Saturday, February 21, 2015
It was the best of states; it was the worst of states, or...
I'd like a state of impotent rage for $200, Alex.
When I was a wee lad, enjoying my misspent youth, I was a huge fan of the Anarchist's Cookbook. Written by William Powell during the Days of Rage in the early 70's, it contains recipes for rudimentary bombs, LSD, clapboard grow houses, etc. In addition to it's formulas, you can also read the political stylings of an anarchist living in New York City when the NYPD was spying on groups and individuals illegally; Nixon's dirty tricks campaign was in full swing, Kent State had just occurred, and the Weather Underground was bombing buildings. Needless to say, the author's views were more than a little cynical. In Dungeons and Dragons parlance, he was chaotic neutral. Protests were merely a great way for women to get raped, and for men to be beaten by police after arrest. The system will not change by holding placards and singing songs. The system needs to be smashed and replaced by an absence of government. An anarchist believes people will self-organize and form a free community. Katrina's wake showed this is wrong, however. Abbie Hoffman, by 1971 an aging hippie, more or less agreed with Powell in his dismissal of protests. People needed more concrete actions to destroy the State, though in Hoffman's case, a communist government was to be installed. Both were wrong, and both failed. The system does change, though rarely as quickly (or as permanently) as some would like. Moreover, the "system" will always exist. Even Occupy Wall Street, in its desire to actually accomplish things, had to move its council outside of the main protest area; they couldn't make any decisions otherwise.
This leads me to what I learned today. As I mentioned in this space prior, New York State is really two states: New York City and its surrounding areas, and everything else. Moreover, the power of New York City overshadows the rest of the state to the point that Upstate has had no real voice for some time. It used to be that the Assembly was the voice of Downstate, and the Senate was the voice of Upstate. The Senate has a clear Republican majority at this point, but the influence is nominal. The governor could go either way, but usually sides with liberals and NYC. Gov. Cuomo certainly follows that model, and nowhere is he more loyal to New York City than with fracking in the Southern Tier, aka Binghamton.
Binghamton sits on the Marcellus Shale formation, in between Susquehanna and Chenango Rivers, and is fairly close the New York City watershed system. This proximity provides the tension between the economic needs of Binghamton and the rest of the Southern Tier, versus New York's need for clean drinking water. The concerns of both are real. However, New York State runs itself with the needs and values of Manhattan placed front and center, so property taxes are sky-high throughout the state, and public pensions and benefits, put in place when Binghamton had a huge IBM presence and Buffalo was called the Electric City thanks to hydro-power from Niagara Falls, are incredibly generous. Neither can be sustained, but don't tell that to the town councils or Albany. I can only guess that the local governments were hoping for a windfall from all that natural gas, allowing these bodies to never have to confront the unsustainable benefits they maintain. Albany doesn't seem to care one way or the other. When determining what areas would get casinos, Binghamton was left out. Now, I enjoy casinos, and am not against them philosophically, but to imply they're an economic panacea is idiocy. Binghamton is probably better off without a casino. To really create opportunity, casinos have to draw people from another area who generously leave their money at the casino then go home. If locals go, you're merely replacing one from of consumption for another. Scranton and Wilkes-Barre already have a casino in the Poconos, so why would anyone drive to Binghamton?
Though it pains me to say, New York City and Cuomo are correct about drilling. As lucrative as fracking might be, it isn't safe or clean. The environmental damage has been severe in other areas, and water quality has especially suffered, a risk New York cannot take. The key is what can be done to help the area in other ways, and there's a 50 billion dollar aid package, details presently unknown to me. Naturally, the locals don't feel the aid package is enough, and still want fracking. They also wouldn't say no to a casino.
The unhappiness with the situation has led to some elected officials to try to secede from New York. I sympathize entirely, but I also understand it's a useless a protest as when Abbie Hoffman and his minions stole the hands from the clock in Grand Central Station. The long haired hippie freak who did this had his head crushed by a police baton, and mayhem otherwise ensued. While I doubt violence will occur in response, I'm equally certain it won't result in Binghamton joining Pennsylvania. If Albany's assent is required, and it's acknowledged as such by all involved, and the reason the area wants to leave is to allow fracking, which has been banned in New York to keep drinking water safe, why would New York allow the area to split, knowing that fracking would then commence? What a total waste of time and energy.
While Binghamton suffers under the weight of obligations it cannot meet, and watches business after business and resident after resident leave, New York City (and Westchester) are doing fine. Billions continue to flow to Wall Street, and our cups overflow with tax revenues. When compared to the rest of the nation, this might be the best time in 100 years to live in the area. Outside of Washington D.C., what area in America is doing better?
The irony is that leaving the natural gas alone will benefit Binghamton in the long run. When the collapse occurs, and everyone is left scrambling to salvage whatever scraps of our society they can, all that energy will be needed, much more so than today. Sit tight Binghamton, eventually the yoke of your prior commitments and limitations will disappear and you can recover, returning to a place of industry once more.
When I was a wee lad, enjoying my misspent youth, I was a huge fan of the Anarchist's Cookbook. Written by William Powell during the Days of Rage in the early 70's, it contains recipes for rudimentary bombs, LSD, clapboard grow houses, etc. In addition to it's formulas, you can also read the political stylings of an anarchist living in New York City when the NYPD was spying on groups and individuals illegally; Nixon's dirty tricks campaign was in full swing, Kent State had just occurred, and the Weather Underground was bombing buildings. Needless to say, the author's views were more than a little cynical. In Dungeons and Dragons parlance, he was chaotic neutral. Protests were merely a great way for women to get raped, and for men to be beaten by police after arrest. The system will not change by holding placards and singing songs. The system needs to be smashed and replaced by an absence of government. An anarchist believes people will self-organize and form a free community. Katrina's wake showed this is wrong, however. Abbie Hoffman, by 1971 an aging hippie, more or less agreed with Powell in his dismissal of protests. People needed more concrete actions to destroy the State, though in Hoffman's case, a communist government was to be installed. Both were wrong, and both failed. The system does change, though rarely as quickly (or as permanently) as some would like. Moreover, the "system" will always exist. Even Occupy Wall Street, in its desire to actually accomplish things, had to move its council outside of the main protest area; they couldn't make any decisions otherwise.
This leads me to what I learned today. As I mentioned in this space prior, New York State is really two states: New York City and its surrounding areas, and everything else. Moreover, the power of New York City overshadows the rest of the state to the point that Upstate has had no real voice for some time. It used to be that the Assembly was the voice of Downstate, and the Senate was the voice of Upstate. The Senate has a clear Republican majority at this point, but the influence is nominal. The governor could go either way, but usually sides with liberals and NYC. Gov. Cuomo certainly follows that model, and nowhere is he more loyal to New York City than with fracking in the Southern Tier, aka Binghamton.
Binghamton sits on the Marcellus Shale formation, in between Susquehanna and Chenango Rivers, and is fairly close the New York City watershed system. This proximity provides the tension between the economic needs of Binghamton and the rest of the Southern Tier, versus New York's need for clean drinking water. The concerns of both are real. However, New York State runs itself with the needs and values of Manhattan placed front and center, so property taxes are sky-high throughout the state, and public pensions and benefits, put in place when Binghamton had a huge IBM presence and Buffalo was called the Electric City thanks to hydro-power from Niagara Falls, are incredibly generous. Neither can be sustained, but don't tell that to the town councils or Albany. I can only guess that the local governments were hoping for a windfall from all that natural gas, allowing these bodies to never have to confront the unsustainable benefits they maintain. Albany doesn't seem to care one way or the other. When determining what areas would get casinos, Binghamton was left out. Now, I enjoy casinos, and am not against them philosophically, but to imply they're an economic panacea is idiocy. Binghamton is probably better off without a casino. To really create opportunity, casinos have to draw people from another area who generously leave their money at the casino then go home. If locals go, you're merely replacing one from of consumption for another. Scranton and Wilkes-Barre already have a casino in the Poconos, so why would anyone drive to Binghamton?
Though it pains me to say, New York City and Cuomo are correct about drilling. As lucrative as fracking might be, it isn't safe or clean. The environmental damage has been severe in other areas, and water quality has especially suffered, a risk New York cannot take. The key is what can be done to help the area in other ways, and there's a 50 billion dollar aid package, details presently unknown to me. Naturally, the locals don't feel the aid package is enough, and still want fracking. They also wouldn't say no to a casino.
The unhappiness with the situation has led to some elected officials to try to secede from New York. I sympathize entirely, but I also understand it's a useless a protest as when Abbie Hoffman and his minions stole the hands from the clock in Grand Central Station. The long haired hippie freak who did this had his head crushed by a police baton, and mayhem otherwise ensued. While I doubt violence will occur in response, I'm equally certain it won't result in Binghamton joining Pennsylvania. If Albany's assent is required, and it's acknowledged as such by all involved, and the reason the area wants to leave is to allow fracking, which has been banned in New York to keep drinking water safe, why would New York allow the area to split, knowing that fracking would then commence? What a total waste of time and energy.
While Binghamton suffers under the weight of obligations it cannot meet, and watches business after business and resident after resident leave, New York City (and Westchester) are doing fine. Billions continue to flow to Wall Street, and our cups overflow with tax revenues. When compared to the rest of the nation, this might be the best time in 100 years to live in the area. Outside of Washington D.C., what area in America is doing better?
The irony is that leaving the natural gas alone will benefit Binghamton in the long run. When the collapse occurs, and everyone is left scrambling to salvage whatever scraps of our society they can, all that energy will be needed, much more so than today. Sit tight Binghamton, eventually the yoke of your prior commitments and limitations will disappear and you can recover, returning to a place of industry once more.
