Frequently politics in America divides along a line that believes that all government is bad and that anything government does is good.
As a New Yorker article pointed out,
this can mean, for example, that Republicans oppose anything that might make government look good. Amtrak rail improvements is cited.
On the other hand, local government, deprived of the ability to raise taxes, rip off their people with rapacious parking fees and tickets, ridiculous prosecutions and a complicated structure made extremely difficult to navigate.
The ultimate victims are the people with the least amount of money to pay the fees.
British television can serve as the usual guide to who gets the shaft. J.K. Rowling’s book, “The Casual Vacancy,” has been made into an HBO mini-series.
The town council is led by people who want to keep the poor out of town. The poor not only will not be heard, they will not be seen.
This caricature of argument makes reasonable debate impossible. You are either with a party and its ideology or against it.
Thus a city like Denver can make people pay several thousand dollars in lawyer fees if they should accidentally wound themselves with a gun as they put it in a safe.
Doesn’t the NRA control the government?
Who benefits? The lawyers _ our ultimate oligarchs – laugh all the way to the bank. And the NRA is able to raise more money because of the perceived threat to gun owners.
Who benefits? The lawyers _ our ultimate oligarchs – laugh all the way to the bank.
It ties up our legal system, and takes the little money the middle class has left away. Police now are promising nationwide to prevent the country from being destroyed by the plague of edible marijuana. It even merited a story in the New York Times. The point is to keep the “Drug War” going and more jobs for the boys. This makes unions, on their worst day, look benevolent.
Why has the U.S. Supreme Court dragged its feet on legalizing gay marriage? It is not all ideology. Much of it is incompetence.
The “whack-a-mole” strategy that President Obama inherited from former President George Bush waters the growth of terrorism.
In Andrew Cockburn’s “The Kill Chain” it is shown that when “high value” targets were eliminated attacks on Americans increased. The same counterproductive result occurs in the drug wars. Kill a drug leader and it leaves a vacuum making it cheaper for producers who aren’t forced to pay the kingpin.
Instead of considering the possibility that this strategy is doomed to failure, Cockburn writes that the military compares it to mowing the grass. Of course it grows again.
And the jobs continue, and contracts become more valuable to defense contractors.
The U.S. gets into a “social media” war, bidding for “hearts and minds.”
Both ISIS and the U.S. government make claim after claim of victory. The concept of silently eliminating an opponent, or launching a terrorist raid without admitting it, is no long a strategy on the table.
For the West, often it appears that the only “hearts and minds” hearing Washington’s argument are Americans already convinced “the militants” should be eliminated. The array of opponents has become as broad as the Republican presidential candidate field. That is why many now call them “militants,” instead of terrorists, because it is not really known what they want. And in some cases, no one tries to find out.
Whether you question a “Bush” or Obama you are considered an enemy by their camps. You must agree on everything or go elsewhere, or just be ignored.
It sometimes seems like the tribalism so often deemed corrupt in the Third World.