The little Critter and Sambo cats will go to bed hungry tonight unless you donate to Alphecca... So click the image of these starving kitties to contribute... via PayPal
That's right, I have absolutely no shame...
Hey, it worked for National Lampoon magazine... I don't have a second home on Cape Cod. Actually, I'm broke. So please help me get the message out about freedom, patriotism, and respect for the Bill Of Rights and the importance of the Second Amendment.
Thank you very much!
Yes, I coined the term
"stupid-fucking-computer"
Alphecca gets noticed!
Check out these glowing
reviews I've just made up:
It's hard to believe, but there are some incredibly perceptive folks who find me an inspiration...
After our back-and-forth earlier this week, Kin's Kouch is starting a feature where he highlights abuses of eminent domain. The first post involves -- what else, a Wal-Mart...
And I'm not the only one who's been sweating at home -- poor Jay Solo...
And like so many still trapped over at Blog*Spot, Matt at It Could Be Better is seeing his large posts evaporating. Publicola too.
I really do feel for all of you. There's nothing more frustrating then spending a long time on a post, only to see it totally 'effed up or worse...
Lastly, I might finally alphabetize my blogroll sometime soon. Even I have trouble finding folks on it. Of course that could just be because I'm senile.
Great book by Peter Strawb. Lousy movie. There are a lot of things I could chat about on a Friday night, the evening I always wrap-up my week. I could comment about more gun stuff but frankly, that can wait. I could blab about politics but I'm not in the mood.
I'll tell you what I AM in the mood for. There has been some discussion over the past week over supernatural issues on various blogs. And as most bloggers "hang" with other like-minded bloggers, the libertarians in my blogging community don't have much use for spiritualism and the supernatural. I do. I've enjoyed a few experiences. One comes to mind now. Here is my story:
My very first pet, a cat named Jasmine, suffered from kidney failure and finally I tearfully had to have him put to sleep about ten years ago. I left the "Vet's" office, put Jasmine in a box with his favorite blanket, toys, water dish, a cross, and some of his other cherished items including a clipping of my hair and my pillow-case.
I buried him a few hundred feet down the road from my home, at the edge of my friend's flower gardens. I buried him in his make-shift coffin about a foot down.
My other cat, Rainbow (still alive at 19!) was only nine years old and deeply missed her best friend. Anyway, we both finally went to sleep that night. About two AM I awoke suddenly in response to Rainbow who had just awoke and sat up. She woke up first and woke me up. We distinctly heard the sound of a cat scratching at the litter-box. I had no other cats at that time. We, both of us, rushed downstairs to the mud-room where the litter-box was. Nothing there. Finally, we went back to sleep.
The next morning I went up the street to Jasmine's grave. It was clear as day that some animal had (the smell?) been digging at the top of the mound where Jasmine was buried.
Think what you will. I know what I believe and that's good enough for me.
Update 6/29, I received this wonderful comment:
This happened when we lived in M_____, and I swear it is true. Our beloved Aloysius (a lady cat -- don't ask -- it's a long story) died at an advanced age of natural causes. At the time our daughter was away at school, so she wasn't present at the internment. Our youngest son, aged 13, built, lined with velvet and beautifully decorated a wooden coffin and we buried her under a large pussy willow bush in the back yard. On her coffin he printed, Aloysius, a Classy Cat and that she was. We were all in tears the entire weekend.
From that day on, we would catch fleeting glances of Aloysius in her favorite places, lounging on the back of the couch in the sun, spread eagle on our daughter's bed, even walking down the driveway to the mailbox with us as she liked to do. It got so we were completely freaked out. In due time, our daughter came home for the holidays and said her tearful goodbyes at her beloved pet's grave.
Aloysius was then able to rest in peace and we never saw her again. I get goose bumps just writing about this although it was well over 20 years ago that this happened.
If you can stand another cat story. More recently, we had two other cats who were litter mates. When they were 14 years old we learned they both had incurable cancer (vet said it isn't unusual for litter mates), so we decided that they came in together and should go out together. They were put to sleep at the same time, but we had to leave them at the vet's because we couldn't bury them here where we live in Florida.
By now it was just my husband and I at home, the kids were long on their own. We were just heartbroken, especially just driving away and leaving them behind. When we got home, lo and behold outside the porch a rose of Sharon which had been in place at least ten years and had never bloomed, sported a huge white blossom. This cheered us up hugely because we interpreted it as a sign (one of the cats had prominent white markings) that our babies were in a good place and were saying their last goodbye. It was immeasurably reassuring. Tears are springing to my eyes as I think of this again.
That was almost two years ago. That rose of Sharon hasn't bloomed since and I don't expect that it will again.
--erp (Fl & VT)
Thank you! There are folks (such as you and I) who believe because we've experienced. There are some who just don't know. And there are others who will never believe. We all have more eyes than just the two on the front of our head. But for many, it takes time and practice to use some of them. Some never learn. Some don't want to. I'm thankful that for some reason, mine are wide open. It has brought me closer to many things -- including God.
Here's another great email:
I had moved far away from my parents and the dog, Butch, I had spent a lot of time with when I was 9 to 13 years old. I still remember when I saw him after he was left as a puppy behind the grocery store where my father worked. I really wanted to keep him, and we spent a lot of time together walking around the local lake together and through the swampy areas, he was better to me than most people were at that time in my life. I was married, and moved 1,000 miles away, and one night I dreamed a vivid dream of Butch. I crossed a stream into a pasture surrounded by trees, but the trees and grass were more than that which we see around us here, I noted that they were alive and filled with light and life that I can't describe, and Butch came bounding towards me, happy and youthful and smiling like dogs often do. The next morning I spoke with my mother and she told that the previous day they had Butch to sleep. I don't usually tell people about my dream, but I thought you would appreciate it.
--Glenda
Thank you, Glenda. I don't know how this influenced your thinking about things, but I do know that my experience changed the way I think about many things in this world of ours. And all for the better!
I actually expected it. I mean, how can any state legititmately claim a compelling interest in what two consenting men do in the privacy of their own home? As for right-wing conservatives -- they claim they believe in small, non-intrusive government yet they want to allow police into folks' bedrooms? Come on!
Anyway, blogging has been light lately because I don't have air-conditioning in my home and even with fans blowing, the temperature in here is 85 degrees at 6 in the morning... I can't concentrate on anything other then getting to work where we DO have AC. A cold front is supposed to work its way through tonight.
Glenn Reynolds -- who, by the way is taking a deserved long weekend off from blogging, good for him -- has a good roundup of opinions about the Supreme Court ruling striking down the Texas anti-sodomy law.
Classical Values (Eric Scheie) offers his own excellent thoughts on the subject (but he's suffering from problems with Blogger -- what a surprise -- getting his posts up.)
And Mike Silverman has this report that the Kansas Attorney General is advising Kansas law enforcement agencies to now disregard Kansas anti-sodomy laws because of the ruling.
I'm sure there'll be plenty more from plenty of voices -- including some from the hysterical corner of the right. America is a country of people who are absolutely obsessed with sex, love sex, love to think about and read about and view and argue about and most of all have sex. They just can't seem to admit to that. Slowly, Americans might be forced to grow-up about the subject.
Oh, there will always be silly folks who claim there is no protection of gay sex in the Constitution. Last time I checked, there was no specific mention of a prohibition of it either. I do --though-- remember the phrase, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." as being in there.
Come to think of it, with all that Jesus Christ had to say about so many subjects -- he was curiously silent about this one as well. And God has let me know very clearly that he could care less about my being gay. Things like that just aren't on his radar. The bible is mostly written by folks claiming to speak for God. There's a lot in there that is nothing but personal opinion. God has no problem with people who love. He has a big problem with people who hate. Got it?
Update... Comments received:
Sorry Jeff. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. You need the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I tend to agree with Clarence Thomas: the law in question is particularly silly. I also can find no specific right to privacy in the Constitution, but Thomas evidently missed the 9th as well. He also is more conservative in applying the 14th amendment.
Originally, the Constitution left it to the state constitutions and governments to delineate and restrain the rights of citizens because there were no citizens of the US. This changed with the 14th amendment which declared US citizenship for the first time and extended the restrictions that the Bill of Rights originally placed on the federal government only to the states. From this is derived the principle of substantive due process and the right of privacy found in Griswold v Conn. Strict constructionists do not like the principle of substantive due process because they claim that it has been used to invent rights not enumerated in the Constitution. But I think the 9th amendment pretty much overrules that argument
I also think that the 14th amendment extends the prohibitions of the 2nd amendment to the states, meaning that even if the states once had full power and authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, that power and authority no longer exists and all gun laws are therefore unconstitutional. I'm sure there is plenty of disagreement on that.
THANK YOU for linking to my remarks about sodomy laws. I am absolutely appalled by some of the things I am reading -- especially today -- at the radical fundamentalist sites (like here...), and I find myself wishing that lobbyists had worked state by state to get rid of these awful laws. After this decision, the fundamentalist crazies will never shut up about it, and they make me sick.
I liked what you said about God; I only wish more of the people who believed in God would stop trying to speak for God. How do they know? (Drives me nuts.)
I have a pretty good sized blogroll of folks who blogroll me. They come from all sides of the spectrum and it's been interesting seeing all of their reactions to this ruling. In any event, Alphecca is about a lot of things and I have not nor will I turn it over to gay issues. A lot of it sometimes is about gun rights (though not this week in particular) but again, I am about much more than that. I'm that rare creature; a God, guns and gays type of guy. Except that I'm for all of them. And those who've read my posts for many months realize that you can be consistent in being for all of them.
But I'm about much more than that, even. As my next post will prove...
Good William Safire op-ed in the N.Y. Times today continuing his battle and giving credit to many others, including the NRA, against the FCC's decision to allow total consolidation of media ownership. He notes who's been for it, who's kept typically mum, and who (strange bedfellows indeed) fought against it. Now the senate committee is rejecting it.
Publicola has this post continuing discussion over whether using force against the government is ever justified. The case in point concerns the government taking away a couples kids over unfiled paperwork -- not anything to do with abuse, etc. Interesting discussion.
Across The Atlantic is settling into their new home. This link will take you there but within a few days the old link should catch-up... Good luck to them and continued good blogging...
This post from Hell In A Handbasket discusses religion and atheism. I agree that all of the major "organized" religions are false in many of their tenets and doctrines (or is that the same thing?) However, I do happen to believe in God, just in my own way, and he has been very good to me. No, you won't find me in a church or synagogue. But I am not embarrassed by my belief. I'm sure there'll be plenty of discussion over this...
Craig at Boone Country is also itchin' for a fight (not from me) over the 30-06. He says the cartridge is too general in this specialized hunting age. Some of the old fogies I know swear by it as if any other load was total heresy. Good reading.
There's still nothing in the news really grabbing me and Yahoo still hasn't added a single new link on the gun debate page. Anyway, see you soon...
Yes, it's that time again. Time to see just how honest and unbiased Yahoo is in deciding which stories to link to on their Gun Control Debate Page. Here we go...
This week's lovely model is the Remington Model Seven Magnum LS (laminated stock.) Chambered for the 7mm Magnum cartridge, our darling here features a 22 inch blued barrel (the model SS has a stainless steal barrel.) This high-powered hunting rifle only weighs just under 8 lbs. The stock is simply described as "brown laminated." Hmm... looks nice anyway. And isn't Photoshop wonderful?
And how many of us have handed one of these 7mm's to the new guy and told him to press it good into his shoulder? "Don't worry, hardly any kick at all..." Viscious, aren't we?
There weren't a whole lot of new listings this week at Yahoo and the overall chart numbers stayed the same. Summer doldrums? I don't know. There've been no new links in the last five days leading up to this writing (I prepare this post late Tuesday evenings.) I've actually chatted about everything already over the past seven days. Keep in mind that some of these articles might have come out before last Wednesday but Yahoo didn't link to them until after Wednesday. Anyway, rather then just link you to everything I've already written about them, I'll sum up my thoughts again since most of you just stop by on Wednesdays...
One story I rated as "pro-gun" this past week was from the blogosphere's own Eugene Volokh who had this post on NRO which took apart a "study" claiming that ownership of a firearm doubles your risk of being killed by a gun. Here's the money quote:
What the University of Pennsylvania study found was a statistical correlation: Gun ownership is correlated with gun deaths. But that two things are correlated doesn't prove that one causes the other. The sex-crime rate is correlated over time with the use of air conditioning, but not because air conditioning causes sex crime; rather, both rise during the summer months. Likewise, whether someone in your home has been to the hospital recently is correlated with death in your home, but not because hospital care tends to kill people (though sometimes it does). Rather, both hospital stays and deaths often have a common cause: serious illness.
It turns out that a hugely disproportionate fraction of homicide victims are themselves criminals - criminals do dangerous things, and deal with dangerous people. In a recent San Francisco study, two-thirds of all gun-homicide victims (and one-third of all gun suicides) were found to have had arrest records, and other studies of gun-homicide victims yield similar results. And criminals, especially drug dealers and gang members, are particularly likely to own guns; most gun owners aren't criminals, but many criminals are gun owners. So even if gun ownership and gun homicide are correlated, both may be caused by a common factor: Hardcore criminals are especially likely to own guns - and to be killed by guns.
Put another way, hardcore criminals are likely to own guns, but gun owners are not necessarily likely to be hardcore criminals. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't even try to enter a debate like this until you graduate from high-school and understand statistics and their manipulation by various advocacy groups.
The other "pro-gun" story came from Paul Walfield who had this story published by AIM describing the injustice done to Ronald Dixon of N.Y. who used a firearm to save the lives of his family and was promptly arrested for possession of an unlicensed gun (his paperwork was in process, by the way.) Here's a quote:
Dixon had legally purchased a handgun in Florida and was in the process of having it registered in New York where he lived. He took the gun and confronted the burglar. When the felon lunged at him, Ronald Dixon shot the man twice, wounding him. The burglar was arrested and taken away by the police, and Ronald Dixon's family was safe. Then, Ronald Dixon was arrested.
His gun was not registered and Mr. Dixon needed to be punished for possessing an illegal handgun. It didn't matter that his family was saved by that gun, or that anyone, anywhere would have done the same to protect their children. You see, the District Attorney needed to set an example. But, just what example was actually set by sending a father, a hard worker, a good man to jail? The same jail, Rikers Island that the man who broke into his house is also residing in, and who has a fourteen-page rap sheet and had been arrested nineteen times by the police. How many times do you think he was let go without any jail time for actual crimes?
This is the "English" model -- the criminal has more rights then the victim. This case has been plea-bargained down so that Mr. Dixon will only do three days in jail but I still think that's a crying shame. Alas, New York State is a sick, diseased bastion of liberals who suck-up to and make excuses for the likes of Saddam Hussein and Arafat and every mutant punk criminal. But God help you if you're an American who still believes in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. You must be a right-wing wacko who should be scorned and locked away.
I also mentioned (but will again) this editorial from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (a misnomer of a name if ever there was one) which says that "Gun recklessness should be a crime." Well that's really deep. And guess what everybody? It is! In all 50 states! The parent of a boy lost track of her gun, the boy took it to school and waved it around. Now they're both charged with crimes. What else should society do? Pass more laws that re-state the same things as the original ones? *Ugh.*
The last editorial I'll mention is this silly one from the Toledo Blade (OH) once again raising the alarm that a bill allowing concealed carry will somehow lead to -- you guessed it -- the "Dodge City" Syndrome. The fact that it hasn't happened in any other state that recently allowed concealed carry does not deter them from their scary-scenario screed.
The only people who need fear common folks being allowed to carry concealed firearms are criminals -- suddenly, their job just got harder. They might actually face real resistance. I think that's a good thing.
One more thought for the day... Although not this week, many times Yahoo will link to (under "stories") articles describing crimes committed with guns. A perfect example was during the tragic times during the D.C. Snipers (see my posts from last Oct. and Nov.) But in all the months I've been doing this, they have never linked to stories describing a law-abiding citizen using a legal firearm to defend (and save) himself and his family. Never under the "stories" heading. Only twice under the "editorial" heading.
Come to think of it, I can't remember a single time that NBC News or the Today show has done so either. (I only get two TV channels here. The other is PBS--say no more...)
To me, this exhibits the ultimate bias of all. Or cowardice. Even dishonesty. They are defacto stating (by their omission) that there is no legitimate reason for an individual citizen to own a firearm. THAT is their real agenda. Yet we all know that many local small-time newspapers are filled with stories such as these. But Yahoo and NBC et al will never publicize any incident that might cast firearms in a good light. So I guess it's up to all of us here in the blogosphere to fill in that glaring gap.
Anyway, I guess that's a wrap for this week's edition. Thanks for stopping by!
Apple has announced their new G5 chip line of computers that process data twice as fast. From Reuters, here's a quote:
Apple plans in August to begin selling three models of desktop computers based on the G5 chip, which can manage 64 bits of data at once, compared with 32 bits for traditional home computers.
As a Mac user, I must confess my reaction is, "who gives a cow-pie?..."
I'm sick of the endless upgrade spiral. I can't afford it, and never mind the cost of a new computer -- there's the HUGE cost of upgrading so many software programs. Sorry -- I'll pass.
And that, friends, sums up what a slow news day it is around here. Yahoo better post some new gun stories today because my weekly bias report is due up tomorrow and there's nothing to yak about right now...
Colorado now has a relaxed "shall issue" concealed carry law. That's a good thing. I've already blabbed about it plenty. Anyway, Over at the Denver Post there's an interesting thread of letters to the editor about this subject. Here's a quote from one of them by Peter Hartley:
In the past, guns were, if anything, more readily available than now, not because of a gun lobby but because of American custom and tradition. In the past, kids were not disposed to carry guns.
When I was a teenager, I bought a military rifle by mail order as easily as I could have bought any other legal product. No background check, no government form to fill out. Other guns were in the house, including pistols, but to take one to school or to a party was inconceivable.
The obvious crucial question is: Why were kids in the past - even the troublemakers - not disposed to make guns part of the picture, and why are so many of them now disposed to do so? Obviously, that change in disposition, not the present availability of guns, is the cause of today's endemic deadly violence among children.
But what brought about the change in disposition? Could it possibly be the ever-increasing abandonment of restraints on behavior, dress and language? Could it be the ever-increasing acceptance of barbaric films, music, television shows and computer games?
Exactly! I've made these points here before but this sums it up quite succinctly. Nobody thought twice of guns in the middle of the last century. They were a part of life. Indeed, many schools had riflery teams and target-shooting was an activity at most Summer camps.
Everyone keeps claiming that the various media (movies, TV, music, computer games) don't have any effect on our youth. I disagree. Would I call for censorship? Nope. I'm for the First Amendment as much as I am the 2nd.
It would be nice though if these industries engaged in a little voluntary common sense. You can't legislate that. And it would be REALLY nice if parents started exerting some control over what their kids are exposed to. But here in the nation of babies, that will never happen...
Update 6/24, received this comment:
I just feel that I have to respond to the 6/23/03 post you made titled "Guns to blame?"
First off, let me say that I agree to the fact that the present availablity of guns are not to blame for the violence among children today. But I must say that the entertainment media (TV, music, movies, video games, etc) are also not to blame.
The problem that I have with these statements are the fact that a person is taking a complex social problem, and assigning one possibility as the major factor for causing the problem. No one issue is to blame for any increased violence in children. While it is possible that in a single situation one issue may have been the deciding factor, the same can not be applied to the entire range of children. We are all individuals and as such we all have different motivations.
The fact is that there are many variables that may cause violent acts. Lack of parental involvement, enviroment/peer pressure, media, antidepressants, etc. These are all issues that in combination can cause violent behavior.
It seems to me that society has become so overly litigious, that people want to blame one thing as the cause for tradgedy.
--Kent Shambaugh
Indeed, we've reached the point where even in a national tragedy such as 9/11, all the politicians and many of the pundits scramble around trying to find out who is to blame for the breakdown in security and committee after committee is formed.
One reason I admire Gov. Howard Dean is that he doesn't do that, at least in regards to guns. Dean was a regular a few years ago on the PBS show, "The Editors." After the Columbine shootings, Dean stated (on the program concerning this, and in a response to a question about whether more gun control was needed) that no, we didn't need more gun control. We needed to find out why the two perpetrators did what they did.
Our parents raised us, taught us right and wrong, taught us correct behavior, and reinforced that teaching with discipline. Discipline was not a negotiation of what we could do an not do. It was rules of conduct with real consequences for breaking the rules. That is another big change. Kids today are not disciplined and the law often prevents parents from doing so effectively. As a result, kids often have little respect for their parents' authority and consequently, they learn little respect for any authority. This doesn't apply to all kids, but it applies to way too many.
And as we say around the blogosphere, read the whole thing...
I couldn't sleep... And it's stories like this that keep me up at night; the loss of freedom in this country. Did you know that it is against the law for cops and firemen to smoke -- on or off the job -- in Massachusetts? From Boston.com, here's a quote:
Wayne Jeffrey, a seven-year veteran of the Fall River force, was fired May 29 after an internal investigation, prompted by an unsigned letter that claimed he smoked tobacco at a party.
A 1988 state law states that police officers and firefighters are subject to immediate termination if they are found to be using tobacco products either on- or off-duty.
Now look, I'm not going to defend smoking -- it is a stupid habit, and I admit to that even though I smoke myself. And any employer has the right to prohibit smoking "on the clock" if they so desire. But smoking is still a (just barely) legal activity for adults in this country. What a worker does on his own time, as long as it's legal, should not be the concern of his employer as long as it doesn't affect his job performance. When I first started reading this, I was outraged. But then I read further. Here's the explanation for the law:
The Legislature passed the law to accompany legislation that enables public safety officials to receive special disability benefits easier than the average worker. Without the law, proponents argue, doctors are unable to determine if a heart or lung illness is work related.
Apparently, the workers themselves brought this on by collective bargaining in order to win more liberal access to disability benefits. So I suppose they have no one to blame but themselves. I still think it's a terrible law, and just one more example of the "nanny-state" our government is becoming.
Speaking of which, didn't that (in my opinion) land-grabbing suicidal moron Ted Turner also have policies like this in place at his companies? (I just thought I'd throw in that gratuitous remark...) He claimed it drove up health-care costs. I suppose an argument could be made for that but I've also heard arguments that say that smokers die so much younger that they actually cost less over the long-haul because they don't consume all the healthcare expenses that folks who live to a ripe-old-age do.
Sorry, but even if it does increase health-care costs it's a terrible rule (and law) because it leaves the door open to more such control over employees' lives. Remember, liberals are never content with just a little social-engineering. They never know when to stop. What's to prevent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from passing further regulations that say that a worker is forbidden from eating junk-food? Will they start testing for the presence of trans-fats and fire anyone who has "Twinkie-blood?"
Driven by greed and "hyper-liberalism," lawyers and politicians are already mapping out strategies on how to sue and regulate fast-food. From the Washington Times:
At an obesity litigation conference in Boston, about 120 attendees discussed planned lawsuit methods similar to ones used to sue tobacco companies. Those methods included using guerrilla lawsuits - several types of unexpected filings - against food companies, fast-food chains and restaurants, and pushing the envelope with cases that appear "frivolous" to get bigger results and larger settlements.
"Remember, many social movements were kick-started by litigation," such as civil rights, environmental, sexual discrimination and tobacco laws, said John Banzhaf III, a conference speaker.
So this idiot lawyer is claiming that taking away American's freedom to eat the food they want is equivalent to winning equal rights for women and blacks?
I've said this before: We desperately need tort reform in this country. The problem is that since most politicians are lawyers, we're never going to get it. Remember George Lucas' sci-fi movie, TXH-1138? We're almost there...
In a way, I'm almost glad I'm middle-aged. All this talk about how exciting the future is going to be is lost on me. If current trends continue, all I see is a bland, sterile future of control of everything you do and say and consume.
We desperately need tort reform right now. The only way to do that is to never again elect a lawyer to Congress. And further, we must heap scorn on anyone trying to play the "victim" game. Mostly though, we need to pretend we are still the vibrantly headstrong men and women who forged our nation two hundred years ago.
Frankly, I don't think we're up to it. I don't think there's anyone alive today who could last six months in 1776... Or who could last one week in 2000 BC... Or who could last one day in the early history of our species. Yes everyone, let's ban cookies. Fuck, how pathetic we've all become.
I couldn't say it any better now then I did back then. That was a well linked-to post so you new-comers might want to check the whole thing out. And feel free to use my new additions to the lexicon, Twinkie-blood and hyper-liberal.
One last quick thing. I consider the use by towns and states of "Eminent Domain" to be one of the worst abuses by governments. Here's a sick story from today's Washington Post about how piece-of-crap Mayor Madeline A. Cain of Lakewood, Ohio wants to destroy 50 homes in order to build a big shopping mall. I hope something horrible happens to her and to all the city officials who are going along with her. I don't condone or encourage violence against anyone but if I were to read in the paper that through an act of God she tripped and fell into a deep ditch, I would open a bottle of Champagne. The need to rip folks off for more tax moneys is not an acceptable reason to underpay 50 homeowners and force them out of their homes so a fucking shopping mall can be built. A very, VERY DEEP DITCH.
...There certainly are cases where I'd accept the use of eminent domain. Of course proper restitution is an issue and one that isn't easy to work out. That the city can force people to sell their homes to build a road that will improve quality of life in the city measurably, while not the nicest thing in the world, won't cause me to lose sleep. I would need to think about the taking of private lands to give to developers to build housing. I can see pros and cons on both sides. On the other hand...taking private lands to build a mall...is much easier to come out against. This is simply pandering...
I agree that there might be a slight few instances where it is necessary to invoke eminent domain. The problem is that money talks when it comes to developers and corrupt politicians. So I purpose the following solution: Laws must be passed that say that "fair market value" is not sufficient payment. If the government is going to force someone to sell their property then they must be compensated not only for the value of the property but for inconvenience and emotional distress.
If I was in charge of the world, I would require the fed/state/municipality to compensate the property owner by paying him a minimum of three times the tax-accessed value of the property. And if the land is going to be used not for "infrastructure" but for commercial developement then the owner must be paid an estimated five times what the property will be worth when the developer finishes with it. Strict? You bet. But it would eliminate much of the corruption in this process.
I'm not really here today. I said I would take the weekend off and I do plan to spend most of today doing other things. But let me just mention a couple items that caught my eye:
A blog that just came to my attention, DANEgerus, has this post up listing a whole slew of Iranian Blogs (who post in English.) So there is a great place to start to get the feel for what is really happening in Iran. Check it out.
Bitter Bitch is back after lallygagging all over Europe. Welcome her back but also -- we want details! And make it snappy!
I gave my own take on the whole gay marriage thing last week (I had a lot to say about a lot of things last week so click the link at the bottom of this page to read it all...) and I'm not going to belabor the point. Anyway, today's Washington Post has this post about the flood of gay couples from the U.S. heading to Canada to be actually married. It will be interesting to see how much the states here overreact to this -- or should I say "overreact more" since so many of them rushed to pass anti-gay marriage laws a few years ago.
Not to mention that if these states already recognize heterosexual marriages performed in Canada, what "compelling interest of the state" can they claim for denying the same recognition to gay couples?
I usually agree with my blogson but in this case Eric Scheie states in this post that he'd just as soon not see gay marriages here in the U.S. --if I'm reading his intentions correctly, that would be an unusual position for someone who's gay-- because it would lead to more cases of "palimony" and "gaylimony" and a general intrusion by the state into private affairs of gay couples. I don't agree with his premise because the government isn't forcing marriage on anyone. Anyway, it's an interesting post from my blogson that I'm sure will start a lot of arguments -- always a good thing for a blogger! -- but take them up with him.
Just finished watching Gov. Howard Dean on Tim Russert's Meet the Press. In fact, I was recording the sound but got side-tracked posting here and lost the last few minutes -- I had planned to make the audio available here but with the last bit missing I guess I'll pass. Anyway, I am not committed to any candidate this early but I still think Dean is interesting. Pro-gun and pro-gay rights. My two big issues...
Okay, I'm taking the rest of the day off. Again, check out all that I had to say last week. See you tomorrow. Thanks for stopping by!
