Monthly Archives: July 2022

OPB senior political reporter Jeff Mapes spent more than a year researching, reporting and producing Growing Oregon, a six-part podcast and web series looking at the evolution of Oregons unique approach to growth and the impact it has on our lives today. Heres the story behind the story. Listen to Episode 1:

Im standing on what feels like a sea of dirt in Oregons Willamette Valley.

A half-century ago, this newly plowed field was pretty much the epicenter of the battle over the future of Oregons vast landscapes.

Oregons population was booming and developers had their eyes on this verdant valley which also happened to be the home of two-thirds of the states population.

Im here to talk to Mike Bondi. He ran Oregon State Universitys 160-acre North Willamette Research and Extension Center, although he retired just before publication of this story. I want to understand what makes the valley so special and why so many Oregonians fought to save it.

I always say we can grow everything in the Willamette Valley, says Bondi, from asparagus to zucchini.

Commercial farmers grow more than 200 different crops in the valley. Thats a wider variety than in any state except for California, he adds.

Mike Bondi walks through Oregon State Universitys 160-acre North Willamette Research and Extension Center in Aurora, Ore., on July 1, 2022. Bondi, the former director at the center, says the soil in the Willamette Valley is what allows such a variety of crops to be grown.

Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB

It all starts with soil, Bondi explains as we crumble softball-sized clods of dirt. He describes how prehistoric floods broke the Cascade Mountains tens of thousands of years ago and deposited deep layers of dirt that in essence created the valley.

Bondi and other researchers work closely with farmers to help them figure out the future of agriculture in Oregon.

When hard cider became a thing, they planted apple trees to figure out which ones produced the best fruit. Theyre helping kick-start a boutique olive-oil industry in Oregon. And in one field, they put up solar panels to see how best to grow crops under and around them.

Fifty years ago, this agricultural bounty was at risk. The fight to preserve the valley was the biggest factor that led to Oregons unique land-use system one that eventually produced what are arguably the toughest statewide growth management controls in the country.

These restrictions may be the biggest thing we ever did in modern-day Oregon. They put urban growth boundaries around every city. They restrict the building of rural homes, foremost on prime farmlands. They make this place what it is.

But for all their importance, many Oregonians dont know much about the laws governing our land. I think of them as the hidden operating system of our built environment, most humming away in the background.

Test crops growing at Oregon State Universitys 160-acre North Willamette Research and Extension Center in Aurora, Ore., July 1, 2022.

Kristyna Wentz-Graff / OPB

Only a few states ever attempted anything on our scale. And now Im on a journey to figure out how all this happened. And along the way, Ill explain why it affects so many things you might not have thought about.

Because we limit where you can build homes, its led planners to push for more compact communities. Done right, that can help reduce driving and climate pollution. It affects the size and types of homes we build. It increases the opportunity to bring more racial diversity to neighborhoods. But it may also accelerate a shift away from the single-family homes that have long been seen as the mainstay of the middle class.

Before we get too deep into this story, I should explain that Im a child of the 60s. I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area watching the spread of suburbia.

To me, that meant seeing rolling hills of oak and eucalyptus disappear to make room for yet another subdivision.

My father grumbled about it. He grew up south of Oakland in Hayward, which was then a small farming community.

Like many kids then, hed help out at harvest times in the fruit orchards. From the top of a farm ladder, he could see San Franciscos elegant 1930s skyline.

But by the 60s, the orchards and farms were no longer in Hayward, or pretty much anywhere in the Bay Area. My dad told me stories like this all the time, about the California that no longer was.

My mother thought everything was great. She was in sunny California. She felt lucky to escape a dour childhood in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The people in her new home were interesting, dynamic, living their best lives.

I felt somewhere in between privileged to grow up in a place so many people wanted to be but also with this innate sense of something lost.

Of course, that feeling isnt unique.

Weve always fought over who controls the land in this country, no more so than in the West.

In the 1850s, white settlers were promised free land in Oregon, displacing the Indigenous people who lived here. There were repeated battles for control of the wealth from the great forests and powerful rivers.

The end of World War II was another pivotal moment. That was when the country was really reinventing itself. We started in earnest to build the modern America you see the landscape dominated by cars, strip malls, freeways and single-family homes.

Adam Rome

Douglas Levere / University at Buffalo

After the war, there is this population boom, explained Adam Rome, an environmental historian at the University at Buffalo. Housing was incredibly scarce, and the ability to mass-produce housing everyone involved was treated like a hero to be able to make cheap, decent houses.

Rome authored a book, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, that chronicled the rise of a new industry that built houses at a scale no one had ever seen before. Post-war prosperity and the growing ubiquity of the automobile led developers and customers further into the countryside.

Builder William Levitt epitomized this new approach, creating a brand-new city Levittown that housed 60,000 people.

Like so many of these communities, including in Oregon, it was white-only. These segregated developments were spurred on by federal agencies that refused to guarantee home loans to Black people trying to buy in mostly white areas.

Developers also used racial covenants and other tactics to restrict sales to anyone who wasnt white. And speculators fueled block-busting the tactic of spreading fear among white homeowners in cities that they needed to sell now to avoid catastrophic drops in their home values. We entered an era when segregation would become even more pronounced in much of America.

There was something else people didnt talk about at first: the environmental cost of progress.

Thanks to new, more powerful earthmoving equipment and building techniques, developers were remaking the landscape. Marshes were filled in, hillsides leveled, trees razed, and streams diverted into culverts.

They bulldoze the land, whatever was on it, Rome said. They leveled high spots and filled in low spots. Thats this uniform building space. And again, over the course of a generation, people started to realize that that way of thinking caused a lot of problems.

Runoff from new subdivisions polluted streams and lakes even bays and oceans.

And then there was, to speak plainly, the problem of poop.

Developers wanted cheap land. So they often jumped beyond city water and sewer systems. As a result, new homeowners relied on wells and septic tanks. A lot of those failed.

The septic tanks would pollute the wells, Rome said. Theyd turn on the faucet and crud would come out and not just sewage, but you know, detergent foam from the laundry.

He said people joked about it, toasting detergent cocktails and brown beer. Humorist Erma Bombeck, who chronicled the suburban lifestyles of my youth, titled one of her books, The Grass is Always Greener Over the Septic Tank.

But it was a horrifying thing, Rome said of the pollution. People had their basements flood, or their yard would fill up with sewage.

Postwar housing development in Levittown, Pennsylvania, circa 1959, one of the first mass-produced suburbs in the country.

Courtesy of the National Archives

Many new suburbanites started to complain about moving to a country-like setting, only to find that they were soon surrounded by even newer subdivisions.

A 1969 documentary, Multiply and Subdue the Earth, quoted one new suburbanite saying that she and her family were looking for some peace and quiet and a lot of people we can relate to in our community.

And now, she added, we find that this is all disappearing, with another raping, the raping of our hills.

Urban sprawl first became a big issue in the late 1950s. By 1964, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall issued a report stating that an area the size of Rhode Island was being converted from country to city and suburb every year. Development has made a bitter sandwich of much of our land, buttering our soil with concrete and asphalt, the report concluded.

The loss of so much countryside, the foul air and the stinking water, all helped create the modern environmental movement.

And then there was just the sheer number of people. They called my generation the baby boomers for a reason. There were just so many of us.

We were told the world faced mass starvation if we didnt stop reproducing so much. The movement to stop population growth became a potent political force.

California was on the leading edge of all of this. Its population grew larger than any other state. Massive housing developments sprouted helter-skelter into the countryside. Its air pollution was the worst in the nation. And its traffic jams were legendary.

And Oregonians felt all of this was heading right toward them.

On Nov. 21, 1962, viewers tuned to Portlands KGW-TV for a documentary, Pollution in Paradise, that changed Oregon.

No part of America still retains more of natures original work than the state of Oregon, a paradise for those who treasure the unspoiled, in sight, in smell, in sound, anchorman Richard Ross said at the beginning of the one-hour documentary.

But who are these foul strangers in Oregons paradise? he added, as indignant music swelled over footage of a heavily polluted river.

Undated image of Tom McCall with his catch of the day.

Oregon Historical Society Research Library

Political reporter and commentator Tom McCall picked up the narrative. In his distinctive accent the voice of his upper-crust New England upbringing he called out industrial polluters by name. And he spotlighted local sewage officials who were unable to keep up with growth.

Multnomah County was forced to curtail building permits in the 1950s because of leaky septic tanks. In the Metzger sanitary district in Washington County, one in every five homes was discharging raw sewage in a manner that threatened an outbreak of polio, typhoid and hepatitis, McCall said.

It wasnt just foul water.

For 50 to 60 days every year, McCall told viewers, inversions hold all Portlands pollutants close to the ground, and give Portlanders more than an inkling of what smog-invested Los Angeles has to endure.

Watching the documentary recently made me realize how scary it must have felt back then how surprised people were that their prosperity and modern conveniences threatened things as basic as clean air and water.

Pollution in Paradise was a sensation. It forced tougher regulation in Oregon and revived McCalls political career.

Hed been the top aide to Republican Gov. Douglas McKay, where he learned how to exercise power, Brent Walth explained in his biography of McCall, Fire at Edens Gate. In 1954, McCall defeated Portland Congressman Homer Angell in a Republican primary. But McCall was defeated in the general election by Democrat Edith Green.

McCall went back into the news business, his political career seemingly over.

In the wake of the documentary, he made a spectacular return. He was elected secretary of state in 1964 and won the governorship just two years later. McCall was now a leader of the new breed of moderate-to-liberal Republicans who increasingly dominated Oregon politics.

Tom McCall, governor of Oregon from 19671975.

Courtesy of the Oregon State Archives

McCall quickly made his top priority clear.

The umbrella issue of the campaign and of the decade in Oregon is quality, quality of life in Oregon, he proclaimed in his inaugural address.

McCall often said that the richness of life in Oregon was closely tied to the land. He talked about the states stunning beauty and unmatched recreational opportunities.

This resonated with Oregonians. The state had a strong middle class dominated by a still-growing timber industry, explained Norma Paulus, another prominent liberal Republican. She served in the state Legislature and as secretary of state before losing a race for governor.

It was a very stable society, Paulus said in a 1999 interview with the Oregon Historical Society. The average person thought that the beach belonged to him. The average person thought that Mount Hood belonged to him. And, you know, it was part of their heritage, so there was great understanding of the need to protect it.

This stable society also led both parties to the political middle. At the time, environmental issues were widely seen as a unifying issue, both in Oregon and nationally unlike, say, the Vietnam War or civil rights.

Everyone understood Republican, Democrat, blue state, red state that our environment in a lot of ways had gotten dramatically worse during this post-war boom, said Rome, the environmental historian.

Just a few months after taking office, McCall demonstrated how he would protect Oregons cherished landscapes. It involves the ocean beaches, and his actions on behalf of coastal protection may be the most celebrated part of his legacy.

A portrait of Tom McCall in the Oregon State Capitol, painted by Henk Pander.

Courtesy of Oregon State Archives

When I think of this chapter in his career, I think of McCalls official portrait in the state Capitol. Unlike the stodgier portraits of the states other governors, the McCall painting almost has the feel of a comic book. At 6-foot-5, he was a tall guy, and this picture plays on that; it shows him bestride the rugged coast like some kind of Marvel superhero.

The story behind the portrait is plenty dramatic. In the 1960s, coastal businesses and developers started claiming part of the beach for their own use.

They said the public only owned the sands below high tide. Oregonians were outraged. They thought the entire beach had been public since Gov. Oswald West got the Legislature to declare them a public highway in 1913. At the time, the beaches often provided transportation along parts of the coast. But West also saw the value of securing them for a broad variety of public uses and enjoyment.

In 1967, the Legislature stalled action on McCall-supported bills to make it clear that the entire beach belonged to the public. McCall stormed out to the coast one weekend by helicopter. He invited the press and university researchers to join him while he visited several beaches.

In Cannon Beach, the researchers drove stakes up and down the beach to show what parts would be protected under different standards. McCall narrated the action for reporters and glowered at a motel where the owner had blockaded part of the beach for his own customers.

Governor Tom McCall standing outside log barricade on beach in front of Surfsand Motel at Cannon Beach, Ore., May 1967.

Leonard Bacon / Oregon Historical Society Research Library

McCall concluded that the state should claim all of the sand up to 16 feet above sea level. Not so coincidentally, thats where the line of vegetation tended to start. The logjam broke as key legislators worked out a deal that protected the beaches, as well as access to them. And McCall won his first big victory in office.

Next, he took on land use.

Everyone could see what was happening in the Willamette Valley. The valley was both the heart of the states agricultural industry and home to two-thirds of Oregons population.

The Willamette Valley watershed is home to three of Oregon's largest cities. Data Source: USGS

MacGregor Campbell / OPB

Booming auto ownership made it easier for people to live farther from their jobs. And many people wanted to live a few miles out of town without necessarily being farmers.

Oregon farmers were normally a conservative bunch. But they began demanding protection from unchecked growth.

Hector Macpherson, a dairyman near Corvallis, recalled all the homes going up near him in a 1992 interview with the Oregon Historical Society:

[I] thought they were coming toward me, and that I would be surrounded, he said. We needed rural zoning to keep them out.

The problem, he said, was that some counties were doing a pretty good job of it and other counties were doing absolutely nothing.

Continued here:

Oregonians once feared their state would be wrecked by out-of-control sprawling development - Oregon Public Broadcasting

Will vote to ensure respect for all womenTo many, the ruling by the SCOTUS was a victory because Roe v. Wade was overturned.Im sad because we just took 50 years of progress and moved backwards; an insult to women of this country and around the world.As an 89-year-old man, I owe lots to most of my teachers that were women and also to some that were men for their guidance, teachings and love gave me the learning and tools to become the man I am today.I am alive today because of the excellent care I received at Ellis and Albany hospitals.No one can overlook the role women play in our life.I served in the U.S. Army for 22 years, went to Vietnam in 1965 and used a rifle to serve my country.I treasured being part of an army where we became one family.As many families today, we had faith, disagreements, and other shortcomings, like all society but we were family. We trusted each other and looked after each other.Today I will use my vote to try and correct that poor judgment of the Supreme Court and vote Democrat all the way.This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue or a womens-only issue. This is an issue for all of us.We must be heard that we will insist that women be given all the respect they have earned and not become second class citizens.I will always remember and respect all the women in my life.Vicente MercadoSchenectady

Agree or not, respect the Supreme CourtI would like to say that I am utterly amazed at how the progressives/liberals are reacting to the Supreme Courts recent decisions.I, too, in the past have been disappointed and didnt agree with some of the decisions of the Supreme Court but I accepted it as the law of the land and their interpretation of the Constitution.Was I happy? No. Did I protest, possibly. But never in an aggressively destructive manner.The past two weeks, I have seen thousands of individuals who disagree with the Courts decision on Roe v. Wade. As Americans, they have every right to disagree with the decision and protest.But again, the law shields the justices from having their personal lives disturbed by protests.The Department of Justice is supposed to follow the law and protect the justices and arrest those who break the law. Unfortunately that did not happen with this administration.It seems that ones political affiliation determines which laws will be enforced.But here is what I find most interesting.The Supreme Court gave us a constitutionally correct ruling which provided another opportunity for the radical progressives to destroy and denigrate our free society.These protesters seem to only do damage and destroy those cities led by liberal democratic mayors, which are usually in states lead by liberal Democratic governors.Can anyone explain why this is so?Ray GawlasScotia

New gun rule will be hurtful to businessesThe new state law requiring businesses to post signs declaring whether they welcome or dont welcome patrons carrying weapons puts businesses in the middle of politics.Whatever sign you put up will cause customers to leave.Rick GreenBallston Lake

Rules for commenting:The Gazette will not tolerate name-calling; profanity, threats; accusations of racism, mental illness or intoxication; spreading of false or misleading information; libel or other inappropriate language in any form, and readers may not make any such comments about or directly to specific individuals.Readers who violate the policy will be warned and then banned.

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Read more:

Letters to the Editor Sunday, July 17 The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette

The US supreme courts decision to overturn Roe v Wade, ending nearly 50 years of federal protections for abortion access, was catastrophic. The ruling amounted to a curtailment of womens rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens. The drastic decision undermines the courts legitimacy, and the consequences of it will set off an upheaval in society.

Those are voices from the supreme court itself: the words of its three liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in their scorching and thorough joint dissenting opinion on a decision by their body which has fundamentally altered the lives of millions of Americans.

In the opinion, the three liberal justices repeatedly warn of the devastating impact of the end of Roe, while emphasizing that the majoritys ruling breaks with core tenets of court procedure.

That criticism echoes throughout the liberals other dissenting opinions of the courts most recent term, which wrapped up late last month, revealing that Americas top legal body with huge power over American life is deeply split. And while huge attention has been paid to the rulings of the rightwing majority, the liberal dissents also offer an insight into the state of America and a scary warning for its future.

The courts last term was one of the most consequential in recent memory, as the conservative majority handed down major decisions on everything from abortion rights to gun restrictions and climate policy. Those decisions were often met with a dissenting opinion from the courts liberal justices, who voiced alarm about the direction and the velocity of the conservatives rulings.

Taken together, the dissents written by the three liberal justices this term send a clear warning about an increasingly radical court that is abandoning long-held principles and even the facts of a case to enact an extreme conservative agenda in America.

While supreme court opinions can frequently become mired in legalese that is incomprehensible to the average reader, the wording of the liberals dissents is often simple and direct. The opinions can read like a desperate attempt to reach beyond the courts standard audience of legal experts to speak to the millions of people who will feel the impact of these rulings.

Today, the court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation, Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion to conservatives decision in Carson v Makin. She concluded: With growing concern for where this court will lead us next, I respectfully dissent.

Dissenting opinions are a relatively unique quirk of the US legal system. A handful of other countries, including the UK, give judges the opportunity to register their disagreement with a decision, but most do not.

Paul Schiff Berman, a professor at George Washington University Law School, said dissenting opinions help foster a culture of argument around Americas laws.

It reflects the idea that law is not just a set of rules but is an argument about how to put society together, Berman said. Even a view that is not going to be the law of the land at a particular moment in history nevertheless gets articulated in the public arena, so people can see that there is a debate going on that they can be part of and that these things change over time.

That culture of argument was alive and well at the supreme court this term, as the liberal justices frequently excoriated the decisions delivered by their conservative colleagues. In one particularly biting dissent, Kagan predicted that the courts decision in Federal Election Commission v Ted Cruz for Senate would only bring this countrys political system into further disrepute.

In discarding the statute, the court fuels non-public-serving, self-interested governance, Kagan writes. It injures the integrity, both actual and apparent, of the political process. I respectfully dissent.

But while fiery dissents are nothing new, the opinions filed by liberals this term stand out for their sweeping criticism of the rulings, which extends far beyond the legal philosophy underpinning conservatives decisions.

In a number of instances, the liberals take issue with the majoritys presentation of the facts of a case.

That dynamic was evident in Kennedy v Bremerton school district, a case involving a football coach who sued his public school district over the right to publicly pray after games. When Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majoritys decision, he said the coach, Joseph Kennedy, had lost his job as a high school football coach because he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet prayer of thanks.

In her dissent, Sotomayor notes that Kennedy had not actually been fired over his actions, and she even included photos to contradict Gorsuchs characterization of the coachs quiet prayer of thanks. One photo shows Kennedy kneeling at the 50-yard line of the football field, surrounded by dozens of players and holding a helmet aloft.

As someone who has followed that case, the way that the majority described the facts at hand were so far from reality, said Lindsay Langholz, director of policy and program at the progressive group American Constitution Society. It struck me as [Sotomayor] using whatever tool was available to her to really underline just how egregious the manipulation of the facts was in that case.

The liberal justices outrage over their conservative colleagues presentation of facts is evident in their dissent to Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health, which reversed the nearly 50-year-old precedent of Roe.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito claims that it is extremely difficult for a court to ascertain what, if any, level of reliance Americans have on the federal right to abortion access. He specifically criticizes the courts ruling in Casey v Pennsylvania, which upheld Roe partly on the reasoning that Americans had organized their intimate relationships based off their reliance on the availability of abortion services.

Today the majority refuses to face the facts, the liberals write in their dissent. By characterizing Caseys reliance arguments as generalized assertions about the national psyche it reveals how little it knows or cares about womens lives or about the suffering its decision will cause.

Throughout the term, the liberal justices repeatedly supported their dissenting opinions by acknowledging the immense impact of conservatives rulings. In the Dobbs dissent, the liberals warn that many people who are unable to terminate a pregnancy will instead turn in desperation to illegal and unsafe abortions.

They may lose not just their freedom, but their lives, they write.

Breyer similarly begins his dissenting opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, which struck down a New York law strictly regulating the use of firearms outside the home, by noting that 45,222 Americans were killed by guns in 2020.

In my view, when courts interpret the second amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead states to regulate firearms, Breyer writes.

Instead of engaging with the potential ramifications of their rulings, the courts conservative justices often deliberately avoid such questions. Alito writes in his Dobbs decision, We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to todays decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.

The liberals see the majoritys refusal to acknowledge the certainty of abortion bans, given that 13 states already had trigger laws to outlaw the procedure if Roe was overturned, as vindication for their position.

Closing our eyes to the suffering todays decision will impose will not make that suffering disappear, the liberals write. The majoritys refusal even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment of its decision.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the liberals dissenting opinions this term is the justices repeated warnings about attacks on the institutional integrity of the court.

In her dissenting opinion in West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency, Kagan warns conservatives decision to severely limit the federal governments ability to curtail greenhouse gas emissions threatens the separation of powers.

Lets say the obvious: the stakes here are high, Kagan writes. The court appoints itself instead of Congress or the expert agency the decision-maker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening. Respectfully, I dissent.

Berman said warnings like Kagans reflect the distinctive nature of this terms dissenting opinions. They are sounding an alarm not just about a difference of judicial philosophy in a particular case, but about the radical attack on settled expectations and the ongoing legitimacy of the supreme court itself, Berman said.

That theme reverberates throughout the liberals dissent in Dobbs, which they conclude by warning that the courts decision to overturn the key precedent of Roe breaches a core rule-of-law principle and places in jeopardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy and marriage.

It undermines the courts legitimacy, the liberals write. In overruling Roe and Casey, this court betrays its guiding principles. With sorrowfor this court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protectionwe dissent.

Olatunde Johnson, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the closing lines of the Dobbs dissent stand out to her because of the liberals bleak assessment of the court.

This is saying, not only is this violating the notion of rule of law and stability. Its not just that I disagree with you; its that you are doing something out of the bounds of constitutional lawmaking and that it threatens the way were going to be seen by the larger public, Johnson said. Thats really strong language.

But if the liberals dissenting opinions paint a dire picture about the state of American democracy, they could also offer glimmers of hope for those who are distraught by the courts rulings this term.

After all, dissenting opinions have previously paved the way for a reconsideration of the courts past decisions.

Perhaps most famously, Justice John Harlans lone dissent in Plessy v Ferguson, which enshrined the racist doctrine of separate but equal into American law, was later cited by the lawyers who advocated for its reversal in Brown v Board of Education.

It certainly gives me hope, and I think it also gives me a sense of comfort that there are at least three justices on the court who see whats happening, Langholz said. If we can build on that coalition within the court, maybe we can get back to a place where the court is not ruling by fiat.

The rest is here:

What the liberal justices scorching dissent reveals about the US supreme court - The Guardian

If you had to rank the people most responsible for the Trumpist turn in American politics, Steve Bannon would land pretty high on that list.

Bannon hasnt been in a position of formal power since the summer of 2017, when he stepped down as Trumps chief strategist (or was fired it depends who you ask), but he still lurks in the shadows of President Joe Bidens Washington. Just this week, he set off push alerts when he announced that he would be willing to testify in front of the January 6 House committee a proceeding that he has relentlessly hammered for weeks.

A few years ago, Steve Bannon was the subject of plenty of media fascination. He went from running the conservative propaganda website Breitbart News to becoming the CEO of the first Trump campaign in August 2016. He then served in the White House as chief strategist but lasted only seven months in that role.

Since 2019, hes been hosting a podcast called War Room, and it is hugely influential. Every day, from the basement of a Washington, DC, townhouse referred to as the Breitbart Embassy, he broadcasts his thoughts, live and unedited, for four hours a day. He has been one of the most effective propagandists for Trump and the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. Bannon speaks, and a ton of people listen which is why Bannon has become a person of interest for the January 6 committee, and why I believe we cant fully understand this political moment without also understanding what hes been up to.

Thats why I invited Jennifer Senior onto a recent episode of Vox Conversations to discuss Bannon. Senior is a Pulitzer-Prize winning staff writer at the Atlantic and the author of a recent feature on Bannon and his influence called American Rasputin. She was given plenty of access to Bannon and his associates so much so that, in the piece itself, she wonders: Am I being used?

Below is an excerpt of our conversation, edited for length and clarity. As always, theres much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow Vox Conversations on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Lets start with a basic question: Who is Steve Bannon really?

Steve Bannon was, if you were going to assign responsibility to anyone, I would say the most responsible for getting Trump elected. He came in in 2016 and took a floundering campaign at the 11th hour and he made the campaign viable. No one thought he could do it. Im not sure he thought he could do it.

What he also is is the guy who has given intellectual texture and firmness to a Trump philosophy, because there never really was an articulated Trump philosophy. Hes given it its contours. Hes done the best job of articulating what Trumpism is, which includes sweeping in the Big Lie as one of its foundational ideas, but also a kind of economic populism, an economic nationalism.

And I think hes a dangerous force in American politics, in that he is the number one roaring outboard motor of disinformation in the United States right now.

So you do buy this idea that this whole Trump era, this national nightmare, wouldnt be possible without Bannon laying the foundations for what would become Trumpism with sites like Breitbart?

I mean, others would certainly have done it. I think he gives everyone the best, crispest talking points. Hes the best at capturing Trumpism distilled, giving everyone the songs to sing, the hymns to sing from.

We ignore him at our own peril, if for no other reason than what he does is, hes really in the business of moving the Overton window and mainstreaming unacceptable ideas. And hes very, very good at that.

Were obviously talking against the backdrop of these January 6 hearings. I am curious what you think the significance of that event was for Bannon. Was that kind of like the culmination of his work, of all the foundation-laying hes been doing over these last several years? I was listening to some clips of his podcast on January 5. I dont know to what extent he was involved in preparations or planning or plotting or whatever, but he knew what was coming, and he clearly welcomed it and celebrated it.

So, I might eat my words, but what I would say is that he often speaks with a lot of machismo and extra habanero about all hell is gonna break loose, this is gonna be epic, our people are ready!

But then he means that theyre ready to man the phones. And that theyre ready to tweet. Hes such a dervish of chaos that I dont know if I would necessarily say that he was responsible in any logistical way for January 6. But he was one of the architects, surely, of the legislative insurrection, which he was very invested in. And more to the point, I think he was responsible for organizing the energy behind it.

Right. Thats what Im thinking of.

Yeah. In that way, I do think that you can.

So Steve Bannons podcast is really interesting, in that its not entertainment. It is a show that is explicitly aimed at energizing the Trump base. And its there to inflame. Hes there to be a televangelist. And he does things that televangelists do. He rouses his audience and he sort of gets them going through a mixture of praise and attaboys and attagirls and inspirational messaging.

And he says to them, You can make a difference. Use your agency. He has all these little catchphrases. Put your shoulder to the wheel. Be a force multiplier.

And every single guest who comes on his show provides their own testimonial, their own success story: I didnt think that I could be a local activist, but then I discovered that I could. And heres how, and here are the phone numbers to call. And at the end of every segment, he ends by saying, How can our audience reach you? How can they find you? Whats your Twitter handle? Whats your Gettr handle? Whats your website?

And what we learned from January 6 is you dont need that many people to breach a capitol. A few thousand people can create total havoc. So the fact that Steve Bannon might not be as popular as say, Ben Shapiro, or Joe Rogan, is not what matters in this case. Its how motivated his audience is, even if its smaller.

Well, its interesting that you use the word televangelist there. When I think of a televangelist, I think of a bullshit artist, I think of a religious entrepreneur.

Do you think he is just a complete grifter? I mean, I honestly dont know if hes a revolutionary or just a well-financed shitposter. I guess Im asking if you think he really believes in what hes doing. I think he knows when hes full of shit, but the question is, does he see it as a means to some noble end or is it just the grift and nothing besides?

Its the best question. And its what I set out to answer.

The problem is that when somebody is as practiced at bullshitting as he is, the answer in some ways has to be both. Because you cant have two sets of books for very long without, in some way, trying to intellectually reconcile them, so that youve only lied once. And then afterwards you believe your own lie. I think that that might just be the psychology of grifting.

We know that hes living very lavishly, thanks to others. Hes got houses all over the place. Hes partial to nice hotels. When he was trying to get the European populist nationalist movement off the ground, he stayed in all these fabulous luxury suites financed by others. He takes private jets that are owned by others. The Mercers underwrote him.

So I think its kind of not a choice. It might be both.

What is interesting is, if you ask anybody around Steve, if you ask the people who know him and who like him, does he truly believe that the election was stolen? The number who will say, yes Did anyone say yes to me, now that I think about it? Oh my God. I mean, so many people, if theyre trying to protect him, theyll say they dont know.

No smart people, no people who live within the Beltway who know how politics works, no one who really knows anything about elections believes this election was stolen. Thats the bottom line.

And the January 6 hearings played this out.

To your credit and this is something Ive wrestled with, because Ive written about Bannon I wonder if people like you and I have made him appear more important than he really is. If merely by talking about him, were doing his bidding.

You play with the idea that Bannon was using you in your piece. And I mean, on some level, the answer has to be, yes, because he wouldnt do it if he didnt think he was getting something out of it. Now, maybe hes wrong about whatever he thinks hes getting, but he must think hes getting something out of it.

What do you think he got out of this? What do you think he thinks he got out of this, out of allowing you that kind of access?

Honestly, I think that he, in some ways, he has the same desire for mainstream coverage and mainstream respectability as his boss. Its as simple as that. Hell take any opportunity to own the libs. He keeps his television [on] all day long, all it runs is MSNBC.

He can claim that were all very obsessed with Donald Trump and that he lives in our heads, rent-free. But the problem is we live in his head rent-free, too. Hes obsessed with us. He really is. And having MSNBC on all day long is really evidence of something quite profound. He thinks the Atlantic is an important destination, and that itll sort of widen his ambit a little bit.

And let me just say this: I dont feel like Im doing something dangerous in platforming him. Were a little bit past that naive argument. Exposure is not an endorsement. Exposure is journalism. And Steve Bannon is doing what Steve Bannon is doing whether we pay attention to him or not, whether we stick our fingers in our ears and cover our eyes or not.

What he is doing is providing the most radical set of talking points for the Republican Party. He is a font of disinformation. And hes got a very active audience that will go out and use this disinformation.

And most important: Hes very committed to the precinct strategy. He is getting people precinct by precinct to become election monitors, to become parts of school boards so that they can control the curriculum. If you become a precinct captain, eventually you can have a great deal of power within elections. And you can be quite consequential.

Democrats would do well to take note of this strategy. And let me say one thing to this point about, What are you doing handing him the microphone? By listening to him, he has been saying for months that the second the Republicans take over, they ought to impeach Joe Biden and that the first article of impeachment ought to be failure to protect and defend, because there are so many undocumented immigrants coming over the border from Mexico.

And sure enough, a poll came out not that long ago, saying that 70 percent of all registered Republican voters now think that the first thing the House Republicans should do when they take control, which they will in 2023, is impeach Biden. So, maybe they wouldve done it without Bannon. But he is part of that right flank that is mainstreaming these ideas.

He strikes me, in a very weird way, as a deeply religious thinker, in the sense that he is obsessed with apocalyptic decline and order and rebirth.

This is an important point. You could argue that this plays into some part of him that is a seeker. And fundamentally kind of itinerant. Cant stay at any organization for very long. He has embraced all kinds of spiritual practices. Hes got a Zen bench.

Hes dabbled in Hindu traditionalism. Hes super into the work of Gurdjieff, this obscure-ish Russian mystic and philosopher. I think what one genuinely detects in Steve Bannon is a restlessness. Thats absolutely there. And I dont think its horse shit that he wakes up every morning and has some kind of spiritual practice.

The fact that hes bounced from one to another is interesting. Right? I mean, that alone suggests that theres still a promiscuity to his practices. Hes still working it out, that he hasnt found what hes looking for yet.

Or hes a seeker who became a zealot. And a monomaniacal one at that.

I do think that this spiritual dimension of Bannons seems authentic to me. It does feel genuine.

Okay, so, he wants to sweep away the whole edifice of decadent, modern, liberal democracy in order to what?

This is the problem. It is content-free.

Right. I mean, content-free is a good way to put it. For me, its just, its pure negation, right? Its a giant No.

And so it may be content-free, but there is a strategy. And a very formidable one at that. Youve mentioned misinformation and disinformation a few times in this conversation. And I wrote a piece about this idea of flooding the zone with shit. And I credit Bannon in large part with introducing that, and what I have said before, and Ill say it again, is that he understands the political press better than the political press understands itself.

I think he very successfully hacked the media. And the idea here was always pretty simple, right? The press is set up to mediate a functioning liberal democracy. Were supposed to sift fact from fiction, and we give the public the information they need to make enlightened political choices. You know, at least thats the fantasy.

But Bannon just said no, no, Im going to short-circuit that process by flooding the ecosystem with misinformation and overwhelm the medias ability to mediate. So he just lies repeatedly and shamelessly and watches the press fumble over itself, attempting to debunk all those lies and actually just reinforce them with their coverage.

Hes been a kind of mastermind at that.

This is Hannah Arendt territory, right? What you do eventually is just exhaust people. You numb them.

Yeah. Do you think Im giving him too much credit there?

No, no, no. I think that he takes pride in being a propagandist. Andrew Breitbart called him the Leni Riefenstahl of the Tea Party movement.

And I asked him how he felt about that. He said, well, setting aside Leni Riefenstahls politics, I take that as a compliment, essentially, because she was a very good propagandist.

What does the next January 6 look like, Jennifer? As you described in the piece, as youve described in this conversation, he has this podcast called War Room. And really, this entire approach to media that cultivates an atmosphere of emergency, that instills in the audience very self-consciously a sense of besiegement. That game, in order to keep going, has to continue to escalate. And escalate. And escalate. So what is next?

2022 is a lost cause. I think that the House is going to be overwhelmingly run by Republicans and the Senate will also move into Republican hands. Maybe Roe slightly changes that calculus for the Senate, but maybe not.

So assuming that weve got that, then the question is: Will there be two years of backlash to them? And then in 2024, would the Democrats have regained enough steam to capture the White House, no matter who the nominee is?

But if youve got people like Bannon who are claiming that the whole apparatus for tallying votes is illegitimate, will enough people reject election results that this becomes a much worse problem? I dont know. Or will the infrastructure once again barely hold, because enough people who are not election deniers will still be in office?

Yeah, well, we know what he wants. Hes an accelerationist. He wants the destruction of the present political order.

Exactly right. If he truly believed that history just worked in cycles, he could just sit aside and watch it all unfold. But hes a participant.

See the original post here:

Steve Bannon says hell testify in front of the January 6 committee. Whats he planning? - Vox.com

Since I have already written about fauxgressives (i.e., economic conservatives who self-label themselves as progressives to obfuscate their free-market proposals and to attract politically illiterate supporters), I want to determine where these far left candidates stand on three planning issues: housing, climate, and the planning process. Are they fauxgressives who have bamboozled the fourth estate, or do they hold genuine progressive positions that served them well in the recent primary election?

Since political labels are slippery, especially in the mainstream media, let me offer some definitions.

Regarding LAs recent primary elections, the Times reported on the following candidates, but wrote little about their positions on three planning issues: low income housing, climate change, and the planning process.

So, what are the actual positions of these three left/far left/new left/radical progressive candidates? Do they threaten City Halls pay-to-play institutional culture? Has the press spun several community and labor organizers as a new red menace?

Eunisses Hernandez will be the next Councilmember for Council District 1.

Regarding the housing crisis, her platform calls for just-cause evictions, right-to-counsel for tenants during eviction proceedings, enforcement of LAs Tenant Anti-Harassment Ordinance, municipal support for housing organizers and Community Land Trusts, and redirection of city and state assets and funds to affordable and social housing.

Regarding climate change, Hernandezs only program was the decarbonization of LAs buildings. While this is welcome, other obvious low hanging fruit, such as tree planting and improved transit, sidewalks, and bikeways, are not mentioned.

Regarding the planning process, her platform calls for transparency and accountability in discretionary actions. Her platform is silent on other planning topics, such as a timely, legally required, and closely monitored General Plan, especially the recently adopted Housing Element and a missing State-mandated Environmental Justice Element.

Conclusion. Her heart is in the right place, but there is not a word about restoring the Community Redevelopment Agencys and the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Developments public housing programs. Likewise, she mentions that many of her constituents are low income, but does not call for raising wages, supporting union organizing, or prosecuting wage theft.

Hugo Soto-Martinez has an excellent chance of defeating incumbent Mitch OFarrel. Soto-Martinez has a compelling personal biography but sticks to generalities or is silent on planning issues.

Regarding the housing crisis, he calls for ending sweeps that push people from block to block; building neighborhood drop-in centers; converting vacant/underused hotels, motels, retail spaces, office buildings into housing; and building social housing (a European term for public housing). How will these ideas be implemented? Who knows?

Regarding the climate crisis, he wants to cap old oil wells, create 10,000 climate jobs, retrofit existing buildings for energy efficiency, save rainwater, clean up aquifers, and jump start LAs Green New Deal. Unfortunately Mayor Garcettis Green New Deal is only an executive document. It will disappear the moment he leaves office.

Regarding the planning process, I could not find anything on his campaign website.

Conclusion: If he wins the election for Council District 4, he will face a daunting learning curve because he would represent Hollywood, a hub of knowledgeable community activists who expect elected officials and their staff to know as much as they do.

Kenneth Meija is harder to pigeonhole because he will not hold a legislative position if he becomes LAs next City Controller.

Regarding the housing crisis, he supports the nationwide Homes Guarantee. If Congress adopts its programs, which is not likely, it would establish a Federal protection program for tenants, a coast-to-coast database of landlords and evictions, and a national rent control law. As for local housing ordinances and programs, his platform is silent, even though the current City Controller, Ron Galperin, has issued reports on the cost of homeless housing in Los Angeles and housing code enforcement.

Regarding the climate crisis, Meija supports the Green New Deal, but Congress has not adopted it, and LAs Green New Deal is a short-lived executive document, not a permanent, adopted, monitored, and funded plan.

Regarding the planning process, Mr. Meijas platform is also silent.

Conclusion: If he wins, I hope he will use his office for extensive reporting and evaluation of municipal programs regarding the housing crisis, the climate crisis, and the planning process. The ball will be in his court.

Last words: The left/far left/progressive/radical progressive primary candidates clearly see a few trees but miss the forest. None of them call for the restoration of traditional liberal CRA and HUD public housing programs, paring back the new Housing Element's supply-side up-zoning schemes, or raising wage levels to reduce the main cause of the housing crisis: poverty. As for the larger question of planning and monitoring this countrys second largest city, the candidates are so far mum. Likewise, the climate crisis is nearing the point of no return, and it should not remain an after-thought.

Instead the candidates offer engaging personal biographies, but they remain beginners when it comes to homelessness, land use, climate change, and the planning process. I wish them luck because they will be forced to learn a great deal in a short time to politically impact City Hall, especially in battling its entrenched institutional culture.

P.S.If I misrepresented any candidates positions, I invite readers to post or send me corrections.

(Dick Platkin is a former Los Angeles city planner who reports on local planning issues for CityWatchLA. He serves on the boards of United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (UN4LA) and the Greater Fairfax Residents Association. Previous Planning Watch columns are available at the CityWatchLA archives. Please send comments and corrections to [emailprotected].)

More:

What Do The Primary Election Results Mean For LA? Probably Less Than You Think. - City Watch

Dreams figured prominently in the London 2012 Olympic opening ceremony. The first speaker of the night was Kenneth Branagh, channelling both Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Shakespeares Caliban: The clouds methought would open, and show riches. Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked, I cried to dream again! An entire section was devoted to childrens bedtime nightmares. Rowan Atkinson lapsed into a dream during his cameo in Chariots of Fire. And hallucinatory spectacles such as the Queen jumping out of a helicopter with James Bond made 900 million viewers around the world wonder if they were the ones dreaming.

Ten years on, the whole ceremony feels more dreamlike than ever. This was Britain as a rich, diverse, multicultural, imaginative, inventive nation comfortable with its identity and capable of reconciling its contradictions. We were traditional yet modern. We were powerful yet caring. We were orderly yet anarchic. We had a vast back catalogue of world-changing culture from which to draw. We knew how to put on a good show. And we had a sense of humour.

Sign up to our Inside Saturday newsletter for an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at the making of the magazines biggest features, as well as a curated list of our weekly highlights.

Jonathan Coe summed up the feelings of many in his 2018 novel Middle England, which devotes a whole chapter to various characters watching the opening ceremony, including Doug, the sceptical journalist (who writes for, er, the Guardian): What he felt while watching it were the stirrings of an emotion he hadnt experienced for years had never really experienced at all, perhaps Yes, why not come straight out and admit it, at this moment he felt proud, proud to be British, proud to be part of a nation which had not only achieved such great things but could now celebrate them with such confidence and irony and lack of self-importance.

We could even laugh about our notoriously crap weather. Fake clouds were paraded around the stadium that night, but real clouds were looming for Britain: Brexit and its ongoing repercussions, of course. Not to mention the Windrush scandal, the Covid pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, deportations to Rwanda, I barely need go on. Such a moment of national pride, confidence and unity now seems almost unimaginable. As a result, the 2012 opening ceremony officially titled Isles of Wonder has become something of a cultural touchstone. For many, it has effectively become shorthand for Britain, before it all turned to shit.

Like Caliban, many of us cry to dream again. Makes me almost cry to think it was only six years ago, tweeted MP Yvette Cooper in 2018, for example, in response to an #OnThisDay tweet from Team GB that read, Take us back to 2012. Many others have echoed the sentiment, privately, publicly and across the political spectrum. Even Liz Truss invoked it in 2019, albeit to different ends: We need to revive the Olympic 2012 spirit a modern, patriotic, enterprising vision of Britain and we need to use Brexit to achieve that.

But with a decades hindsight, we are left wondering what kind of dream the London 2012 opening ceremony was. Was it a dream in the Martin Luther King sense: an aspiration for what we wanted Britain to be? Or was it more a dream in the Sex Pistols Englands dreaming sense: an illusion of something that never really existed?

In his statement in the programme for the event, director Danny Boyle certainly seemed to be going for the Luther King option: We hope, too, that through all the noise and excitement that you will glimpse a single golden thread of purpose the idea of Jerusalem of a better world, the world of real freedom and true equality A belief that we can build Jerusalem. And that it will be for everyone.

The final sentiment was key to the opening ceremonys success. Olympic opening ceremonies are a weird genre of entertainment from the outset, traditionally fusing elements of circus spectacular, musical theatre, state parade and ceremonial protocol. The Beijing 2008 opening ceremony, costing a reported $100m, had all but perfected this format, but Boyle took a different approach, which was of a piece with the image of Britain he sought to represent. Yes, there were technical feats and spectacular sequences and marquee names, but Boyles ceremony was really focused on, and performed by, ordinary people. The volunteers are the best of us, said Boyle at the time. This show belongs to them. This country belongs to them.

Dannys plan was to make it something made by the people, says Mark Tildesley, the production designer for Isles of Wonder and a regular Boyle collaborator. And thats all of the people: doctors, nurses, surgeons, kids from council estates, just the whole gamut, that sort of melting pot of London. It was homemade, handmade. It wasnt like Chinas show of force and scale; it was heartfelt and heart-meant. People owned that show. Im feeling emotional thinking about it, actually.

Everybody could find themselves in it, says Catherine Ugwu, executive producer for all four London 2012 opening and closing ceremonies. Whether we focused on Windrush, the Suffragettes, the pearly kings and queens, the Chelsea Pensioners, the CND protesters, whatever, you were in there. Everybody felt like they had a part to play, and that they were included. Thats something thats rare in this country, and I think thats what people cherish.

The London Olympic organising committees decision to invite Boyle was unanimous, says Ugwu. Everybody thought he was perfect for the role. The question was whether Danny thought it was something he wanted to do.

Shortly after, in an empty production office in Soho, Boyle immediately began canvassing ideas from his core team, many of whom had been regular collaborators on his film and theatre projects: Tildesley, writer Frank Cottrell-Boyce, producer Tracey Seaward, Underworlds Rick Smith as music director, costume designer Suttirat Anne Larlarb. We would do different things, Tildesley explains. Like, the subject would be favourite song, so each person would have five songs that they could play everyone, and explain why they thought they were important. After their meetings, Cottrell-Boyce would take away their babble, Tildesley continues. And by the time he got back to Liverpool, hed send us an email in some sort of order that made sense and had structural relevance to poetry, theatre, world history, whatever.

The Queens memorable entrance came about during a discussion on what people around the world associate with Britain, says Tildesley. Its the Queen and James Bond. So we thought: Right, thats it, lets get the two of them together. They never imagined Her Majesty would want to actually play herself (though rumour has it shes a huge Bond fan). She really wanted to get involved. When we got there [to Buckingham Palace] to direct her, shed come from the dentist in a taxi and just did her own hair. Then she said to Danny: Do you think I should say something? What about if I said, Good evening Mr Bond? I was like: I cannot believe the Queen is saying this.

Outsiders were also struck by Boyles approach. One thing that has always stayed with me was Dannys sense of teamwork and collaboration, says the dancer Akram Khan, who choreographed and performed a memorable sequence on the theme of mortality, backed by Emeli Sands rendition of Abide With Me. Kahn recalls his first meeting with Boyle and about 20 others: If you didnt know what Danny Boyle looked like, you wouldnt know who the hell was leading the meeting He didnt lead by dominance or by being extrovert; he led by listening. We all felt heard. And I think this work turned out the way it did because Danny was such a great listener.

Amid the near-unanimous praise heaped on the ceremony, there were a few dissenting voices. Some wanted something more traditionally jingoistic; others objected to the jarring and fantastical cult-worship of the National Health Service (as Douglas Murray put it in the Spectator). Eyebrows were also raised at vaguely political elements such as the Suffragist campaigners, the Jarrow marchers and the CND symbol being represented. Conservative MP Aidan Burley called it, The most leftie opening ceremony I have ever seen. Toby Young described it as a 27m party political broadcast for the Labour party. The Spectators Harry Cole remarked: Not even communist China were so brazen as to extol their nationalised stranglehold on their country so blatantly. Many on the right wondered how David Camerons coalition government could have let Boyle get away with it.

If you choose Danny Boyle, youre gonna get something punk and exotic, says Tildesley. But it really wasnt driven to be political, never. I know some people will cough and swear and say it was very left wing, but Mr Bean is not left wing. The green and pleasant land is not left wing. Cricket is not left wing. Soldiers whistling tunes is not left wing. Emeli Sand singing is not left wing. Few would label the Queen or James Bond as particularly left wing, either.

There was arguably politicisation the other way, too. Boyle later revealed how the incoming culture secretary Jeremy Hunt pushed to reduce or cut the NHS sequence. Boyle refused, and threatened to remove all the volunteers from the ceremony. The government side (who were, after all, funding the show) brought their own wishlist of things to include, such as references to Magna Carta, Britains role in the world wars and more Shakespeare. Boris Johnson, then London mayor, apparently got it, but many other politicians didnt.

Khan recalls watching a rehearsal of his dance sequence in the stadium alongside some visiting politicians (whom he prefers not to name). The dance included autobiographical elements drawn from Khans experience growing up in London as the child of Bangladeshi immigrants, and featured a child dancer. They didnt know I was there, says Khan, and this official said: Just out of curiosity, why is there an Indian-looking boy? The room went silent. It was quite a shock. And Danny said: Because this represents London. This represents England. This is us.

From todays perspective, perhaps it is more a case of this was us. It should be part of the national curriculum, says Seaward. To say: This was the moment and this is what the UK represented at that time, because it feels like in the intervening 10 years, most of that has been deconstructed. The welfare state is being deconstructed. The NHS is in utter crisis. Educational authorities are in crisis. The union itself is in crisis. So there was this moment that we were holding in our hand like a treasure, and that has been over the 10 years, picked apart. And when I look back at it, it makes me feel really melancholic, actually.

Admittedly, Britain circa 2012 was still a long way from anyones dream of Jerusalem. The Conservative-led coalition government had already begun making savage cuts to public services under its austerity programme. In August 2011 there had been riots in London and other British cities. In May 2012 then-home secretary Theresa May introduced the term hostile environment to describe her governments increasingly hardline immigration policies. As the Guardians Owen Jones put it earlier this year: The obsession with the 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony is revealing, because this faction think Britain was a utopian wonderland at the time. It wasnt. It was four years after an epic financial crash and the Tories were hacking the British welfare state into tiny little pieces.

Maybe England was dreaming after all, then. Pining for an imaginary time when Britain was great can be a counterproductive and possibly hypocritical road to go down. After all, this is a stick progressive-minded Britons usually use to beat their more conservative opponents.

Like all opening ceremonies, London 2012s was never designed to be a documentary. You cant do the Olympic opening and tell the entire truth, acknowledges Khan. Because [Britain] dominated and raped and has a bad history of divide and rule, of the Empire basically. Theres a lot of anger towards that because it runs through generation after generation. Institutional racism is still very prevalent within the police force, within the government.

That does not make Boyle wrong for wanting to tell a positive story, says Khan. He wanted to tell a story of the beautiful things. And to celebrate Britain in the way Britain should be celebrated, as a place of confidence and warmth, and kindness and everything that I felt when I was growing up, but the world has changed.

It wasnt just about politics, says Catherine Ugwu: I think that also people feel nostalgic about it because its something that everybody thought that made Britain look great. Were a sceptical kind of nation, because we think that were not confident enough to believe that we have the skills and ability to deliver these things. But then when we do, and when we point out to everybody all the amazing things we do I think people felt proud. Yes, it hand-picked the things that we want to refer to, but then isnt that what celebrations are about? And isnt that what sometimes we need to do? Which is to remind ourselves of what there is to love about who we are.

Identity is always about storytelling, and as much as it was a cultural event, Isles of Wonder was one of the few attempts to tell a fresh, modern, inclusive story about what Britain was, is and could be. We might not have lived up to it in the short term, but the fact that the vast majority of us responded so positively to it is as important now as it was then. Given all thats happened since, Britain needs stories like this more than ever.

View original post here:

A Jerusalem for everyone: was the 2012 Olympics the last gasp of liberal Britain? - The Guardian

Dear Editor:

The current gas prices have nothing to do with the war in the Ukraine but have everything to do with the Biden administration. Before the Biden administration took office we had achieved oil independence. Not only did we produce enough crude oil for our own needs, we produced excess to sell on the international markets. As soon as the Biden administration came in they declared federal land leased to oil companies that had active wells as protected land and thus shut down those wells. The purpose of these shut downs was to increase gasoline prices and make operating gasoline cars more expensive than operating electric cars. This was to entice the American people to replace their gasoline cars with electric cars. Where the electricity to fuel all of these electric cars is supposed to come from is still a miracle.This is all part of the greater strategy to eliminate burning fossil fuels to massively decrease the emission of CO2. The great slogan of the Left Liberal Socialist Movement is that we must lower our carbon footprint. Does anyone remember what our biological life is based on, plant as well as animal? CARBON!!! So how can carbon be the enemy of life? Oh yeas, carbon dioxide (CO2) causes global warming, renamed to climate change so that any natural disaster can be attributed to climate change. 100 years ago we supposedly measured CO2 at 0.2%, only 0.05% above the critical amount of 0.015% at which all plant live on the surface of earth seizes to exist (as per Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace). Now we measure CO2 at 0.4%. During the Jurassic Age, the age of dinosaurs and giant plants, CO2 in the atmosphere was at 2%, not 0.2%, but 10 times the amount namely 2%! At that level of 2% CO2 our planet was not an uninhabitable oven but we saw the largest and most luscious expression of life. As CO2 depleted, the expression of life on earth became smaller and smaller and smaller. Furthermore, the analysis of the air trapped in the ice in the Northern Greenland ice shelf revealed that 1000 and 2000 years ago, when we had similar warming cycles of our atmosphere the CO2 levels were about the same as today. This rather indicates that the causation is revered, this climate change is a natural cycle and it is this warming that causes a higher absorption of CO2 in our atmosphere. This is supported by many scientists but they are silenced in the mainstream media around the world. So, no matter what the Biden administration does, it will not affect our climate, but it will destroy our economy and our livelihood. Welcome to mass poverty!

Alexander Schenk

See original here:

Five Dollar Gas Is Here To Stay - The Hudson Reporter

In search of atmosphere and inspiration as I contemplated Walter Russell Meads magisterial new book about Israel and Jews in the American imagination, I took the bus from my street in Jerusalem across town to the American Colony. Founded in 1881 by fervent Protestants from Chicago, the colony was one of several attempts by 19th-century Americans to settle the Holy Land. Part of the idea was to induce Jews to take up farming by education or example, thus sparking a Jewish restoration that would in turn bring the Second Coming of Christ. But what made sense in Illinois made less sense in Ottoman Palestine, and the believers ultimately had to admit that real Jews werent particularly interested. Today the messianic compound is a luxury hotel.

The American Colony, where Im writing these lines on a table in the courtyard, is one physical incarnation of the thesis of The Arc of a Covenant: The United States, Israel, and the Fate of the Jewish People. Mead, a distinguished professor of foreign affairs, columnist, and author, would like to take us on a tour not of Israel but of the manifestations of Israel in the American mindan even weirder place than the actual country where I live and report.

The American fascination with Israel and with Jews, Mead believes, is not driven primarily by Israel or real Jews. Instead, Israel is a political instrument or a way of thinking about unrelated problems, just as those American settlers of the 1800s believed the Jews might serve as tools in a Christian end-times drama. The idea that the Jews would return to the lands of the Bible and build a state there, Mead writes, touches on some of the most powerful themes and cherished hopes of American religion and culture. And today, too, Americas furious debates about Israel policy have other homespun sources, and are more about conflicts over American identity, the direction of world politics, and the place that the United States should aspire to occupy in world history than about anything that real-world Israelis and Palestinians may happen to be doing at any particular time.

In that vein, Mead leads us with an even tone and expert hand through centuries of history, and through disparate topics including Puritan theology, the politics at the court of Kaiser Wilhelm II, and the personality of Billy Graham. Eleanor Roosevelts support for the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, we learn, was primarily a way of supporting a new liberal order after World War II. Growing Republican Party backing for Israel beginning in the 1970s was thanks not to any Jewish lobby but to the partys understanding that this was an issue that could unite a fractious coalition of pious evangelicals, honky-tonking southern good ol boys, blue-collar Midwestern Catholics, and elite neoconservative policy intellectualsjust as today, hostility toward Israel is a way to mobilize a progressive movement that wants to somehow embrace both Dearborn and the Dyke March. For millions of American Christians in the late 1800s, a Jewish return to Zion was less about helping Jews than about proving the truth of biblical prophecy in a country where many seemed to be losing their religion.

Read: What the media gets wrong about Israel

In the guise of a book about Israel and America, in other words, Mead has actually written an ambitious and idiosyncratic history of large swaths of Western politics and thought. Implicitly, and perhaps even more important, the book makes a case that complicated and sensitive topics can still be covered with balance, sympathy, and even occasional humor.

Most striking, for this reader, was the reminder of the depth of Zionist enthusiasm in non-Jewish America, where the idea of a literal Jewish return to the Land of Israel was popular among Christians long before it caught on among Jews. The author tells us of a Zionist petition signed by 400 prominent Americans that was presented to the president in the White House in 1891, several years before even Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, had found Zionism himself. Among the petitions supporters, Mead notes archly, was The New York Timeswhich was then under non-Jewish ownership. Later, when its owners were Jews whose primary concern was not redemption but assimilation, the paper changed its tune. One of the recurring observations here is that non-Jewish Americans have often been far more fervent Zionists than Jews, giving the lie to the idea that Jews are twisting American policy in their own interests. This was amply illustrated during the Trump administration, Mead writes, which was opposed by a solid majority of American Jews: If American Jews controlled Americas Israel policy, the U.S. embassy would still be in Tel Aviv, the annexation of the Golan Heights would not be recognized, and the United States would be pressing Israel on settlement policy.

That American enthusiasm is much older even than the 1891 petition, and is in fact older than America. In 1666, we learn, the American clergyman Increase Mather was preaching to Puritans in Boston that the body of the twelve Tribes of Israel shall be brought out of their present condition of bondage and misery, into a glorious and wonderful state of salvation, not only spiritual but temporal, and that the Jews would recover the Possession of their Promised Land. Early Americans saw themselves in Jews, nationally and even personally: Increases name, a literal translation of the Hebrew Joseph, might now be considered cultural appropriation.

Read: Israels problems are not like Americas

Meads point is that those who credit or blame Jews for Americas support of Israel misunderstand something basic about America. The driving forces behind Americans fascination with Israel, Mead writes, originate outside the American Jewish community and are among the most powerful forces in American life. Americans have identified with Jewish redemption because of their reading of scripture; or because they took them to be a great ancient people fallen on hard times, like the Ottoman-occupied Greeks, who were beloved by the liberal romantics of the 1800s and were misunderstood in similar ways; or because they imagined that a Jewish state would somehow look like America. Many supported a Jewish state so that Jews would go there instead of New York.

The Arc of a Covenant aims to convince critics who imagine undue Jewish influence on American politicsbut also many Jews who have embraced the story that Israel was wrought by their own skill and dedication. That story may be empowering, Mead thinks, but its mostly wrong. One classic example, which I took to be true until this book forced me reluctantly to let it go, is about a famous intervention at the White House by Harry Trumans Jewish friend and former business partner, Eddie Jacobson of Kansas City, Missouri, on the eve of Israels declaration of independence in the spring of 1948. Jacobson is said to have swayed the president toward supporting Israels creation over the opposition of the State Department. But as Mead shows, Jacobson and the Jews were secondary to the game that Truman was playing against his powerful domestic opponents, foreign allies like the British, and the Soviets. Jewish Zionists, despite both their own self-image and the dark fantasies of their enemies, have never been able to manipulate the political oceans currents. Theyve been washed this way and that like everyone else, and have survived by producing some talented surfers.

The fascination with Jews always has a dark side: The same Increase Mather who longed for a Jewish return to Zion, Mead reminds us, also wrote that the same people have been wont once a year to steal Christian children and to put them to death by crucifying. If Jews are symbols and not real people, they can be a symbol for all kinds of things, and this, too, remains a part of American intellectual life. The shooter who murdered 10 Black Americans in a Buffalo, New York, supermarket in May left a manifesto identifying Jews as villains engineering the erasure of white America; this view, known as the Great Replacement theory, is common on the far right. On the left, meanwhile, the American international-relations scholar David Rothkopf suggested in a tweet and an op-ed that the shooters motivations actually had something to do with the same kind of racism and closely linked political forces present in Israel. None of this is rational, but neither was the American Colony or the sermons of Increase Mather. This kind of thing will only grow as the sanity of the American body politic continues to erode, and as many on the right and the left abandon the grubby field of reality for a simplistic battle between good and evil.

Americans are usually optimists; our history has made us so, Mead writes. The belief that history is ascending toward a future of more freedom, more justice, more abundance, and higher spiritual values is one of the foundations of American thought. In this impressive and timely volume, this was the only sentence that struck me as possibly wrong or out of date; it might have actually changed in the decade that Mead tells us he spent writing The Arc of a Covenant. A kind of apocalyptic pessimism seems to have taken hold, and the way this plays out will dictate the next chapters of the story Mead is telling. In keeping with their religious and political DNA, Americans will continue to explain themselves to themselves with stories about a country and a people called Israel. From my table at the American Colony, whose founders were certainly optimists, it seems clear that as long as Americas future seems bright, Israel might appear as part of that shining horizon. But when things seem dark, some will find refuge in another kind of fantasy, and the arc might get bent into a different shape altogether.

Go here to see the original:

What We Talk About When We Talk About Israel - The Atlantic

Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It, M. Nolan Gray (Island Press, 2022), 256 pages.

It may be hard to believe today, but roughly a century ago, Americans could largely do what they wanted on their own land. All of that changed on July 25, 1916, when New York City adopted the nations first comprehensive zoning ordinance. Zoning regulates land uses and densitya series of arbitrary lines lines on a map telling you how and where to live and workwhich with the passage of time spread outward from the Big Apple to Berkeley, carving up nearly every settled part of this country in between.

Still, zoning was for years a localized backwater, the province of ink-stained professionals and amateur busybodiesbut no longer. Home prices and rents are at record highs today, and the sticker shock is spreading from coastal hotspots to Sun Belt cities that were once an affordable refuge for hardworking families. Zoning, according to a growing consensus, is inflating away the American Dream. Cutting this red tape has suddenly become a cause clbre for local Yes, In My Backyard (YIMBY) activists to presidential administrations.

Now, with M. Nolan Grays Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It, zoning reform has the book for its moment. Arbitrary Lines is at once a primer and a manifesto, a highly readable introduction to zonings history and harms as well as a bracing call for a post-zoning city. He argues that these arbitrary lines raise housing costs, lower economic growth, harm the environment, and deepen racial and economic divides. How is that in a country steeped in freedom, opportunity, and progress, asks Gray, that a stodgy rule book came to control virtually every facet of American life?

It didnt start out this way. By todays standards, New Yorks 1916 zoning code was surprisingly liberal, observes Gray. Berkeleys slightly later districting ordinance, also instituted in 1916, was a clearer signal of what was to come, establishing the first single-family zoning district. By the end of that year, still just eight municipalities had some form of zoning. But then the federal government stepped in, and property rights were never the same: then-Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover, a big promoter of zoning, established and pushed a model zoning ordinance nationwide, and in 1926 the Supreme Court gave its blessing in Euclid v. Ambler. In 1923, 218 communities had adopted zoning, and by 1936 more than 1,000 had done so.

Even then, zoning codes were far more flexible than what we have today. All of this began to unravel as early as the late 1960s, observes Gray, as thousands of cities and suburbs across the country aggressively expanded use segregation, significantly tightened density rules, and imposed months of additional public review on development applications. One reason for this, as Dartmouths Bill Fischel explains in The Homevoter Hypothesis, was grounded in the eras rapid inflation and generous tax allowances encouraging homeownership as an investment, and consequently incentivizing zoning to protect the value of their homes. By blocking new housing, forcing higher-quality housing, and adding a Kafkaesque permitting process to the entire affair, costs went up and up from the 1970s onward, well beyond the cost of construction. In high-cost cities, more than half the cost of buying a home goes to pay this regulatory tax.

Arbitrary Lines busts myths left and right. Zoning has never actually been about keeping, say, the glue factory away from a daycare or carefully planning for future growth. These rules care far more about wielding state power to enforce nebulous notions of community character than directly regulating externalities, such as noise or pollution. Its about protecting elite interests and incumbent wealth for whoever was lucky enough to get in under the zoning wire, argues Gray. Want zoning for its certainty? Try againin practice, permitting development has become highly discretionary and chaotic, changing land-use rules all the time through special permits, ad-hoc variances, and rezonings. And a simple view of zoning overlooks its more unsavory elements, like the way in which these rules first perpetuated by New Yorkers to keep Eastern European Jews out of Fifth Avenue became Jim Crows Southern savior post-Civil Rights-era.

The cost of this zoning straightjacket is enormous. It binds cities from growing, for one thing. Wed all be 36 percent richer today if New York, San Francisco, and San Jose alone zoned for growth. But it also means Americans great tradition of moving to opportunitymigrating to the economic frontier, as it wereis basically over; high housing costs just eat up your extra earnings. Its like California struck gold again, but without the gold rush. So, Americans stay stuck in place, or sprawl and crawl in traffic until they find a place they can afford. Workers struggle to find accessible work, and parents find it hard to raise a family or live near a good school. Then there are the environmental costs and continued segregation, reinforced by decades of woeful public housing. In fact, after reading Arbitrary Lines, one gets the sneaking suspicion that every problem facing urban America is ultimately downstream of housing.

Yet for zonings significance to our countrys futureand our ownsurprisingly few people have a clear sense of what land-use regulations are about or their origin story. Even fewer know the playbook for reform. That, in short, is where Nolan Gray comes in. There have been other notable writings for the housing-reform movement: Ryan Avents The Gated City and Matt Yglesiass The Rent Is Too Damn High, Edward Glaesers Triumph of the City and Alain Bertauds Order without Design, as well as Conor Doughertys Golden Gates on the rise of the YIMBY movement, among others. Grays aim is to bring this work to bear to shift the publics perception of acceptable reforms in a decidedly more pro-housing direction.

But, as Nolan Gray confesses, Merely reforming zoning cannot be the end goal. Sure, he says, we should stop mandating single-family homes, allow the housing and parking that the market demands, and decriminalize naturally affordable housing types. But without fundamentally rethinking a system that assumes underpaid and overworked local bureaucrats can map out the optimal mix, scale, and location of every conceivable land use in an entire city, we will inevitably trend back toward the current mess. America should learn from no-zoning Houston, says Gray.

Is Nolan Gray really calling for zoning abolition? Yes, he is. And before you dismiss himperhaps Houston isnt your cup of tea, or maybe you simply like your home and its zoning, thank you very muchconsider that Houstonians agreed with Nolans view in 1948, 1962, and 1993, killing zoning each time it came up for a vote, largely thanks to working-class voters. What proved crucial to rejecting zoning was Houstons allowance of deed restrictions, whereby neighbors can voluntarily opt into zoning-like restrictions and design standards to ensure whatever character of their community they desire for the next 25 to 30 years. And while neighbors get a say over their neighborhood, Houston as a whole is still allowed to grow. It builds housing at 14 times the rate of its peers and, in the process, has become one of the most affordable and diverse cities in the country.

Subscribe Today Get weekly emails in your inbox

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges ahead for YIMBYism is that todays housing crisis is no longer solely a New York or Bay Area affliction, but an Atlanta and Austin, Boise and Tampa crisis. Buying a home in these places is now upwards of 50 percent more expensive than it was a year ago, accounting for higher mortgage interest rates. Trying to convince socialist county supervisors in San Francisco that private housing is good is hard enough; try convincing a red-state lawmaker they should end single-family zoning to fight climate change, as Gray also suggests. Pro-housing allies will need arguments and policies fine-tuned to the Sun Belt frontier. Allowing homeowners the freedom to unlock the rising value of their property by building a backyard apartment is one such compelling pitch. Zoning reform is pro-property rights, in other words, while also being pro-family and pro-worker, not to mention that limiting social mobility and access to opportunity is fundamentally unfair. These are the sorts of foundational messages for policy proposals that can reach across the aisle and geographies.

Now more than ever, we need cities to grow, says Nolan Gray, and he couldnt be more right. The same will be true across entire metros, as fast-growing suburbs such as Frisco, TX, rapidly urbanize and become job centers of their own. Policies favoring elite homebuyers over young families trying to afford a starter home or their own children trying to rent a room is a form of regulatory inequality that must end. Ironically, urban planners would become more important, not less, in such a future. They would plan in advance of growth and focus on boosting quality of life rather than spending their days micro-managing lot sizes. In the place of arbitrary lines, intentional leadershipand the freedom to build the American Dream.

This New Urbanism series is supported by the Richard H. Driehaus Foundation. FollowNew Urbson Twitter for a feed dedicated to TACs coverage of cities, urbanism, and place.

Continue reading here:

How Zoning Paralyzed American Cities - The American Conservative