Thursday, June 23, 2005
And the rich get richer...
It was a dangerous Supreme Court decision... and one that passed by the narrowest majority. As CNN reports it: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses - even against their will - for private economic development.
This is a decision that opens the door for immense corruption. Who really stands to gain here? Will entire communities benefit from granting so much power to the local government? Or will only the wealthy and influential developers be the big winners? The answer is obvious.
On principle, individual interest must never be allowed to stand in the way of collective interest. So, on the surface, the argument that one private developer should be allowed to force the destruction of the homes and businesses of many is entirely untenable. But to give it an appearance of benevolence, it was argued that the local government knows what is best for the community and that tax revenue, job creation, and additional commerce would outweigh the interests of the small home or business owners who are being displaced (with compensation).
The truth is, however, that the compensation is rarely enough. If it were enough, then those small home and business owners would probably have sold their property to the developer. The truth is that many lives will be ruined so that one rich person can get richer. The truth is that local government is often no more likely to represent the interests of the community than national government. The truth is that in a capitalist economic structure, a democratic government is largely a front for wealthy businessmen.
This is a decision that opens the door for immense corruption. Who really stands to gain here? Will entire communities benefit from granting so much power to the local government? Or will only the wealthy and influential developers be the big winners? The answer is obvious.
On principle, individual interest must never be allowed to stand in the way of collective interest. So, on the surface, the argument that one private developer should be allowed to force the destruction of the homes and businesses of many is entirely untenable. But to give it an appearance of benevolence, it was argued that the local government knows what is best for the community and that tax revenue, job creation, and additional commerce would outweigh the interests of the small home or business owners who are being displaced (with compensation).
The truth is, however, that the compensation is rarely enough. If it were enough, then those small home and business owners would probably have sold their property to the developer. The truth is that many lives will be ruined so that one rich person can get richer. The truth is that local government is often no more likely to represent the interests of the community than national government. The truth is that in a capitalist economic structure, a democratic government is largely a front for wealthy businessmen.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Michael Jackson
Yesterday, Michael Jackson was acquitted on all ten charges. Today, I saw on Larry King Live a discussion of whether or not Michael Jackson would start performing again. I found it unfortunate that Larry did not even contemplate the more important question of whether Michael Jackson should be allowed to perform again.
__________________________________________________________________
The nature of art is such that in order to develop it subtle intellect and appreciation as well as deep sensitivity is required. Thus, during that time that artists do not devote to their artistic efforts, they often feel compelled to express their subtle intellect, appreciation and deep sensitivity in a demeaning way. Due to this psychological tendency, we generally find that artists whose singing, dancing, acting or other artistic achievements earn the unstinting praise of hundreds of spectators express their subtle artistic power in quite opposite ways in private life through the pursuit of material gratification. Thus we hear obscene language from devotional singers and observe a strong worldly attachment in detached spiritual aspirants. Those who are fanatically sanctimonious in their youth become immoral lechers in middle age. Actors are no exception.
The only way to save oneself from this kind of psychological degradation is to keep one’s mind constantly engaged in the thought of the Great and to always look upon the world with sweet, benevolent sentiments. Artists and actors must never forget this even for a moment because they have a great responsibility to society and an immeasurable influence over it. Unlike in the past, people today do not want to establish separate theatrical societies for artists because of immoral conduct. Actors are now a part of society and this will continue. This is necessary in the greater interest of society.
Although actors are not fully accepted in Indian society today, in practice they are becoming or are in the process of becoming fully accepted. So under these circumstances strict vigilance should be kept over the purity of their individual conduct. They should not become the cause of a disease which invades the whole social body like a cancer. If actors and actresses fail to acquire a basic level of personal purity or are reluctant to acquire it, it will be the duty of society and the state to compel them to lead good lives by creating circumstantial pressure. No matter how talented they may be, immoral actors and actresses will have to be deprived of their right to exhibit their artistic talents, and sent to reform schools.
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar
Various Occupations
Human Society Part 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
__________________________________________________________________
The nature of art is such that in order to develop it subtle intellect and appreciation as well as deep sensitivity is required. Thus, during that time that artists do not devote to their artistic efforts, they often feel compelled to express their subtle intellect, appreciation and deep sensitivity in a demeaning way. Due to this psychological tendency, we generally find that artists whose singing, dancing, acting or other artistic achievements earn the unstinting praise of hundreds of spectators express their subtle artistic power in quite opposite ways in private life through the pursuit of material gratification. Thus we hear obscene language from devotional singers and observe a strong worldly attachment in detached spiritual aspirants. Those who are fanatically sanctimonious in their youth become immoral lechers in middle age. Actors are no exception.
The only way to save oneself from this kind of psychological degradation is to keep one’s mind constantly engaged in the thought of the Great and to always look upon the world with sweet, benevolent sentiments. Artists and actors must never forget this even for a moment because they have a great responsibility to society and an immeasurable influence over it. Unlike in the past, people today do not want to establish separate theatrical societies for artists because of immoral conduct. Actors are now a part of society and this will continue. This is necessary in the greater interest of society.
Although actors are not fully accepted in Indian society today, in practice they are becoming or are in the process of becoming fully accepted. So under these circumstances strict vigilance should be kept over the purity of their individual conduct. They should not become the cause of a disease which invades the whole social body like a cancer. If actors and actresses fail to acquire a basic level of personal purity or are reluctant to acquire it, it will be the duty of society and the state to compel them to lead good lives by creating circumstantial pressure. No matter how talented they may be, immoral actors and actresses will have to be deprived of their right to exhibit their artistic talents, and sent to reform schools.
Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar
Various Occupations
Human Society Part 1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
