[Mpls] "Stadiumus Giganticus!" (was: Median Age at the Convention?)

[Gary Hoover]

David B. scribed, in part:
>>>>>
I know, I know - they both support the stadium. But just as stadium boosters 
oversell the ballpark's economic merits, opponents shouldn't overinflate the
issue's importance in the municipal firmament. (I call the syndrome 
"Stadiumus Giganticus," where the stadium issue overwhelms far more 
significant and interesting municipal issues.)
<<<<<

Regarding "stadiumus giganticus: I do think the ballpark issue is a symptom 
of a much bigger political problem.  I notice that the Democrats are running 
more candidates who seem to me to be de facto Republicans. Dems are also 
adjusting on many issues to do the same.

(This trend is larger than Minneapolis: in St. Paul, have the Dems done this 
first with Kelly, and now endorse a wealthy Mr. Coleman (?) who is like 
Kelly except did not openly endorse GWB in 2004?  My point is about 
Minneapolis Dems, but I realize that this is part of a statewide and 
nationwide trend.)

In Minneapolis I don't see anything about Mayor Rybak or Peter McLaughlin to 
distinguish them from Republicans.  It is simply the stadium issue, but more 
the hypocrisy about taxation.  Regressive taxes are now acceptable to 
Democrats.

Transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the wealthy through the 
mechanism of taxes seems like the last thing that Minneapolis Democrats 
would support.

There are ecological justice issues related to our urban infrastructure that 
the Democrats refuse to address as well.  The stadium is a "circuses not
bread" project.  We are spending more on unsustainable infrastructure when 
we need to spend first on sustainable urban infrastructure, do we not?

Construction and operation of excellent transit and full funding of our 
schools would create more living wage jobs and invest in the future while
the stadium will provide a bump in construction/sports entertainment and 
then provide many sub-living-wage jobs.

In contrast, excellent transit and schools will have beneficial economic 
ripples that far exceed those of the stadium investment, it seems to me. But 
the Democrats seem to be focused on the circus of today, not on providing 
bread for today and tomorrow as well.

Will "Stadiumus Giganticus"  be the ploy used by Democrats (and a compliant 
media?) to divert us from very real issues?  Only the Greens have dared to 
oppose the regressive stadium tax.  Only one candidate for local office --  
Dean Zimmerman, a Green -- has also mentioned preparing our local economy 
for a post-petroleum economy.  Local Democrats run as though the future is 
assured as a rosy expansion of a never-ending "growth economy" bubble, which 
encourages dependence on an ever more centralized, radicalized, and corrupt 
federal "Government Giganticus."

If we depend for our future on the highly-centralized, highly-intrusive, 
highly-militarized, bloated-budget "Government Giganticus" of the 
"Republicrats" we will see more taken from the "have-nots" and given to the 
"have-too-much's" while those in the shrinking class of "professional 
political management" must be ever-more compliant in order to keep their 
jobs.

Look to see "Law and Order" and "Personal Peace, Security, and The Promise 
of Never-Ending Affluence" as campaign themes.  Look also for the nightmares 
of violence in poor neighborhoods never to be solved, but to be always used 
as a scare-tactic to expand (and increasingly privatize) police powers and 
the increasingly-privatized prison system.  Together with "Stadium 
Giganticus" these themes will guide the local Democrats to power.  Local 
Democratic politics: more diversion, less substance; more circus, less 
bread.  I am voting Green.

-- pedaling for peace and ecojustice -- from Lynnhurst -- Gary Hoover