As I write, Congress is indulging in one of its usual shams: a “hearing” to determine whether blatantly unconstitutional, unconscionable federal crimes are in fact constitutional and conscionable — or can at least be made to seem that way. Specifically, the Subcommittee on National Security is listening to assorted “experts” and at least one victim (Alaska’s state representative, Sharon Cissna, who famously travelled four days via car, small plane and ferry rather than endure a groping at Seattle’s airport) in a farce it entitles "TSA [Transportation Security Administration] Oversight Part I: Whole Body Imaging."
Saul Alinsky was a radical revolutionary who taught other radical revolutionaries that the only way to achieve power in the United States is by stealth and deception. He said that Americans would never tolerate a Russian or Cuban style violent revolution and that the only way to impose socialism on America would be by not calling it socialism.
Judging from the behavior of public employee union members in Wisconsin, they believe they have the right to dictate to the government what their benefits ought to be and dictate to the taxpayer how much they should be paid. And if they don’t get what they want, they will vandalize the state Capitol and send death threats to those legislators who voted to curtail their power.
Within the past decade, I've written three columns titled "Deception 101," "Stubborn Ignorance," and "Exploiting Public Ignorance," all explaining which branch of the federal government has taxing and spending authority. How can academics, politicians, news media people and ordinary citizens get away with statements such as "Reagan's budget deficits," "Clinton's budget surplus," "Bush's budget deficits and tax cuts" or "Obama's tax increases"? Which branch of government has taxing and spending authority is not a matter of rocket science, but people continue to make these statements. The only explanation that I come up with is incurable ignorance, willful deception or just plain stupidity; if there's another answer, I would like to hear it.
Why are so many people who are opposed to development nevertheless in favor of "redevelopment"? The short answer is that development involves decisions made in the market by large numbers of people in the general population, in their own personal interests, while redevelopment involves taking decisions out of the hands of the population at large and putting the power to make those decisions in the hands of elites.