Another look at that Supreme Court decision:
Historical choices are not garden parties, and they can get ugly, no matter how rational the analyses of scholars/scientists.
--Immanuel Wallerstein
As Slavoj Zizek points out, globalization is not the opposite of localism, it thrives on localism, especially the localism of the powerful.
--Immanuel Wallerstein
I think there is more to yesterday's news, reported everywhere, in mainstream and alternative outlets, regarding the Supreme Court's gift to Pfizer, than meets the eye. Then again, maybe what meets the eye is precisely what is supposed to be seen. My posts of 6/23/05, 6/22/05 and 4/20/05 offer relevant sources for these thoughts. I also recommend Gustavus Myers.
The court divided five to four, conveniently close, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens, against O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, to allow New London to demolish a community on behalf of Pfizer. Why didn't Kennedy, who joined O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in Bush v. Gore, for example, join them in this case? Why didn't the ostensible libertarian, Souter, join them in this case? Is this case rigged, as are many political decisions, to guarantee the right outcome while allowing a voice to an ostensible dissenting view?
It's nice to see O'Connor, Rehnguist, Scalia and Thomas admit that there are such things as powerful interests that do indeed have undue advantage in the political system. Would they say the same thing in a majority opinion? There is really nothing unusual about this decision. It's simply the next logical step in the kind of decisions the court has been handing down since its inception.
The purpose of state power is to benefit Pfizer and Bechtel and Lockheed and Monsanto and the rest of the pirates, to guarantee the accumulation of capital. It's been doing this for five hundred years. It's the signature of the capitalist system. As conditions amenable to capitalism change over time, political operatives change their tunes. This decision marks a requisite change of tune, a change of tune at work since 9/11. McGowan hits the mark, "What better way, after all, to disempower and demoralize the American people than through an unspoken acknowledgment that the enemy is within, and can act with impunity?"
--Immanuel Wallerstein
As Slavoj Zizek points out, globalization is not the opposite of localism, it thrives on localism, especially the localism of the powerful.
--Immanuel Wallerstein
I think there is more to yesterday's news, reported everywhere, in mainstream and alternative outlets, regarding the Supreme Court's gift to Pfizer, than meets the eye. Then again, maybe what meets the eye is precisely what is supposed to be seen. My posts of 6/23/05, 6/22/05 and 4/20/05 offer relevant sources for these thoughts. I also recommend Gustavus Myers.
The court divided five to four, conveniently close, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and Stevens, against O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, to allow New London to demolish a community on behalf of Pfizer. Why didn't Kennedy, who joined O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas in Bush v. Gore, for example, join them in this case? Why didn't the ostensible libertarian, Souter, join them in this case? Is this case rigged, as are many political decisions, to guarantee the right outcome while allowing a voice to an ostensible dissenting view?
It's nice to see O'Connor, Rehnguist, Scalia and Thomas admit that there are such things as powerful interests that do indeed have undue advantage in the political system. Would they say the same thing in a majority opinion? There is really nothing unusual about this decision. It's simply the next logical step in the kind of decisions the court has been handing down since its inception.
The purpose of state power is to benefit Pfizer and Bechtel and Lockheed and Monsanto and the rest of the pirates, to guarantee the accumulation of capital. It's been doing this for five hundred years. It's the signature of the capitalist system. As conditions amenable to capitalism change over time, political operatives change their tunes. This decision marks a requisite change of tune, a change of tune at work since 9/11. McGowan hits the mark, "What better way, after all, to disempower and demoralize the American people than through an unspoken acknowledgment that the enemy is within, and can act with impunity?"