I have read a few books published by the Public Affairs Press, each with a page noting that the books reflect "the standards, values, and flair of three persons," including I.F. Stone.
So, it is appropriate that I finally read one put out by them entitled The Best of I.F. Stone, providing writings by him from the 1940s to 1960s. He had a socialist mentality, a term that is only bad to those who ignore the socialistic values promoted during the New Deal. He thought many, including Martin Luther King Jr., had a bit too tempered flavor during the March on Washington. Warned us that just because WWII was a "good war" didn't mean we could ignore why we should ideally be fighting it. Saw the lies of Vietnam from Tomkin Resolution on. And, spoke of the up and coming powers of "Texas millionaires" as early as the mid-1950s.
Suffice to say, it is a useful enterprise ... putting aside his "flair" and "standards" ... to peruse the volume. Likewise, it underlines that things that progressives on blogs and so forth are concerned about have a long history. The problems of the establishment press that ... per one book taking a long view ... "made war easy?" The enabling of Vietnam suggests the Iraq conflict was not somehow a result of post-Reaganite corporate journalism. The limits of mainstream politicians, including those some hang on to -- Stone was an early doubter of the true weight of RFK's idealism. The old time conflicts of Jew v. Arab. The demonization of the likes of the Soviets, Cuba, and so forth. The imperialism of the United States, and all the b.s. and crap that results. [Query: are they different things? I bet they are.] The claim of peace via hysteria, armament, war and demonization. And so forth.
Somehow related is the fact that we often think of "the other." Consider that link to BTC News I cited a couple posts ago in my burst against the do-Nothing Congress. [The latest: hey, no need to even censure, since Bush's name is toast, right? I find hitting him a rolled up newspaper at this point downright pathetic, but no more than the response from Sen. Reid. ****] One response was annoyed that someone noted that Democrats had the mark of guilt on them too. Can't have that ... sounds like one is equalizing them with Bushies. Who tossed him the keys in '03? Who took impeachment off the table? Who funded him still? [The conceit this was somehow mandatory is just that. It is an AFFIRMATIVE act to fund without any strings. Denying it is the case is just lying.]
We have to remind ourselves of the Pogo line ... the enemy in some case is us. I saw a book today about the "Christian Right." I have a book by Wendy Kaminer mostly targeting New Age religions, when the biggest danger often is much more mainstream.* The fact a certain group perhaps did more or were particularly enthusiastic to a cause does not mean only that minority is at fault. It can very well affect the equation, since quite often a strong minority can have their way since they can make it a pain for the rest of us [this is why a strong progressive minority ... possible in Congress now if they had the guts ... can be so powerful even without "67 votes"]. But, lynching in the South would not have occurred if a majority of the whites, surely among the ruling class refused to allow it to go on.
Talking about books, I picked up -- lucky the library still had it since it is from over thirty years ago -- a copy of Christopher Stone's Should Trees Have Standing. Sierra v. Morton is supplied as an appendix, but the dissents there aren't quite what he has in mind -- Douglas did speak of "their own preservation," but also mixes it with a functional approach. His love of nature arose from his belief that it was a powerful aid to the well being of the human animal. Thus, standing here would be brought by those who have an "intimate relationship" with nature. But, Stone thinks in a fashion we all have such a relationship, we are all part of nature. And, natural objects [he particularly doesn't focus on animals or even plants, since matters of "consciousness" might arise there] should clearly have interests in their own right.
I share that sentiment overall. We already have laws that honor the well being of nature, including those that spell out animals in various cases should have satisfactory treatment. But, as Stone notes in his law article, such laws are secured too often by public officials with mixed motives and concerns. Douglas notes this in his dissent -- the tendency of public agencies to fall in with the industries they are meant to regulate. The government has many things on its plate -- regulation of nature includes its development. But, corporations -- logically deemed "persons" though some disagree [persons with limited rights and open to much more regulation -- if the will is there -- than natural ones] -- have a powerful voice. Why not have a somewhat comparable one for nature? Is not "it" as well worthy of our trouble?
Recent times has brought realization that the environment and all its aspects can be secured by looking at the interests of human litigants [Sierra Club eventually "was allowed to intervene [only] because its members hiked" the trail in question] but as Stone notes, there is a special meaning to things like "rights" and "person" that is intangible but powerful. And, something more than -- often hard to prove -- direct harm to specific plaintiffs as usually defined per "case or controversy" rules is at stake here. It is true, however, a liberal reading ... not favored these days in too many cases ... might get you much of the way enough times to make it a worthwhile enterprise.
No matter how, the idea of supplying nature with a separate and unique voice is an idea that remains quite logical.
---
* There is a new t.v. show on today with Holly Hunter, who plays a hard boiled cop that finds out she has a guardian angel. She claims not to believe in God, but asks for God's help when she hits someone with a car. The angel proves who "he" is by taking her up on top of a mountain ala Satan in the gospels and showing his wings. Damn Touched by An Angel b.s. ... why does these shows have to be so damn literal? The given person "touched by God" -- so to speak -- generally has some sort of psychological experience that is quite powerful, but does not involve angels with wings. Or, if they do, it is in a dream.
It is quite easy to convert when you see tangible things, but unlike Thomas and Jesus' nail holes, the general person does not get such a blunt instrument. Quite a few have quite powerful experiences all the same, leading to great transformations. Why can't these shows focus more on that?