertarian' who wrote:
That 10 percent is a greater burden on the poor than is 10 percent on the very rich is the very reason that income tax is immoral --as it is currently imposed upon us.
Alas! The Libertarian does not go far enough. A flat tax of any sort will penalize the poor while enriching the rich.

During the 'Great Depression', the American comedian Bob Hope was asked to comment on it. He quipped (and I paraphrase)
"..I looked up the word depression. A 'depression' is a hole. I looked up 'hole'. A hole is 'nothing'. So --if you think I am going to waste my time talking about nothing, you have another think coming!"
There is nothing mysterious about depressions. They are defined by 'negative GDP growth' from which follows negative job creation rates --not to be confused with mere slowdowns or periods of slow growth. Thus depressions are disastrous for the poor. The very, very rich can actually benefit from them by buying bargains that are beyond the reach of the poorer or middle classes. The 'ruling elites' are capable of rigging markets with cleverly timed 'sell-offs'. They have the luxury of buying back in at bargain prices.

A 'depression' is a period of 'contraction'. In the U.S. every recession/depression at least since World War II has occurred during a Republican administration. That is but one reason I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican.

If FDR had been either a Republican or what is commonly called a 'libertarian' (in the Ron Paul sense of the word) the U.S. would have eventually collapsed. Even so, it may have required the U.S. entry into WWII following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to get the U.S. into the war. As a stimulus, 'war' created millions of new jobs and put women to work where --earlier --their presence had been unknown. The image of 'Rosie the Riveter' is still symbolic of the period. The good effect is that women would never again consent willingly to 'second class' citizen status.

As for Keynes, he would not have been surprised by the American experience. He was, after all, famous for his proposal that in times of increased joblessness, the government may do well to bury 'pound notes' in a landfill and let 'private enterprise' dig them up.

If it's all about jobs, why wait for a war to create jobs? A 'liberal' administration has a responsibility to society overall --not just to the 'ruling elites' who finance his campaigns. Rather, a liberal and/or progressive regime will support a more egalitarian society, in fact, a more efficient society as a result.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

How Progressives Can Take Back America

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Many 'progressives' who voted for Obama expected a 'savior'. There are none! The best strategy left to disappointed progressives is to take back the party many believe abandoned them. I was among those who believed Clinton should have taken a stronger stand in defense of liberal and/or progressive values. I despised 'triangulation'.

My biggest disappointment was Janet Reno's attack on the Branch-Davidians in Waco, an unlawful attack violating federal and state laws --most egregiously --the presumption of innocence and every due process clause known to exist anywhere at any time to include the 14th Amendment
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.

--U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights.
The best strategy available to progressives now is not to create another party but to take back an existing party apparatus --the Democratic party. It will take years to mount an effective third party whose best hope would consist of 'brokering' a deal with more conservative wings of the only organized opposition to the GOP i.e. the Democratic party.

Progressives' best chance for changing the fascist direction taken by American politics may be found in a book that was, in fact, appropriated if not usurped by the GOP. I have in mind one Saul Alinsky whose 'Rules for Radical', written for a liberal, left leaning movement owing much to FDR and war opponents like Eugene Debs.

Interestingly, it is the GOP which has made more effective use of the strategies and tactics than have liberals or Democrats for whom 'Rules for Radicals' was written. It is cited in GOP campaign manuals, practiced in almost every campaign. I have personal knowledge of that, having acquired a few GOP 'campaign manuals' at a time when Tom DeLay was building a conservative machine while gerrymandering the state of Texas.

Alinsky advises 'activists' to work inside the existing system, to utilize the existing networks and/or infrastructure. Starting from scratch is inefficient, time consuming, wasteful of time and resources. Democrats have an infrastructure in place already. Use it! As ALINSKY himself said:
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future."

--Saul Alinsky
If 'liberals/progressives will not heed and benefit from a 'legendary' liberal organizer/activist like Alinsky, I have a slim chance of waking them up! If the 'left' insists upon walking off a cliff there is little anyone can do for them.There is now, however, an opportunity to be seized. Whatever your feelings about the Bush occupation of Iraq, the political fact of the matter is that millions of Americans seemed to have bought into the many lies that the right wing told in order to justify the massive theft of oil resources in the Middle East.

The invasion of Iraq, we were told, was part of the bigger 'war on terror' (more properly, 'terrorism'). Bin Laden was the boogeyman upon which were directed the fears and prejudices of much of the population and especially the right wing which wanted to believe. For Bushco, they were an easy sale!Recent events have turned the Bush strategy on its head! This is a paradigm shift rarely seen in American politics in which a right wing and a left wing had dug their trenches and had begun a long seige. In just a few short days, the news that Bin Laden had been killed --NOT on Bush's watch but by a Democratic U.S. regime --has shaken the GOP to its rotting foundations.

There is really very little the GOP can do but praise the efforts of a Democratic President. It must hurt! My heart bleeds!There are, therefore, opportunities to change the very complexion of U.S. politics but only if progressives work with the existing Democratic infrastructure.

Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals. Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.
  • Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
  • Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
  • Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
  • Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
  • Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
  • Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
  • Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
  • Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
  • Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
  • Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
  • Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
  • --Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
With the capture of Bin Laden, the GOP found itself without its erstwhile raison d'etre --the war on terrorism!

Friday, March 04, 2011

It's Time for Rush Limbaugh to Go!

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Free speech is not free! It is paid for with responsibility! Rush Limbaugh, however, has made a career of "...yelling fire in a crowded theater" when, in fact, there is NO fire! Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s decision re: Eugene Debs means that Rush has routinely exceeded the limits of free speech. But the Holmes decision was fallaciously applied to Debs; Rush, by contrast, is defined by shrill cries of 'fire' when --in fact --there is no fire!

We might tolerate Rush if the Fairness Doctrine were restored. His opponents would at least be heard. They are sure to be more intelligent, articulate and even entertaining; the nation would be better for it!

How long would Rush last if he had to compete in truly free market, if he were compelled by law to be responsible as I was compelled as a working broadcast journalist in major U.S. markets? I was expected to be responsible and professional; but Rush lives down to lower expectations, lower standards. He is expected, even encouraged to be irresponsible, outrageous, dishonest and boorish!

We might tolerate Rush had he ever made a good faith effort to inform his audiences with respect to real issues as opposed to his constant demoguoguery, his fussilade of lies and ad hominem attacks, propaganda, strawmen, distortions, outright lies and --most egregiously --bigotry and/or racial slurs most notably those about black athletes and, specifically, the great quarterback Warren Moon et al.

If an intelligent man like Eugene Debs --whose only crime was that of exercising his conscience i.e, opposing the U.S. entry into WWI --could be imprisoned, then Rush, who has exhorted treason and bigotry in response to phony threats and strawmen, should be held responsible for having abused 'privileges' that the rest of us had --at one time --enjoyed responsibly as 'rights'. Why is Rush given 'license' when, in fct, the rest of us are DENIED the benefits of 'free speech' by having been denied access to what had publically owned airwaves. Rush is prescisely what the GOP had in minded when, under Ronald Reagan, the Fairness Doctrine and the Communications Act of 1934 were rescinded, media 'de-regulated', a GOP code-word for consoidating the ownership of media into very few and very corporate hands.

Debs was courageous and smart --a man of integrity! Rush is slimy and stupid --a charlatan! Debs spoke truth to power! Rush misleads the poor and gullible for profit! He is a corporate kiss-up, a coward, a stooge who peddles propaganda for profit! Debs accepted responsibility for what he had made of himself and was prepared to accept the consequences. Rush is a coward who blames all on 'niggers', poor people and 'liberals, LIBERALS, LIBERALS!!!
“When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known.”

--Eugene Debs, American Activist
It is time for Rush Limbaugh to GO!

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Let Them Eat the "Higher Pie"

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy, Doug Drenkow, Communications Specialist

The U.S. right wing consistently mistakes bigger slices of a smaller pie for growth! In fact, wealth is the product of labor. Therefore, real growth creates larger pies, larger slices. Real growth is, by definition, egalitarian or not at all! America's ruling elite amounts to just one percent of the total population and they own more than the rest of us combined.

Economists call a 'shrinking pie' a 'contraction' but, since Ronald Reagan, the rich have enjoyed the growth of their 'slices' as the pie itself shank. With every GOP tax cut since 1900, the economy has contracted but the 'slices' owned by the elite increased. The rich decrease as a class but grow wealthier with bigger slices. If you can visualize this, you will have mastered right-wing, trickle UP economics.

The effect for everyone but the very, very rich is called 'depression' i.e, 'contraction'. This process can be modeled mathematically. Anyone not a member of the top one percent voting GOP votes against his/her own interests. Anyone voting GOP expecting to join them one day is insane. There is no 'higher pie' --only a shrinking one.

When I am charitable, I suspect that their perspective is myopic in the extreme. More realistically, I suspect that they just don't care! Or worse --the transfer of wealth upward to just one percent of the total population was deliberate and achieved with a carefully crafted program of GOP tax cuts beginning with Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1982. Only the very richest people in America benefited. Everyone else got poorer in terms of dollars earned but also as a result of declining purchasing power as prices are bid upward by the wealthy.

Since 1900 the U.S. has 'experimented' with 'robber baron economics', 'supply-side economics', 'trickle down theory' and assorted 'stimuli' that also put the fat cats and so-called 'investor' class at the top of the pecking order with often tragic results --the Panic of the late 1800s, Hoover's Great Depression, Ike's 'Recession', Reagan's 'Tent City' Depression of over 2 years! Anyone not seeing the pattern is just not paying attention.

My thoughts along these lines are inspired by the following article by my good friend, Communications expert, Doug Drenkow.
Presently, there is a great debate in the United States and beyond: In this, the greatest recession since the Great Depression, should the government spend more money on putting more people to work -- or saving more jobs, as by the federal government helping our increasingly desperate state governments -- or helping unemployed workers pay their bills till the job market turns around? Or should the government of this and many other nations focus more on paying down our historic debts, by cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, to stabilize our economies and thus, presumably, turn them around?

Do we so soon forget where most of that debt came from, where most of our money went? In the United States, much has been spent bailing out institutions "too large to fail" as well as propping up the rest of our economy, although apparently not enough -- thanks in large part to fiscal "conservatives," in both parties, who slashed last year's stimulus bill in half.

But even more than that, our treasury has amassed massive debts due to tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthy, under the administration of the previous president, and that were unfunded, as were the wars that were then started, with or without just cause, and that rage on, although now with ends apparently in sight.

In short, as many "deficit hawks" propose, should the Social Security, education, public safety, and other programs benefiting the working people and middle class of America be dramatically cut? Should the wealth of the country -- the product of the work of the workers of the country -- be in (unstated) effect permanently shifted from the bottom to the top, exacerbating the already historic inequality of wealth?

Although such authorities as Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman do a better job of explaining the whys and wherefores, the bottom line is this: If the working families in America and beyond do not prosper, how can the nations we build and maintain and defend and support do anything but wither?

Never forget, America is ultimately no greater than the sum total of the hopes, dreams, aspirations, and everyday lives of all our "everyday" people.

From the Declaration of Independence ...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
... and the Constitution ...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
... to the Four Freedoms, espoused by President Franklin D. Roosevelt ...
"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
"The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

"The third is freedom from want ... everywhere in the world.

"The fourth is freedom from fear ... anywhere in the world.

"That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation."
... and the challenge issued by President Barack Obama ...
"I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours."
So as we celebrate America today, let us protect, nurture, and cherish all the extraordinary "ordinary" people who are Americans. And let that be the guiding principle in our negotiations over budget, unemployment, and all the other public business of America. If U.S. working families work and prosper, then so will America. If not, then God have mercy on us all.

Douglas Drenkow
Clearly, the U.S. remains powerless to address these issues as long as the government is literally owned by the dwindling few who benefit. It is simplistic and naive to expect a government beholden to the super-rich to work -in good faith --for those who are denied both a voice and a meaningful role in this 'government of the people." It is simplistic and naive to expect a robber baron class to simply bow to the will of what it must surely believe is but a great mob of unwashed masses to whom is left an absurd choice by elites and/or idiots: 'higher pies' or 'let them eat cake! It is folly to assist the theft of U.S. wealth by this robber baron class. It is America's death knell that so few care and that so many multitudes will suffer!

Tuesday, August 04, 2009

Steve Kangas: It was 'Liberals' and 'Communists' with Help from the Government who Really Won the West!

by Len Hart

The American right wing nurtures and promotes a 'mythology' of the 'Old West' just as Adolph Hitler and his Nazi minions nurtured and promoted a Nazi 'Weltanschauung' i.e, a sweeping Nazi interpretation of German folk lore and history. The version of American history that is given the 'right wing stamp of approval' is the political 'big lie' designed to support a contemporary right-wing extremist political agenda.

The strategy seeks to cloak extremism with 'folklore', to hide lies amid fables of pioneer struggles and exploits'. It is claimed, with a straight face or a smirk, that the pioneers were right wingers too!

That's not true!

At least as many were liberal, even communist! At least as many were what we might now call 'green'! At least as many were anarchists and opposed any government at all. At least as many believed in cooperation over competition and, in fact, found both cooperation and sharing to be absolutely essential to survival. At least as many were open to innovation. They were adventurous not conservative. It was a matter of survival --not politics or ideology.

The Nazis --specifically Hitler's propaganda guru Joseph Goebbels --did it first.
In Hitler's Nationalist Socialist Party, the indoctrination program incorporated the use of the German folktale and was employed "as an ideological weapon" meant to serve the building of the Thousand Year Reich. Thus, Party official Alref Eyd announced in 1935, "The German folktale shall become a most valuable means for us in the racial and political education of the young" (1977:170). Unfortunately, as Kemenetsy perceptively points out, the German version of the folktalke used by the Third Reich "was no longer a true reflection of the common peasant folk, but only a medium for the Nazi ideology, and a mouthpiece of racial propaganda"(1977:178).

--Cathy Lynn Preston, Folklore, Literature, and Cultrual Theory
The following excerpt is one of many brilliant essays published by the late 'liberal' activist Steve Kangas.
Most Americans have accepted the myth that early Americans were rugged individualists, pioneers who blazed trails into the Western hills and overcame adversity on the strength of their own self-reliance.

'Tain't necessarily so.

Entire books could be written about how white Americans got rich off the labor of their slaves, all the while waxing rhapsodic over the virtues of self-reliance. Volumes could be written about the early American women who created extensive social networks and church groups to help each other's families, all the while their men were entertaining the conceit of rugged individualism. But this is an essay devoted to the government's contribution to early American survival, so it will address that topic only: (1)

From the start, the West was not conquered by rifle-toting pioneers, but by the U.S. Army. (Hardly a government "success," to be sure, but the point here is that the stereotype of the lone pioneer conquering the West is a myth.) The government made massive land purchases, without which the conquest of these territories would have been even bloodier. It spent $15 million on the Louisiana Purchase, $25 million on the Texas/California purchase, and $7 million for the Alaska Purchase.

The government then turned around and sold this land below cost, at considerable loss to itself. The Preemption Act of 1841, the Graduation Act of 1854 and the Homestead Act of 1862 all gave away land to pioneers for a song.

The government also played a crucial role in developing these lands. When it came to connecting the Great Lakes to the Eastern seaboard with canals, the government funded or financially guaranteed three fourths of the $200 million project. It also gave each state 30,000 acres of land to build agricultural colleges. It would be difficult to overstate how important these colleges were in advancing agricultural education and techniques among the farmers. With their help, American farmers were quickly able to create a working agricultural economy. Meanwhile, the government provided mail services like the Pony Express that interconnected this economy.

At the farthest edges of the frontier, the settlers were literally lawless; gun-fighting and dueling were rampant. It was only when the government moved in that law and order and a sense of community were established. Disease, attacks from Native Americans and economic chaos at the frontier often turned towns into ghost towns overnight. Not surprisingly, group survival proved more effective than true hermitism. Historian John Mack Farragher described life on the frontier as "a community experience… Sharing work with neighbors at cabin raisings, log rollings, hayings, husking, butchering, harvesting or threshing were all traditionally considered communal affairs… [A] 'borrowing system' allowed scarce tools, labor and products to circulate for the benefit of all." One pioneer told prospective settlers: "Your wheel-barrows, your shovels, your utensils of all sorts, belong not to yourself, but to the public who do not think it necessary even to ask a loan, but take it for granted."

The government continued to develop the West in the early 20th century. It constructed dams and subsidized huge irrigation projects. During the Great Depression, rural electrification programs brought electricity to farmers, which enabled them to use power tools, refrigeration and household appliances to make their work and personal lives easier. The government also built highways into the West, and wired the countryside for telephone service. The government saved countless small farmers by giving them loans to stall foreclosures and tide them over the rough times. And it began paying huge farming subsidies that continue to this day.

Even then, it was not the small pioneer, but the major corporation that settled the West, often with vast help from the government. By the turn of the century, the government had distributed a billion acres of land, but only 147 million became homesteads. Sociologists Scott and Sally McNall estimate that "probably only one acre in nine went to the small pioneers." Some 183 million acres were ultimately given to the railroad companies. (It was these federal giveaways that created the major logging companies, not family businesses.) Four out of five transcontinental railroads were built in this way, and Congress approved loans up to $48,000 per mile to build them.

The West has a rich tradition of dependency on government. As historian Stephanie Coontz says: "It would be hard to find a Western family today or at any time in the past whose land rights, transportation options, economic existence, and even access to water were not dependent on federal funds." Paradoxically, however, the West has also enjoyed a long tradition of anti-government sentiments. When John Wayne punched out "Mr. Government Bureaucrat" in a Hollywood Western, he was acting out the misplaced rage of many Western Americans.

In closing, the story of the Montana Freemen is especially revealing. This is the radical anti-government militia that kept the FBI at bay in an armed stand-off that lasted for months. It turns out that they had stalled foreclosure on their farms for ten years by accepting $676,082 in government farming subsidies and loans. [Pic: Robber Barons were in for the booty]

Apparently, government assistance makes one ungrateful.

--Steve Kangas, Myth: Early Americans built this land on rugged individualism.
Kangas [the quoted author] was found in the men's room of Richard Mellon Scaife's office building in Pittsburgh. According to reports, he died of shot[s] wounds to the head! It was ruled 'suicide'!
Why have the police not questioned Scaife, since his newspaper, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, depicted Kangas as an obsessed lunatic who had come to that city with the intent of assassinating Scaife, but allegedly turned the gun on himself instead? And if Kangas was of no concern to Scaife, why did the reclusive billionaire dispatch his No. 1 private detective, Rex Armistead, to dig into Kangas' past.

Moreover, isn't strange that those who still insist presidential adviser Vince Foster was murdered, a theory promoted by Scaife, have no interest in how or why Kangas died?

The major media may be afraid of Scaife, who is known for going after his critics, but veteran journalist Mike Snow is continuing his quest for the answers to all these questions.

--The Kangas Chronicles
Suicide, it was conveniently ruled! But in Scaife's bathroom? Now --Scaife is reported to have 'threatened' Kangas! Scaife, it must be recalled, is the 'vast right wing conspiracy' so famous referred to by Hilary Clinton.
He posted his last essay to his Web site on February 3, just five days before his untimely death. In my opinion, it is not the writings of a man in throes of alcoholism, though people like Richard Scaife have suggested as much and he may well view Steve's work as pornography. See: ~kangaroo/L-PowerDistribution.html

There are more questions than answers. Richard Scaife hiring a detective to try and dig up dirt on Steve Kangas raises a red flag. He used the same detective, Rex Armistead, that was used to try and dig up dirt on President Clinton for the Arkansas Project. The Pittsburgh police should have been so thorough. I doubt the police even questioned Richard Scaife, though one report did say they were thinking about it. The systematic attempted trashing of Steve Kangas' raises questions. Discrepancies between the coroner's report, in which Steve was injured when first found, and the police report, with no mention of injuries when he was first found raises questions. The quick cremation and the erasure of Steve Kangas' hard drive raises questions.

If magically I could have three questions about the circumstances around this case answered, I suppose they would be -- (1) Is the checking of the circuit breakers in One Oxford Centre rest rooms sop, and is there a log to prove this? (2) Was the gun that killed Steve empty when found? The news articles infer this, stating 47 rounds were found in his backpack and in one pocket. This is important because if Steve Kangas were in custody of Scaife security, they may have initially taken his gun away and emptied the clip. There may even be prints on the bullets or the clip, if the gun is still in evidence. (3) One intriguing puzzle piece that doesn't fit with the theory of suicide -- the bullet found around the time that Steve Kangas was found. There was a bullet hole found in the window of a street level clothing store. The slug was found inside the store. The bullet got there somehow. The location of One Oxford Centre doesn't appear to be a part of Pittsburgh where random bullet holes would be found. I suspect this may be the first time ever that a bullet hole was found in a window of one of the shops. Maybe some time after all the stores had closed, Steve Kangas had attempted to leave, was stopped by Scaife security, shots or a shot were fired, with Steve Kangas was forced to go back up to the 39th floor. If that bullet is connected, suicide becomes implausible.

I don't know what happened to Steve Kangas on the evening of February 8. I can write several scripts from the facts, as reported in the various newspaper articles. Many of the facts of the case seem suspicious and do not fit well with the theory of suicide. When I started digging on my own, that is what I expected to find. But from the burglar alarm system, to the $300 gun, to the intensive work he'd been doing on his political web site, that does not seem to be where Steve Kangas was at.

And then there is that bullet hole in the window of the Kountz and Rider clothing store.

For Steve's sake, this case deserves to be investigated further by someone with the means and abilities far greater than I. Hopefully someone, or some agency, will investigate the death of of Steve Kangas in the manner it deserves.

--Democratic Underground, Who Killed Steve Kangas?
Who had Method, Motive and Opportunity to Murder Kangas?

I simply do not believe that someone --contemplating suicide --would make a trip to another city, look up the address of an arch nemesis, go to the bathroom there and proceed to shoot himself in the head!

I say that there is sufficient and probable cause to indict Richard Mellon Scaife and take his deposition where lies become a matter of record and are prosecutable. I suggest the same thing be done with the hired gunsel --specifically Armistead!
Armistead among other things is the famous private investigator used by Scaife to dig up dirt on President Clinton and Steve Kangas. He was paid $250,000 for one job. Rex Armistead was aided by Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter Richard Gazarik and Steve's grieving parents eager for any information to fill the terrible vacuum. His mother now seems to regret being used that way. The Tribune-Review published some of the sleaziest dirt jobs you will find in any tabloid -- against Kangas. Below, you will see how one witness (Steve's mom) was mysteriously manipulated into telling lies about her son. Propaganda and mind bending. It's what they do.

--Evidence of Kangas' murder, Who Killed Web Warrior Steve Kangas
Odds are this case is just another instance in which the right wing murders anyone who disagrees. We are reminded of Conan Doyle's character, Sherlock Holmes, who said: "When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth!" If, by that standard, you rule out an unlikely suicide, that leaves only a murdered Kangas in Scaife's men's room. That is the probable cause to investigate Scaife and his hired gun thugs!

The Kangas case is one of hundreds, possibly thousands of suspicious deaths, enough to make a 'statistic'.
George W Bush also has intimate connections to the Saudi Royal family and actively trades weapons with Pakistani militant groups from the ISI. For more on this, watch Farenheit 911 from Michael Moore. The documentary has been smeared as a Republican bashing video, however, Michael does a very good job exposing Bush's connections to the Saudi's, his dodging of the draft for Vietnam, and his connections to the defense contractors who benefited from 9/11.

Laura Bush, George's wife and the first lady, was involved in a fatal car crash in November of 1963. She was speeding and disregarded a stop sign. The victim in the other car was Michael Dutton, a 17 year old boy. The investigation concluded that the crash had "bizarre" aspects, such as the cars didn't seem to show physical evidence of normal drive behavior. With that said, the other "bizarre" coincidence is that the victim, Michael Dutton, was Laura Bush's ex-boyfriend and classmate. Again, in a "bizarre" coincidence, Laura Bush didn't get a ticket.

Michael Dutton Douglas and Laura Welch (Laura Bush's name at the time) were students together at Robert E. Lee High School in Midland, Texas. Douglas was described as an active athlete, physically attractive, and intelligent. He was nominated as the school's most popular male student while a junior, an honor typically awarded only to graduating high school seniors.

In May 2000 , a two-page police report detailing the fatal crash was made public. The report revealed that on November 6, 1963, Welch was driving her Chevrolet Impala sedan with one passenger (Judy Dyke, also 17). It was a clear Wednesday night, shortly after 8 p.m., when Welch entered the intersection of State Highway 349 and Farm to Market Road 868 . Welch failed to observe the intersection's stop sign and collided into Douglas' Chevrolet Corvair sedan. Welch and Dyke sustained minor injuries; Douglas was pronounced dead on arrival at Midland Memorial Hospital. Welch was not charged with any offense.

The future First Lady made a brief remark in March 2000 about the crash, "I know this as an adult, and even more as a parent, it was crushing ... for the family involved and for me as well."

Most Americans are aware of the countless violations of checks and balances and constitutional amendments this administration has committed. It is clear that George W Bush is a shadow figure with power only a few have ever had in history.

Marvin Bush, George's older brother, was the principal shareholder of Securicom until 2000. Securicom held the security systems contract for the World Trade Center and also held the security contracts for United Airlines, where 2 of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were from. Securicom bought CTC International under Marvin Bush as well. CTC International held the contracts of security at Dulles International Airport where the other 2 planes came from on 9/11.

Bertha Champagne

Marvin Bush's house maid, Bertha Champagne, was killed September 29, 2003 on Marvin's property. Like the usual Bush bizarre stories, Bertha was run over in Marvin's driveway by her own vehicle and pinned against the side of the garage. The investigation concluded that it was an "accident." Those who knew her remember her with fondness. Richard Davis, general manager for Belle Haven Country Club, said, "She made people feel welcome. A florist once told me, 'I could never forget Bertha; she made me feel like a member here.' She was friendly and outgoing; she always had a big smile, and a hello and a good-bye." Redding said, "Belle Haven was her stage; the people there loved her and she loved them." "Everybody knew Bertha," said Davis.

John McWethy Feb 2008, Former ABC News national security correspondent John McWethy was killed in a skiing accident in Colorado. McWethy was at the Pentagon on 9/11 and covered the attack live. McWethy had a number of good sources within the intelligence community. In a June 2005 WMR report: "WHY NSA IS THE FORT KNOX OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE ESTABLISHMENT" that covered the effect of outsourcing on the diminishing security of sensitive U.S. communications intelligence sources and methods, a major story first reported by McWethy.

Sid Adger Mr. Adger, a Houston oil supply company executive and Bush family friend, died in 1996 of unknown causes. Adger was the mysterious businessman who approached General James Rose and asked him to help George W. Bush avoid Vietnam by recommending him for a pilot position with the National Guard.

General James Rose General Rose recommended George W. Bush for a pilot position with the Texas National Guard. He died of unknown causes in 1993. He was immediately buried and no autopsy was performed.

Lt. Colonel William Harris, Jr. Lt. Col. William Harris was one of two commanding officers who could not perform George W. Bush's annual evaluation covering the year from May 1, 1972 to April 30, 1973. They stated in their filing that "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report." Fortunately for George W. Bush, Lt. Col. Harris is not here to verify his 1973 statement. He's dead.

Amiram Nir: He was a former Israeli agent who was in Jerusalem with George Bush during Iran Contra. He went under the assumed name of Pat Weber. Nir was scheduled to testify to the Senate subcommittee and it was feared he would reveal the truth. He perished, following the shooting-down of his aircraft with missiles from the helicopter of a man called Gene Tatum, 25-year CIA deep cover agent.

Lt. Colonel Jerry B. Killian Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, another George W. Bush's commanding officer. He cannot testify, he's dead.

James Downing Aalund Mr. Aalund's name is the first on a long list of young Texans who died in Vietnam. No Texas Air National Guard connections.

Lewis B. Miskell WMRMurdered Canadian diplomat another possible victim of Valerie Plame Wilson/Brewster Jennings disclosure. On May 26, Italian police discovered the badly decomposed body of Canadian diplomat Lewis B. Miskell in a Naples sewer. Miskell, 49, had been stabbed in the abdomen. Intelligence sources report that Miskell, who assigned to the Canadian embassy in Vienna, Austria, was the attached responsible for liaison to UN specialized agencies in Vienna

Mark Lombardi He was an accomplished conceptual artist who, while chatting on the phone with a banker friend about the Bush savings and loan scandal, started doodling a diagram and was inspired to create a complex series of drawings and sketches that charted the details of the scandal. According to the New York Times, "He was soon charting the complex matrices of personal and professional relationships, conflict of interest, malfeasance and fraud uncovered by investigations into the major financial and political scandals of the day; to keep facts and sources straight, he created a handwritten database that now includes around 12,000 3-by-5-inch cards." On the evening of March 22, 2000, Mark Lombardi was found hanging in his loft, an apparent suicide.

Peter Hartmann Central Figure in cemetery probe found dead ... Peter Hartmann FEMA, La. Outsource Katrina body count to firm implicated in body-dumping scandals. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has hired Kenyon International to set up a mobile morgue for handling bodies in Baton Rouge, Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina, RAW STORY has learned. Kenyon is a subsidiary of Service Corporation International (SCI), a scandal-ridden Texas-based company operated by a friend of the Bush family. Recently, SCI subsidiaries have been implicated in illegally discarding and desecrating corpses.

Steve Kangas His web site, Liberalism Resurgent, was meticulously researched and presented such a problem to the "real boss" of George Bush, Richard Scaife, that he hired a private detective to look into Kangas' past. Steve Kangas was found in a 39th-floor bathroom outside of Scaife's offices at One Oxford Centre, in Pittsburgh, an apparent suicide.

Maria DiBiase WMR has learned from UN sources that the 19th Floor from which UN employee Maria DiBiase plunged to her death in the early morning of February 17, houses the Department of Peace-keeping Operations/Field Administration and Logistics Division (DPKO/FALD). The offices also house the code machines used for the encrypted fax machines used for DPKO activities in addition to a spare set of code machines used for DPKO rapid response teams. New York Daily News more search terms: Austrian national, IAEA, Conference Services, UNSCOM, Saadam Hussein wmd database, Iraq invasion, black market nuclear suppliers, A Q Kahn, Libya , Turkey, Pakistan, Marc Rich, Sibel Edmunds, 'black bag' operation.

Governor Mel Carnahan Missouri's former Democratic governor, Mel Carnahan, who lost his life in 2000, three weeks before Election Day, during his Senatorial race against John Ashcroft. Carnahan went on to become the first dead man to win a Senatorial race, humiliating and defeating the unpopular Ashcroft posthumously. Ashcroft, despite his unpopularity, went on to be appointed Attorney General by George W. Bush. Investigators determined that Carnahan's plane went down due to "poor visibility."

Gus W. Weiss, former White House policy adviser on technology, intelligence, and economic affairs, highly significant player in Reagan/Bush Sr. execution of Soviet downfall, "Weiss had declared himself to be against the war in Iraq a short while before his "suicide". It is interesting to note that 18 days before Weiss' death, another Bush government analyst also committed suicide -John J. Kokal (58 years old) on November 7, 2003. This man leapt to his death from an office in the State Department where he worked.

Other Bush Family:

Jeb Bush, another one of George's brothers, conveniently and quietly declared martial law in Florida 4 days before the 9/11 attacks. This resulted in the public failing to find out the many hidden truths about what happened in Florida in the lead up to 9/11, which the public has yet to learn. In the upcoming film from Truth Alliance, this information that Jeb Bush doesn't want you to hear will be available. The working title for the 9/11 project is, "Corruption at the Core." PNAC signatory and he signed Executive Order 01-261 September 7, 2001 which allowed martial law to be declared in Florida. His was the first state to declare a state of emergency on 9/11, however, this was 4 days before it had happened..

Of course it is Florida where Jeb Bush was Governor that the massive account of voter fraud occurred and George W Bush illegally stole the office of President of the United States to begin with. The film, Unprecedented: The 2000 Election, was one of the journalist stories that didn't make headlines in the U.S. Greg Palast from the BBC also had the film, Bush Family Fortunes, as well as a book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, all about Bush's history and voter fraud case in Florida. Hundreds of thousands of votes were literally not counted due to a "glitch" in the Florida system that was supposed to go through and eliminate felon votes. The majority, over 90% of names removed, turned up to be innocent of any crime. Some counties were reporting that the cards used to vote with were confusing and placed the names of candidates nest to boxes that didn't match that candidate, a slick and manipulative move by someone clearly attempting to steal votes. It worked, Bush won by a couple hundred votes in Florida. Had the votes been allowed to be recounted, he would have lost.

Neil Bush, the president's other brother, had intimate connections with John Hinckley, the man who shot and tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan. Neil Bush was scheduled to have dinner on March 31, 1981, with Scott Hinckley, brother of John Hinckley, the day after a bullet came within an inch of making Neil Bush's father the new president of the United States. Even though John Chancellor had let slip out this most remarkable assassination coincidence shortly after John Hinckley tried to kill President Reagan, it was censored by NBC News and the other organs of the national news media during the subsequent 10 years. And even in the several months of extensive coverage of Neil Bush's part in the massive savings and loan fraud, no mention was made of his role in the continuing cover-up of the most significant story in the 1980s. Scott Hinckley, John's brother, worked for Standard Oil under Neil Bush's management. Had Hinckley succeeded at killing Reagan, George HW Bush would have become President much faster.

What did Neil Bush do in 1985 after he became a director of the Silverado Banking, Savings & Loan Association that went bust three years later at a cost to taxpayers of at least $1.6 billion? Among other improprieties involving "some of the worst kinds of conflicts of interest" according to federal regulators, he admits that he failed to list his business relationship on a conflict-of-interest form when he got a $100,000 loan from a developer who was a partner in his oil company. That was after he helped approve more than $100 million worth of loans to that business partner. When he wrote "None" on that form, he actually was dependent on one of the thrift's biggest borrowers for the entire $75,000 annual salary that was his main source of income. "I know it sounds a littlefishy," he admitted when he testified that the loan was not to be repaid unless JNB Exploration was successful, which it wasn't. What it was, he said in one of the classic understatements of our time,"was an incredibly sweet deal." One bemused expert observed that it "may have been the first completed loan in financial history in which the creditor defaulted."

While five of Silverado's board members were banned for life from any federally insured institution, Neil Bush was ordered only to "desist from any acts,omissions or practices involving any conflicts of interest, unsafe or unsound practices or breaches of fiduciary duty." In other words, to do nothing more than obey the law. And no order to pay restitution.

Shortly before the 1988 election, when the regulators wanted to close Silverado, a call came from Washington to delay that action for 45 days—until after election day. After George Bush was elected, an order was issued to close the bank. A Treasury Department request to the FBI a year ago for an investigation of White House pressure on federal regulators to delay closing Silverado until after the election received no attention from the president's good friend, Attorney General Dick Thornburgh (whom the voters of Pennsylvania last month temporarily removed from public office once they could get their votes on him).

Neil's mother is praised in puff pieces from Parade to People to the New York Times as a devoted wife of 45 years and mother of "four happy children" who nonetheless seem to be endlessly enmeshed in unhappy and unethical scandals. She is repeatedly quoted as saying that Neil was being "persecuted" and "has done nothing wrong." Her third son is known to suffer from a reading disability believed to be dyslexia, but she let an unexpected cat out of the bag when she told a Parade interviewer: "You know, people who have reading disabilities learn to fake. And Neil really had learned to fake."

Finally, there is Neil's father. "We will not rest until the cheats and the chiselers and the charlatans spend a large chunk of their lives behind the bars of a federal prison," President Bush said on June 22, 1990, in regard to the savings and loan fraud. Read his lips. Then stare at the fact that when FBI field offices requested 425 new agents to help investigate the 21,000 thrift fraud referrals sitting "unaddressed" in their files, the Bush administration approved only half those requests and reduced the funds Congress authorized to spend on prosecutions. You and I may not always agree with Bill Moyers, but he was on target when he said that "George Bush is the most deeply unprincipled man in American politics today. He strikes me as possessing no essential core. There is no fundamental line from which he will not retreat....I have watched him for almost 30 years and have never known him to take a stand except for political expediency."

Don't forget, of course, George W Bush had substantial prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks as proven by the enormous amount of whistle-blowers and memos the public has now seen exists. Aside from Bush's clear involvement from covering up the attacks being a potential complicit attack from the Intelligence community itself, he has been accused by many to have been possibly involved in its planning.


Sunday, December 23, 2007

Supreme Court: Big Corporations Can Take Your Home

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Since the 1980s, it has become very nearly impossible to find anything about which the GOP is right. But --I've done it! In the interest of fairness, I have ferreted out a SCOTUS decision of 2005 that merits special mention, primarily because Antonin Scalia, whose thought processes were scrambled, backward and fallacious in Bush v Gore, was absolutely correct this time around. Secondly, the so-called court "liberals" were absolutely wrong. The decision has not yet replaced Roe v Wade as a "conservative" cause celebre, but it's close. It should be a progressive cause celebre as well.

The decision is Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) in which SCOTUS ruled that the city of New London could invoke imminent domain for the benefit of a private development project. I would think this a violation of the Fifth Amendment on its face.
Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand, it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future "use by the public" is the purpose of the taking; the condemnation of land for a railroad with common-carrier duties is a familiar example. Neither of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case.

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.

There was apparently no attempt to make the case that the end use would benefit anyone but private, corporate development. Simply, because of Kelo v City of New London, if a private developer covets your lake front property and, further, if the developer can persuade the city to condemn your house, the development can move in, move you out, and put up fancy, highly profitable condos. That is what has happened in New London, Connecticut. What you thought you owned can be taken away if a big, influential corporation covets it and has friends on the City Council.

The case arose when New London, Connecticut condemned the privately owned homes ideally situated lakeside. The huge pharmaceutical firm, Pfizer, claimed that the property was to be used as a part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled that the "general benefits" a community enjoyed from economic growth were sufficient to qualify as "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." A stretch by any standard --liberal or conservative!

In fact, the development plan included a resort hotel, a conference center, 80–100 new high income residences consisting of townhouses and apartments, and fashionable office and retail space. Given the history of "trickle down" theory, it is difficult to see how such a development benefits anyone other than developers. Two words --high income --exclude most of the public. It is hard to make the case that the public as a whole benefits when those not earning high incomes are excluded. Moreover, improving the general tax base of a city upon the backs of retirees and persons of modest income is most certainly not what the founders had in mind by the term "public".

The project moved forward upon a 5–4 decision of June 23, 2005 but it was not Antonin Scalia but Justice John Paul Stevens who wrote the majority decision favoring the City of New London. Stevens was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion was, in fact, an apologia, a rationale for the idea that government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government purpose. In other words, big corporations, like Pfizer, who wish to displace you need only meet a very minimum and exceedingly vague standard to displace you from your home: rational relation.
(a) Though the city could not take petitioners' land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted "to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals," ibid. Moreover, while the city is not planning to open the condemned land--at least not in its entirety--to use by the general public, this "Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the ... public." Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose."

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.

The city, it was decided, need not prove that the development would, in fact, benefit the entire community in any measurable way. The corporate entities coveting your property need not spell out concrete, tangible ways in which the community as a whole would benefit. The city need not prove that merely increasing the tax base benefits the community as a whole. Nor was the city required to prove that the alleged improvement was not offset by new liabilities and/or services.
In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas."

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.

Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." When interpreting the Constitution, we begin with the unremarkable presumption that every word in the document has independent meaning, "that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added." Wright v. United States, 302 U. S. 583, 588 (1938). In keeping with that presumption, we have read the Fifth Amendment's language to impose two distinct conditions on the exercise of eminent domain: "the taking must be for a 'public use' and 'just compensation' must be paid to the owner." Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash., 538 U. S. 216, 231-232 (2003).

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al, Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The project is most certainly not a public asset nor is it used by the public in the same way that a public park, a public lake or a municipal auditorium is used. This project was not essentially different from the huge Allen Center, Greenway Plaza, Cullen Center, or the mega Houston Center projects in Houston. The "public" may work in the offices, patronize shops, and sit in open spaces. The public may walk from Enron to One Allen Center to Hyatt Regency --but to claim that these are "public" projects is absurd.
In February 1998, Pfizer Inc., the pharmaceuticals manufacturer, announced that it would build a global research facility near the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. Two months later, New London's city council gave initial approval for the New London Development Corporation (NLDC) to prepare the development plan at issue here.

The NLDC is a private, nonprofit corporation whose mission is to assist the city council in economic development planning. It is not elected by popular vote, and its directors and employees are privately appointed. Consistent with its mandate, the NLDC generated an ambitious plan for redeveloping 90 acres of Fort Trumbull in order to "complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's waterfront, and eventually 'build momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city." App. to Pet. for Cert. 5.

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al, Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

It is reasonable to assume that some jobs were created initially. But construction is temporary. How many net jobs were created, if any? How many long term jobs were created? How does the public benefit and in what ways? Did the public benefit from the impact on the environment? What criteria are used to determine public benefit?

Those questions were not raised. Neither the city or the developers were required to put forward a program designed to generally improve the infrastructure, the schools, the water supply or any number of amenities expected of a community in which all citizens contribute monetarily and in which all citizens have a stake. Nor was the city required to prove that the displacement of long time residents would not prove of greater liability to the city. This looked like a private development by private enterprise for private enterprise and benefiting private enterprise. The public be damned!
The public use requirement, in turn, imposes a more basic limitation, circumscribing the very scope of the eminent domain power: Government may compel an individual to forfeit her property for the public's use, but not for the benefit of another private person. This requirement promotes fairness as well as security. Cf. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 336 (2002) ("The concepts of 'fairness and justice' ... underlie the Takings Clause").

--KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al, Justice O'Connor, with whom The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas join, dissenting.

The role played by the city of New London was simply that of making it easier for the big pharmaceutical company to get the land it needed --cheap!

The decision was a cop out and I am ashamed to say that the so-called "liberals" on the court were hoaxed. Certainly, wealth does not trickle down and I dare say none of the said "public benefits" of this development have "trickled down" to the "public", the residents of New London and most certainly not to the original residents of the coveted property.

It is also a safe bet that the residents were compensated only at existing market value --not at projected market value after the construction of fancy, schmancy hotels, conference centers, jacuzzis and condos. Sadly, this is a case in which the corporate rich coveted the lands of those less fortunate and schemed a way to get good property cheap. And they did it with municipal complicity. This is a case in which big business and crooked government screwed the people. Tragically, this case is just a milestone on the road to corporate fascism.

An update:

Shock and Tasers in New Orleans

By Naomi Klein, HuffingtonPost.com, December 22, 2007

Readers of my book The Shock Doctrine know that one of the most shameless examples of disaster capitalism has been the attempt to exploit the disastrous flooding of New Orleans to close down that city's public housing projects, some of the only affordable units in the city. Most of the buildings sustained minimal flood damage, but they happen to occupy valuable land that make for perfect condo developments and hotels.

The final showdown over New Orleans public housing is playing out in dramatic fashion right now. The conflict is a classic example of the "triple shock" formula at the core of the doctrine.

- First came the shock of the original disaster: the flood and the traumatic evacuation.

- Next came the "economic shock therapy": using the window of opportunity opened up by the first shock to push through a rapid-fire attack on the city's public services and spaces, most notably it's homes, schools and hospitals.

-Now we see that as residents of New Orleans try to resist these attacks, they are being met with a third shock: the shock of the police baton and the Taser gun, used on the bodies of protesters outside New Orleans City Hall yesterday. ...

From Le Thé Chez Vierotchka: The Frontline - R.I.P.