Did Michael Jackson Liberate the Masses from Communism, or Did He Merely Replace Stalin?
The video evidence for this important HIStorical question is distinctly ambiguous:Though the underlying commie music therein is certainly better than Jackson's execrable "Stranger in Moscow" from that period. Furthering the confusion, Jackson in 1996 erected a 35-foot statue of himself in Prague (pictured below) in the exact same spot that once housed the world's largest statue of Stalin himself.
R.J. Eskow "won't claim that Michael Jackson overthrew Albanian Communism," but avers that pop music "didn't hurt." Radio Free Europe, in a truly weird piece of reporting, gives us these tantalizing morsels:
Ilya Shapiro reminds us that:It has been reported that even though Russian President Dmitry Medvedev favorite rock act is Deep Purple, he's had a weak spot for Michael Jackson ever since his early student years. [...]
For reasons that were never fully understood, Jackson received an unofficial blessing from communist censors, who allowed "Thriller" to be licensed and issued as a vinyl record by the Soviet recording company Melodia in 1985. [...]
Jackson's popularity in Eastern Europe in the late 1980s was matched only by that of supergroup ABBA from Sweden. His stunning video clips and original dance moves inspired a generation of performers in the former communist bloc. His live concert in Moscow in 1993 sparked near-hysteria among scores of Russians hungry for a taste of Western culture.
Tell it to Karel Gott, comrade!Michael Jackson's death allows us to remember that such phenomenal career achievements can only be possible in an economic system that rewards and harnesses talent.
The King of Pop's creativity allowed him and his family to make hundreds of millions of dollars, yes, but it also created thousands of jobs in the music and marketing industries and brought joy to fans around the world. Whatever his personal eccentricities — perhaps, in part, as a result of them — Jackson represents a capitalist success story.
No central planner could have invented him, and no government bureaucracy could have transformed pop music in the way he did.
As a confirmed backer of the Dallas-overthrew-Communism school of interpretation, I remain unconvinced. However, for those genuinely interested in exploring the intersection of Western pop culture and non-Western liberation, I heartily recommend reading Michael Moynihan on Red Elvis, and Charles Paul Freund's classic "In Praise of Vulgarity."
SNAP ANALYSIS-What happens in the US Senate on climate change
By Tom DoggettWASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) - Historic climate change legislation, headed for a close vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, is expected to face another tough battle and likely changes in the Senate.
The House bill would slash U.S. carbon emissions produced by utilities, manufacturers and other companies by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.
The emissions would be cut gradually through a market in which companies buy and sell carbon pollution permits.
* Unlike in the House where a simple majority is needed to pass legislation, the Senate needs 60 votes from its 100 members to end debate about controversial measures.
* Democrats and their supporters now control 59 Senate seats. If Democratic candidate Al Franken is declared the winner in Minnesota's long-disputed senate election, Democrats would theoretically have 60 votes needed to end a potential filibuster, in which opponents to a climate change bill may try to prevent a vote on the measure by prolonging debate indefinitely.
* But some Democratic senators from states that produce coal, a major emitter of carbon dioxide -- would have a hard time supporting the climate change bill.
* Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has ordered Senate committees to finish work on climate change legislation by mid September, so a final measure can hopefully clear Congress this year. "This fall we're going to have a bill here in the Senate that we're going to be able to vote on," Reid said.
* Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, head of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, expects to unveil a climate change bill in July and have her committee pass it before lawmakers leave for their summer recess in August.
* Some environmentalists hope the climate change bill can be strengthened in the Senate. They back increasing the amount of electricity utilities must generate from renewable energy sources, raising emission reduction goals and auctioning more pollution permits instead of giving them away to companies.
* "Some senators plan to create more jobs in the wind and solar industries by improving the renewable electricity standard," said Dan Weiss, energy expert at the Center for American Progress. "The recent government study that documents the current impact of global warming on the United States may spur some senators to seek steeper reductions in greenhouse gas pollution by 2020."
* The House bill calls for auctioning only 15 percent of the pollution permits and giving companies the other 85 percent free. Many environmental groups want to auction more, and if the Senate modifies the current permit arrangement, some House lawmakers may not back a final bill.
* There is a chance the Senate legislation could be weaker than the House version in order to avoid a filibuster. "That means a Senate-passed bill will only be as good as the views of the 60th senator. So the deal-making in the House may be only a preview of things to come in the Senate," said Frank O'Donnell, head of Clean Air Watch.
* Stronger lobbying by the White House may be needed to win Senate approval.
* "President Obama should argue that this bill would improve national security by reducing oil use and limiting the international instability that would occur with more drought, famine, and floods. National security concerns could convince some senators to support this program if economic and environmental concerns do not," Weiss said.
* White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said on Friday the president "believes it's possible to get (climate change) legislation through the Senate and to his desk." (Reporting by Tom Doggett)
"As Naked an Abuse of Government Power as Could be Imagined"
"As Naked an Abuse of Government Power as Could be Imagined"
How the Sotomayor nomination revived the debate over eminent domain abuse
Damon W. RootProperty rights were probably the last thing on President Barack Obama's mind when he selected Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. But that hasn't stopped Sotomayor's nomination from reigniting the long-simmering national debate over the use and abuse of eminent domain.
The controversy centers on Sotomayor's vote in a 2006 eminent domain case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester. New York entrepreneur Bart Didden says Port Chester condemned his land after he refused to pay $800,000 (or grant a 50 percent stake in his business) to a developer hired by the village. One day after Didden refused to pay those bribes, Port Chester began eminent domain proceedings against him.
As University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein put it, "The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined." But that didn't stop Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals from upholding the district court decision that ruled in favor of the village.
Still, this ugly decision wasn't entirely without precedent. Didden came on the heels of the Supreme Court's notorious 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which endorsed the government's power to seize property from one private party and hand it over to another so long as the taking was part of a "comprehensive" redevelopment scheme. That decision sparked nationwide outrage on both sides of the political aisle, including the passage of laws protecting property rights from Kelo-style abuse in 43 states. (The Supreme Court declined to hear Didden's appeal.)None of that is likely to derail Sotomayor's nomination, however, which the Senate is fully expected to approve next month. But this renewed national focus on eminent domain abuse might still benefit a group of long-suffering property owners in Brooklyn, New York, who have been waging a five-year battle against the combined forces of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), real estate developer Bruce Ratner, and the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), a controversial quasi-public entity empowered by the state to seize private property via eminent domain.
At issue is the so-called Atlantic Yards project, a 22-acre redevelopment boondoggle centered on a new sports arena for the New Jersey Nets, a professional basketball team that just happens to be owned by Atlantic Yards developer Bruce Ratner. Property owner Daniel Goldstein and others brought suit, claiming the ESDC's use of eminent domain violates their property rights and oversteps even Kelo's generous interpretation of the Constitution's Public Use Clause. In particular, the plaintiffs argue that the alleged "civic benefits" of the project—including a fancy arena designed by celebrity architect Frank Gehry—were just pretexts used to justify handing both private and public land over to a politically-connected developer without considering any competing proposals. Last year the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in their case, Goldstein v. Pataki, which is now working its way through state court.
This week the saga went from bad to worse, as the MTA, which controls the central portion of the land needed for the project, released a disastrous new plan. Consider this: In 2006 the MTA agreed to sell Ratner its 8-acre Vanderbilt rail yard—which had been appraised at over $200 million—for a lump-sum payment of just $100 million. Now the MTA says Ratner can pay just $20 million upfront, with the rest due over the next 22 years.
As the New York Post (which supports the Atlantic Yards project) declared in an editorial attacking the new deal, "After pleading poverty, jacking up [subway] fares and squeezing $2 billion from Albany, the MTA is now flush with cash. Or so one might think—if the agency OKs a plan to let a developer pay for air rights over the Atlantic Avenue rail yard on a 22-year layaway plan."
It's also worth noting that Ratner recently fired Frank Gehry, whose status as a global architectural celebrity had been one of the major "civic benefit" talking points in favor of the redevelopment. This prompted New York Times architectural critic Nicolai Ouroussoff to denounce Ratner's actions as "a shameful betrayal of the public trust, one that should enrage all those who care about this city." (The New York Times, by the way, currently operates out of a Times Square skyscraper built in partnership with Bruce Ratner that sits atop land seized via eminent domain.)
So what happens next? The state will no doubt approve this sweetheart deal just as it approved the previous one. But Ratner still needs to sell more than $500 million in arena bonds and break ground before year's end in order to qualify for tax-exempt status. Here's hoping Goldstein's lawsuit, a lousy economy, and renewed public outrage over eminent domain abuse make the Atlantic Yards the perfect size to fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment