Last month, Republicans and (leaving) CPB Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson made news recently with his contention that public broadcasting is too liberal and some Republicans added that PBS was unfairly reporting the Bush administration in a negative light.
-A few weeks later, the House of Representatives announced they would cut PBS's funding by 100 million (25% of their government given budget) -effectivly shutting them down or at least curtailing many of their programmes to what could be bought from private contributions and donations.
-Thursday, the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting named former Republican Committee co-Chairman Patricia de Stacy Harrison to work as its top administrator.
Now the GOP has one of their own running PBS.
-Friday the House announced that it won't cut Public Broadcasting Funds after a "carefully considered" debate and vote.
Coincidence, I'm sure.
I would not count on Sesame Street teaching tolerance of gays or any more indepth expose from Frontline on Bush administration's failings in the future.
quote:"Big Bird and his friends can fly on their own," said Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.
PBS still might end up with less money than in its current budget. The legislation would eliminate $23 million for the Ready to Learn program, which subsidizes children's educational programming and distributes learning materials.
Of course, this is the same HOuse that plans on reducing the No Child Left Behind Program by 806 million- more than 3%.
Fuck it: kids can "fly on their own" too, I guess. Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
In regards to the underfunding of "No Child Left Behind", one of the things I've heard bandied about down here (especially in light of state leaders' continual failures to pass an acceptable school financing scheme*) is that the public schools are intentionally being weakened to force the voucher programs to be passed. It's a little too conspiracy theory-ish for me, but who knows.
As for Public Broadcasting, we've all known the PBS and NPR have been in the Republican's crosshairs for a while now. I think "Buster Bunny Tries to Seduce Kids with the Homosexual Manifesto"** was probably the final straw that broke some bored representative's back and decided to toss a bone to the party faithful.
* It's a much bigger clusterfuck than what I'm letting on. ** Real title was something like "Buster Bunny Visits Maple Syrup Farm and, oh, One of His New Friends Has Two Mommies But There's Maple Syrup and Vermont Countryside to See First".
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Undeserved snark:
What!? Does this mean they won't be able to show five hours of Deepak Chopra's "How To Magic Up Some Self-Confidence, You Gullible Apes" special? I am outraged and appalled!
But seriously, it has been like three weeks now, and no Austin City Limits.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Y'know its funny:
My history teacher told me how President Franklin D. Roosevelt had control of Congress and was attempting to take control of the Supreme Court by appointing Dem judges to counter the Rep judges. His actions were blocked for fear it would creat a dictatorship. Yet the same seems to be happening with Bush and no one sees the comparison. Yep its real funny...
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
There is a slight difference there, Mars. Roosevelt was attempting to pack the Supreme Court by having the Congress pass a measure that would expand the number of justices on that court from nine to fifteen. The measure failed in the Senate when that body voted it down in 1937. Roosevelt hoped that adding six more justices (likely to be liberal justices) would dilute the conservative voices on the court (and thus spot having the Supreme Court overturning all his New Deal legislation).
What Bush is doing is waiting for the older members of the Supreme Court to either die or resign. Some members of the Republican Party and supporters of Bush are hoping that one or more of the moderate or liberal voices on the court will leave during Bush's term so that they can be replaced by conservative justices. That way the conversative tilt of the court can be increased without revisiting Roosevelt's failed packing scheme.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I always wondered about schemes like that. Life terms or not, all congress would really have to do would be reduce the Supreme Court in size to three justices, kick the oldest six off, re-expand to twelve, appoint nine new ones, reduce back to nine, kick off the oldest three. As far as I know this would be perfectly legal. But that's just an aside.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's all perfectree regal Queen Amidalia....
The scary thing is a notion of a Supreme Court that is evem more in big business' pocket than the current line up.
This week the Supreme Court decided that a city or state can sieze private land and give that land to a private developer if the city/state decides the developer would improve the city in the process.
This means that you can own your house on the lake, refuse an offer by some developer to buy it for condos and the...suprise! The city takes your land and they sell it to the developer. Giving you (get this) whtever the city decides your land is worth as compensation.
As yet another founding principle of the country (the riht to own land) is circumvented by the Republicans.
Gee, this family only provides a building from which several small businesses and their employees work out of. What's that compared to a huge condo development (and the inevitable campaign contributions the developers are likely to give).
It reads like the plot to a A-Team episode...though I doubt a cabbage-cannon will save the day in this case.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I always wondered about schemes like that. Life terms or not, all congress would really have to do would be reduce the Supreme Court in size to three justices, kick the oldest six off, re-expand to twelve, appoint nine new ones, reduce back to nine, kick off the oldest three. As far as I know this would be perfectly legal.
Something similar has been done in the past. Congress passed a bill called the Judicial Circuits Act in 1866 that called for the removal of three seats from the U.S. Supreme Court as justices retired. This was done by Congress to prevent President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone to the Supreme Court should any vacancies arise.* At the time, there were ten seats on the Supreme Court and the intent was to drop the size to seven. A seat was dropped after passage of the act (which killed a pending nomination to that seat made by Johnson) and another seat was removed the following year. Before the third seat could be removed, a new measure was passed by Congress (the Circuit Judges Act of 1869) which reset the number of seats on the Supreme Court to nine.
* A minor note on this, I've also read references that the bill was not so much a slam to Johnson as it was a compromise between the chief justice and Congressional leaders. The chief justice (Salmon Chase) hoped Congress would raise judicial salaries in return for a smaller Supreme Court (that would no longer wind up with tie decisions).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Omega: The problem is that they would have to wait for the justices to retire before eliminating the seats, as they did in the 1860s. Constitutionally, "the Judges ... shall hold their Offices during good Behavior". There's no stipulation for Congress to downsize an acting Supreme Court justice.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I would'nt say that psycho Scallia threatening reporters with arrest for recording a public speach is "acting with good Behaviour".
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Or schmoozing with one VP D. Cheney when the latter had a case pending.
Republican standards.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Is it necessary a Republican revolution we are witnessing here? I see this as a corporate revolution with both parties, openly or not, supporting and advocating for corporate ownership of our institutions and our way of life.
I think this will be worst than what happened in the 1800's. In the 1800's, people lived suppressed and poverty-ridden lives. As a consequence of changes enacted in response to corporate behavrior, people started to believe that they could pull themselves out of the lives their parents and grandparents lived. Workers were granted benefits and loyalty from companies. In the last twenty-five years, this ascension by the people has been steadily eroding and now people who expected the riches their parents and grandparents received are facing a future where there no such riches.
I see the recent SCOTUS judgment as one more step in this direction and as a warning. If Americans don't wake up, our children will be living the way our ancestors did over 100 years ago and the rights that workers fought for will be lost.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
As yet another founding principle of the country (the riht to own land) is circumvented by the Republicans.
Check the vote. The traditionally conservative justices voted AGAINST this, and the liberal ones for it. Also, the party affiliation of the president who appoints a judge and the way the judge votes is not all that close a correlation.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Omega's correct on both counts. The majority opinion in Kelo vs. City of New London consisted of Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Of those, the liberal wing of the court is usually listed as Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Dissenting were Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and O'Connor. Of them, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia are usually considered the conservative wing. Kennedy and O'Connor are usually the swing votes on the court.
With Omega's second point, the two best examples are justices Souter and Stevens. Stevens was appointed by Ford; Souter was appointed by George H. W. Bush. Both are more liberal than the presidents that appointed them. Another example that come to mind are Earl Warren, who was much more liberal than Eisenhower, who appointed him as chief justice. I can't think of any nominally liberal president that appointed a much more conservative justice, though.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Thomas actually did something I approve of! He pointed out that the poorest people would be the likely victims of abuse of this decision.
He's absolutely right- only the poorest americans live in areas that the city would want to "redevelop", so those people are the ones to get the shaft. If they live in the poor part of town, and a luxury condo goes up where they lived, the city sees it as improving the neighborhood, but now the former owner is still poor and has no home.
Allowing the city to sieze land on behalf of private intrests would preven a land owner from negotaiting a high price from a rich developer.
God forbid someone strikes oil on their land. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
From what I understand, the decision was basically only that this particular case was within the reasonable bounds of eminent domain. It won't stop a future court from deciding that some other instance is an abuse of the power. And an opposite decision would not stop a future court from deciding that some other instance is A-okay.
Or am I misinformed? (Which, by the way, is very possible. I haven't actually followed the story at all, really.)
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The problem is that they allowed it at all. If it's allowed in one place, it's allowed elsewhere unless the SCOTUS rules otherwise. Which will never happen.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Short version: Freeport wants to build a marina along Old Brazos River to serve luxury yachts. The property belongs to two seafood companies, and the city has been fighting with those companies about getting the land for some time now. The city hopes that by building a marina, hotels and restaurants will pour into the area to spur economic development in a city that has little businesses in its jurisdiction. In short, it's kicking out two businesses that contribute heavily to their commercial taxes in favor of what could end up being a pipe dream. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of New London, Freeport is going ahead with preparing the legal documents necessary to seize the property.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Of course, if this bugs you your real beef is with the guys who wrote the Constitution in the first place.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I've been following this locally: a developer recently tried to strongarm a local business owner in Hollywood FL by telling him that if he did not sell, they'd just have the city sell his land to them at a cheaper price.
Gee, this family only provides a building from which several small businesses and their employees work out of....people with no where else to operate their business from. What's that compared to a huge condo development (and the inevitable campaign contributions the developers are likely to give).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The problem is that they allowed it at all. If it's allowed in one place, it's allowed elsewhere unless the SCOTUS rules otherwise. Which will never happen."
Erm... It was already allowed. It's been allowed for a couple hundred years now. As Simon alluded to, the Constitution provides for eminent domain as long as "just compensation" is provided. There was never any chance that the court would declare eminent domain to be wrong. It was just a question of whether New London was crossing the line.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
The constitution implicitly allows the government to force you to sell your land for public use. The Supreme Court has effectively expanded the definition of "public use" to mean that the government can force you to sell your property to anyone they please. I don't think anyone argues that this is what the amendment in question was actually intended to mean, do they?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Dude, ownership society.
Snark aside, it's easy to construct an argument wherein it is in the public good for Company X to put down a critical piece of infrastructure, whether its economic, some utility, or so on. Say, if everyone needed a zombie defense wall where your house was, I'm not sure I see the distinction between the government taking the land to build one itself and taking it to sell to Zombie Defense Contractors, Ltd.
I can't be bothered to read the actual decision and dissenting opinions (thus putting me in good company with the majority of commentators and pundits, I imagine), but I think any problems thus described with the law are with either the very concept of eminent domain or with the methodology used to determine public use. But we're well convinced, here in the U.S., at least institutionally, that the private sector can constitute a public good.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Snark aside, it's easy to construct an argument wherein it is in the public good for Company X to put down a critical piece of infrastructure, whether its economic, some utility, or so on. Say, if everyone needed a zombie defense wall where your house was, I'm not sure I see the distinction between the government taking the land to build one itself and taking it to sell to Zombie Defense Contractors, Ltd.
But this is exactly what's not happening here. The court decision is allowing the City of New London to seize the property under eminent domain then sell it to a private developer to build an office park, research centers, a resort hotel, retail space, and a conference center. Most of that is not going to be public use of the land unlike if it had been seized for a highway, park, or zombie defense barricade. That's the problem with the court's decision; it says any pipe dream of a boost in economic activity can be considered "for public use" and thus allowable under eminent domain.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, yes, exactly. As I said, we already agree, as a society, that private economic activity can constitute a public good.
Or maybe I didn't say that exactly, reading back through it, but that is what I meant to imply.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'm well aware of the quibbles of legal language, but we can reconstruct the argument using the second phrase, if we want. All I'm saying is that we already have agreed, in general, that big profits are good and trump many other concerns. This doesn't seem like a revolutionary decision to me, in other words, or a radical reinterpretation.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
No, we can't go back and say "for the public good" instead of "for the public use". They mean completely different things. "Public good" means society benefits from it. "Public use" means society can use it. They do not mean the same thing. A hotel and conference center, an office park, a research center, these things are not for the public use. A highway, a rail line, a utility easement, these are things for the public use.
And no one's proven at all that any of these land grab for private economic development is going to pay off at all. How many stadiums have been built in the past several years on promises of economic riches and urban revitalization? How many have fulfilled their promises? Look at Houston. We were promised redevelopment and economic revivals on the eastern side of downtown thanks to Toyota Center, Enron Field, Hilton of the Americas Hotel, and other crackpot schemes. That side of town is still a wasteland, and no we have yet another large hotel that barely make 50% occupancy. The promises are empty.
Private developers and municipal governments can do the hula all night long to their economic forecasts, and they have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not they'll hit success or wind up with a boondoggle. Caught in the middle between developers and city official seeing dollars signs are these having their homes snatched away from them for developments that they won't have access to. Look at Freepot with the article I linked above. The city has very few businesses in its jurisdiction that it can tax; these two companies make up a good amount of that tax revenue. Now Freeport is essentially kicking them out to build a marina for luxury yacht owners who may not have a need for yet another berthing place along the Texas gulf coast and pray to God that the hotels and restaurants come in and that they'll score big with use. If they succeed, good for them. If they don't, Freeport no only has a tax revenue shortfall after yanking the land out of two large companies, but it has an $8 million dollar marina sitting unused and more business failures in anything that decides to try and capitalize on the marina's promised benefits. Considering the reputation that Texas cities have for spurring economic development, this is likely going to be a disaster.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Upon taking a shower, I further contemplated the actual text of the amendment in question. I have revised my opinion. The constitution says that if property is taken for public use, just compensation must be provided. It says nothing else on the issue, which would seem to mean that property CAN be taken for private use, and furthermore, this can be done WITHOUT just compensation!
Of course, that's a complete rape of the spirit of the law. Did I miss something somewhere that would prevent this? Please tell me I did.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I'll grant that I was a little loose with my language, Siegfried, but the public can get plenty of use out of a fancy new marina by a.) paying to use it as individuals b.) collecting taxes from it.
I'm not exactly defending this decision, you know. I'm just saying the problem isn't something the court has suddenly invented.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Basically, the question is what constitutes "public use"? And, as Simon pointed out, the public can "use" the privately developed land by collecting tax money from it. Like him, I'm not saying this outcome is a good thing. But the courts can't stop the government from making bad decisions: just illegal ones. Bad decisions are why we have referenda and limited terms of office. If the people of New London really believe their government is not acting for the public, I'm sure there are a number of things they can do about it.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The issue is that (at least in the instance I linked) the decision only benifits a private company. It actually closes several private businesses and leaves all those employees without jobs. The new development might affter more jobs (assuming it's successful at all), but that's nothing to the people with no business or income. Mabye they can be janitors or something in the new condos....
Clarence Thomas' dissent is based on simple logic: The poorest land-owners/tennants live in the most likely areas for the city to size and have over to be "re-developed" by private business. Taking their land and selling it to private developers leaves the former landowners with no where to go- they were already living in the poorest neighborhood.
So, this ruling screws the poorest land-owners and only benifits the most wealthy developers.
Also consider that the city/state decides what is adequate conpensation.
In the past, if someone wanted to buy your land, you could set whatever price you wanted and if they wanted the land badly enough, they'd pay. Now the developer will just go through the local politicians (thay are, of course not motivated by personal intrests or greed) and your land (possibly in your family for generations) is now a condo for yuppies.
Not what the founding fathers had in mind.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
This is why I've long maintained that Liam should be President of the United States. He'd make things right.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
His first task would be having you comitted.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Actually, I'm going to be Liam's Secretary of Funk.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But who will be your Undersecretary for Jive?
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Dick Cheney.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I speak Jive- I'll be the translator for the UN. that way I'll get to sit next to NIcole KIdman all day (because all UN translators are incredibly bueatiful women, dontcha know?).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Too bad it's not a real company asking for Souter's land to develop.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Pssst... Omega mentioned that already in post #25.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Ah. You count the post numbers, Siggy?
You are an odd odd fellow, you know.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
No, I don't count post numbers. See the little document icon just to the left of the date and time of the post? It's a direct hyperlink to that post, and the number at the end of the URL is the post number.
As for the odd, odd fellow bit... I concur. And so do the other voices in my head.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)