EPIC1934
10-04-2008, 12:49 PM
Well here in nyc our Billionaire Putin went and did it. He chose the belly-button of fiscal meltdown to sneak in his own permission slip to defy term limits and give himself persmission on the only "checks" to his power-- channels, 2,4,11 and 5 and 9[both owned by rupertMurdoch -Moloch-Moloch]to self corronate for a 3rd reign.
It is important to remember a key about this latest agression against constitutions.
Even I was not crazy about term limits in the 1990s when the issue was popular in the 1990s. But NOTE: that discourse was about TERM LIMITS IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
TERM LIMITS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH-- WHETHER THEY BE MAYOR GOVERNOR OR PREZIDENT-- ARE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. Think about it. As Mayor Billionberg has had the ability to yeld massive influence on all 12? branches of municipal gov. In the Education Dept especially he has filled the schools with Corporate Yes men who obey his installed Wall Street Hack Joe Kline, who of course has no education background-- true, not entirely a bad thing!, but uses his Wall Street cred to as his reson detre, not a good one! I have firsthand evidence of what a corporate scam his reign has created within the school system. More on that later.
The point?
An executive without term limits can easily lead to tyranny in a way that the legislator without term limits cannot. He can lace the entire buraucracy with yes men who can last a lifetime, and help their corporate friends fleece the city blind.
In short, Bloombergs latest coronation is a recipe for Machine politics.
Machine politics. The phrase resonates in US history with images of working class corruption. Many of the middle class do gooders of the the Progressive Era and later fought against this crew with their "good gov." campaigns. Yet some historians have argued that in the beginning at least (see gangs of new york) Machines were a response to clear class and ethnic repression, and hence the only alternative for groups like irish and Italian immigrants that had no democratic alternative to enable survival. I think there is some element of truth in this argument, but that is not my point right now.
My point is that these groups like Tamany Hall and the notorious St Louis machine that was held up for scorn in the Progressive Era classic written by Frank Norris ( I think) have a distincly NEGATIVE connotation, and much of this was desrverd. But it also reflected true class scorn, of the upper and middle class resenting working class organization, while ignoring all the obstacles to democracy that the working class faced in the 19th and 20th centuries-- and today, in my view.
So why is BIllionaire Bloomberg not being called a machine politician? Why will his new proposals continue to meet with nothing more than plattitudes about his Wall Street background and how valuable it is even at a time when Wall Street has sunk the nation?
Could it be because HIS political machine is a a billionaire's political machine?
It is important to remember a key about this latest agression against constitutions.
Even I was not crazy about term limits in the 1990s when the issue was popular in the 1990s. But NOTE: that discourse was about TERM LIMITS IN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
TERM LIMITS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH-- WHETHER THEY BE MAYOR GOVERNOR OR PREZIDENT-- ARE AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. Think about it. As Mayor Billionberg has had the ability to yeld massive influence on all 12? branches of municipal gov. In the Education Dept especially he has filled the schools with Corporate Yes men who obey his installed Wall Street Hack Joe Kline, who of course has no education background-- true, not entirely a bad thing!, but uses his Wall Street cred to as his reson detre, not a good one! I have firsthand evidence of what a corporate scam his reign has created within the school system. More on that later.
The point?
An executive without term limits can easily lead to tyranny in a way that the legislator without term limits cannot. He can lace the entire buraucracy with yes men who can last a lifetime, and help their corporate friends fleece the city blind.
In short, Bloombergs latest coronation is a recipe for Machine politics.
Machine politics. The phrase resonates in US history with images of working class corruption. Many of the middle class do gooders of the the Progressive Era and later fought against this crew with their "good gov." campaigns. Yet some historians have argued that in the beginning at least (see gangs of new york) Machines were a response to clear class and ethnic repression, and hence the only alternative for groups like irish and Italian immigrants that had no democratic alternative to enable survival. I think there is some element of truth in this argument, but that is not my point right now.
My point is that these groups like Tamany Hall and the notorious St Louis machine that was held up for scorn in the Progressive Era classic written by Frank Norris ( I think) have a distincly NEGATIVE connotation, and much of this was desrverd. But it also reflected true class scorn, of the upper and middle class resenting working class organization, while ignoring all the obstacles to democracy that the working class faced in the 19th and 20th centuries-- and today, in my view.
So why is BIllionaire Bloomberg not being called a machine politician? Why will his new proposals continue to meet with nothing more than plattitudes about his Wall Street background and how valuable it is even at a time when Wall Street has sunk the nation?
Could it be because HIS political machine is a a billionaire's political machine?