Monday, January 4, 2010

OMG, I Agree With George Will

Sunday was a strange day. I found myself nodding my head in agreement (mostly) with columnist George Will. Will focused yesterday's column on the situation with the effort to develop the Atlantic Yards site in Brooklyn, NY. I think Will is spot on regarding his analysis of the fallacy of the SCOTUS's of allowing eminent domain to be used to transfer property from one private owner to another for the purpose of economic development.

I've often wondered if Will was an historic preservation enthusiast, because the Kelo v. City of New London case definitely is seen as a genuine potential threat to historic buildings and neighborhoods. And, I agree with Will's desire that the Court will revisit this issue, and reverse its decision on the use of eminent domain. Furthermore, regarding preservation, I found a very measured memorandum produced by the Law Department of the National Trust for Historic Preservation; it puts the Kelo into an historical context regarding preservation.

I also stumbled across this blog, for those who are interested in following the developments of the Atlantic Yards project.

7 comments:

Scott said...

I haven't followed the Atlantic Yards story, but I do agree with Will (OMG!) and you about the abuse of eminent domain.

About Will, I think that if the GOP had any sense it would model the tone of its message more on George Will rather than the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Unlike the foaming-at-the-mouth right wingers, Will is an independent thinker willing to challenge his own party.

He has called for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, was one of the earliest critics of the corruption of Watergate, and spoke out with disgust at John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin.

The Republican Party needs to separate itself from the whacko birthers and teabaggers and assorted "Christian" fundamentalist weirdos.

There are not many times I find myself in agreement with Will on policy, but I do respect his approach.

hscfree said...

Scott, I agree with you. I think that there are few on the right at this time who actually deserve real respect or attention. Perhaps my elitist education has made it so that I actually appreciate cogent arguments from people with whom I disagree politically, but that is where I find myself right now.

And those "weirdos" are "Christianists." I will not sully the history (checkered as it may be) of Christianity with the madness spewed by this lot.

Scott said...

Free--
And those "weirdos" are "Christianists." I will not sully the history (checkered as it may be) of Christianity with the madness spewed by this lot.

Good point. I know a great many tolerant and reasonable Christians, and I don't want to lump them in with the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson "God hates..." types. That's why I put the quotation marks on the word "Christian."

Intolerance and bigotry are about as far from the message of Jesus as you can get.

Micheal Sisco said...

Here's the problem. The tin-foil-hat-wearers (tea baggers, birthers, Christers, et. al.) may be on the lunatic fringe, but they all still vote GOP. And that will hold true in 2010. Dems, on the other hand, also has its fringe element, but it has disintegrated the Dem's advantage. It used to be that the GOP could win but not govern and the Dems could govern but not win (paraphrasing BHO's book) ... how the times have changed.

Eminent domain? Too bad we can't use that with Jerusalem, Mecca and Medina ... I'm thinking Wal-Mart or a Starbucks ... or just an empty parking lot. Talk about giving humanity a break.

Just sayin ...

Scott said...

Michael, you say--
"Here's the problem. The tin-foil-hat-wearers (tea baggers, birthers, Christers, et. al.) may be on the lunatic fringe, but they all still vote GOP. And that will hold true in 2010."

Agreed, but here's the problem for the GOP--it's getting to the point where those tin-foil-hat-wearing fringe folks will be the ONLY ones voting Republican.

A great many thoughtful, libertarian-leaning, small-government economic conservatives
are disgusted with the 40 year forced-marriage between their Goldwater brand of conservatism and the whacko religious fundamentalist right.

That marriage was always uncomfortable for thinking conservatives, but it did win elections for them. Not anymore.

Look at what happened to poor John McCain. Every time he said something more-or-less reasonable he was attacked by the right wing fringe. And every time he tried to appease the whacko right (making up to Falwell, the selection of Palin) he alienated thoughtful conservatives and moderates.

The whackos are loud but they are a minority. The GOP will gain seats in 2010, but I don't think they have a chance of ever becoming a majority party again until they distance themselves from the crazies.

hscfree said...

Lately, I've been wondering if short term pain would lead to long range substantive change. And by that I mean is it possible that if the tea party people actually won and were forced to govern, the broader American populace would be so horrified by the result (say using the precedent set by Kelo to acquire property via eminent domain for say the construction of Christianist churches (as economic development engines)). My only concern with that scenario is the general apathy of the American populace. Apathy, and a poor Dem candidate helped to usher in a Christianist into the VA governorship.

Perhaps we need to see how far the fringe people will try to force the nation to go in their direction (as in give them enough rope), before reason comes to the country.

Micheal Sisco said...

Scott: I hope you are correct (I hate using the word right these days).

But I am afraid that the normals in GOPland are better able to cope with the crazies (they may be crazy, but at least they are conservative crazies) than the Dems are.

And every minute BHO spends on trying to unify the Dems is a minute that could have been spent de-legitimizing those tin foil hats.

Not filled with optimism these days. Sigh.