Failure to plan ahead on highway redesign.

St. Louis is still celebrating the December re-opening of its big highway construction project. "Highway 40" (now known as Federal Highway 64) was retooled with more than $500M in taxpayer money, much of it federal money. This highway runs along the heavily traveled "central corridor" of St. Louis, and it would have been a great place to leave room for a new light rail line (St. Louis has such a system that desperately lacks a line running down this central corridor). Or at least they could have thought of carving out a narrow biking route along the highway. None of these things were done, however. In St. Louis, many of us still think of private motor vehicles as our sole means of transportation. Highway 40 reopening - Photo by Erich Vieth Ironic, then, that officials opened the new highway to only pedestrians and bikes the Sunday before it opened the newly rehabbed highway to cars and trucks. I heard several people peddling on the highway exclaim that they could bicycle swiftly, in about 25 minutes, from the middle of St. Louis City all the way to Clayton on the new highway. Gad - it really didn't take that much longer than driving a car! But why wasn't accommodation made for light rail or even for a bicycling path? An official explanation showed up (at all places) at the St. Louis Science Center (it's no longer there). As you'll see, there is nothing scientific about this propaganda. On a big board offering the "FAQs" of the reconstruction, one could read the following "explanation." explanation I'll translate: We're short-sighted people. Notice how the "explanation" tries to lull you to sleep for the first few sentences before evading the question entirely? Here's another translation: "We're stupid." Here's another: "We lack a thoughtful set of priorities." Or this: "We'd rather give trillions of dollars to banks than fight for something sensible here at home."

Continue ReadingFailure to plan ahead on highway redesign.

The strong stench of corruption at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

What does it tell you when there is no independent Inspector General for a federal agency that oversees $6 trillion in mortgages? This is not a thought experiment. It is undisputed reality. And there is good reason to suspect that something utterly corrupt is going on at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There are pointed allegations jointly made by progressive blogger Jane Hamsher and fiscal ultra-conservative Grover Norquist, who don't see eye to eye on much of anything. But they have come together to urge that we allow the light of day to fall onto Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The allegations are detailed, and you can read them here. The center of the storm is the current White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. A rejected FOIA request only makes these allegations more troubling. The allegations are exacerbated by the fact that the Acting Inspector General was dismissed early this year through the effects of legislation pushed through by Rahm Emanuel. The fact that $800 Billion in taxpayer funds is at stake (more than $7,000 for each one of the 111,000,000 American households) makes this all the more surreal. To put this $800B number in perspective, the Defense Secretary just made a big announcement that we should set aside a "mere" two billion dollars for "nation building." A second set of allegations has also been made: that the White House is facilitating the cover up of potential malfeasance at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac until the 10-year statute of limitations has run out on Rahm Emanuel. All of this incredibly disturbing. If Mr. Obama is the man he portrayed himself to be during the campaign, he will immediately appoint an independent Inspector General in order to get to the bottom of this.

Continue ReadingThe strong stench of corruption at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

Veteran speaks out about the military’s greatest weapon: racism

In this video, a military veteran named Mike Prysner spoke out about the military's main weapon: racism. He argues that without racism, none of the military's expensive weapons could ever be used, and there would be no chance that the working people of one country would be convinced to kill the working people of another country. His argument regarding the power of racism is another way of pointing out the explosive power of ingroups and outgroups and the curing power of diversity--a willingness to embrace the humanity of people unlike ourselves. For more on the often-used recipe for going to war, see this post on "War Made Easy."

Continue ReadingVeteran speaks out about the military’s greatest weapon: racism

Imagine trying to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using the legislative techniques of 2009

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an impressive piece of legislation, but it would never pass today, certainly not in anything like the form in which it currently exists. Note: The actual Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which can be found here) is only 56 pages long (double spaced in 12 point Times Roman font). It contains clearly written provisions throughout its ten titles. For example, see the following language from Title II, SEC. 201.:

(a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

But what would it have been like if present-day legislative techniques had been used by those attempting to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Most significantly, using modern strategies means that the proponents would be much more interested in passing legislation that sounded like it prevented discrimination, than passing legislation that actually prevented discrimination. Here are some specific differences. If the 2009 legislative techniques were being used back in 1964:

-The Civil Rights Act would have been thousands of pages long, so long that most legislators would not be well-versed regarding its terms.

-Key deliberations and debate regarding the Civil Rights Act would have been conducted entirely in secret.

-The Civil Rights Act would've been filled with terms that the citizens themselves would not understand the effect of the bill. If asked about the bill, most American citizens would say something like, "I think it has something to do with discrimination but I'm not quite sure what the new law allows or prohibits.

Continue ReadingImagine trying to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 using the legislative techniques of 2009

Will the federal government continue coddling AIG?

Fascinating Op-Ed in today's NYT, written by three former prosecutors (ELIOT SPITZER, FRANK PARTNOY and WILLIAM BLACK) who are demanding that AIG be forced to release voluminous emails in its possession that would allow the public to understand the economic meltdown that cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, including 180 billion dollars to AIG. I agree entirely. There is no reason for delay. It's time to turn AIG inside out, that much is clear. The only thing that is unclear is whether the politicians in Washington DC can muster up the courage to represent the taxpayers rather than the big banks. Here's an excerpt from the Op-Ed piece:

aig-emails

Continue ReadingWill the federal government continue coddling AIG?