![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"Later I decided anyone stupid enough to fall for his shtick deserves to be Christian."
http://www.orthodoxanarchist.com/2005/06/antichrist-will-be-jewish-male.php
http://www.orthodoxanarchist.com/2005/06/antichrist-will-be-jewish-male.php
Jun. 23rd, 2005
Now, I'm not a fan of private property... but this is a question of 2 private battles.
----------
"WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales."
-------
I remember posting about this case earlier. Now, I hate private property, but I REALLY hate commercial private property. Again, I'm sure that this is a case where I'll end up agreeing with the (real) conservatives.
*sigh*
The march towards the incestuous relationship between capital and state continues ever on. Excelsior!
----------
"WASHINGTON, June 23 - The Supreme Court ruled today, in a deeply emotional case weighing the rights of property owners and the good of the community, that local governments can sometimes seize homes and businesses and turn them over to private developers.
In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city's plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.
The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters' projects also serve a public good.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the court has recognized." The court's ruling is certain to be studied from coast to coast, since similar conflicts between owners of homes and small businesses and development-minded officials have arisen in other locales."
-------
I remember posting about this case earlier. Now, I hate private property, but I REALLY hate commercial private property. Again, I'm sure that this is a case where I'll end up agreeing with the (real) conservatives.
*sigh*
The march towards the incestuous relationship between capital and state continues ever on. Excelsior!
Tags:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23wire-scotus.html?incamp=article_popular_4
------
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
---------
------
In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private property, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
"As for the victims," Justice O'Connor went on, "the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
---------
Tags:
Also, the last point to make on that issue:
Why don't they just do like everyplace else is doing it?
It's called gentrification. Don't force them to move, just make so much commercial development that their (home-owners) property becomes too "valuable", and they can no longer afford to live there (taxes, cost of living, etc...) It's happening in our town, and probably yours too.
Of course, if you've got a lakefront house (like one home-owner in the article) chances are you're not completely hurting.
Why don't they just do like everyplace else is doing it?
It's called gentrification. Don't force them to move, just make so much commercial development that their (home-owners) property becomes too "valuable", and they can no longer afford to live there (taxes, cost of living, etc...) It's happening in our town, and probably yours too.
Of course, if you've got a lakefront house (like one home-owner in the article) chances are you're not completely hurting.
fuck... i read some comments from an old comment i made, and now my blood is boiling.
time to listen to some minor threat and rage against the machine. maybe some radiohead while i'm at it. also. pantera. yeah.
i just wanna explode. although it's not so much rage as a complete and utter feeling of desperation and realization that we are truly fucked. *sigh* but it's not sad either. hard to explain. all i know is my adrenaline is pumping and i want to smash something (preferably the state, but more in this context... capital)...
time to listen to some minor threat and rage against the machine. maybe some radiohead while i'm at it. also. pantera. yeah.
i just wanna explode. although it's not so much rage as a complete and utter feeling of desperation and realization that we are truly fucked. *sigh* but it's not sad either. hard to explain. all i know is my adrenaline is pumping and i want to smash something (preferably the state, but more in this context... capital)...
http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=6351
The Bush Administration is set to change the understood interpretation of 18 USC 2257 in a blow
to free speech and the online pornography industry...
The justice department under Bush appointee Alberto Gonzales
is set to reinterpret
18 USC 2257, created by a law passed in 1988, later
amended and effective since 1992. The purpose of the law is
ostensibly to protect children from exploitation in
pornography by requiring producers of porn to keep the proof
of age of the actors on file. For the entire time this law has
been on the books, the understanding of the word "producer"
has been clearly understood to mean the entity that actually
creates the pornographic media. In expanding the scope of
enforcement of 18 USC 2257 to the Internet, the Justice
Department has decided that just about everyone with
potentially pornographic material online is a
producer of pornography and must keep proof of age on
file. Further, the Justice Department intends to make its
change in rules retroactive to a time before the
change was made.
----
This time, it's Big Porn. That's right. Mom and Pop operations can't afford the resources to keep all these records, but guess who can? Big, rich and powerful tycoons of the porn industry. It suddenly makes sense as to why Mary Carey was at a republican fundraiser...
Obviously, she was there with her boss in order to lobby for this effort. It all makes sense now!
http://news.google.com/news?q=mary%20carey&hl=en&hs=8Wv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&sa=N&tab=wn
The Bush Administration is set to change the understood interpretation of 18 USC 2257 in a blow
to free speech and the online pornography industry...
The justice department under Bush appointee Alberto Gonzales
is set to reinterpret
18 USC 2257, created by a law passed in 1988, later
amended and effective since 1992. The purpose of the law is
ostensibly to protect children from exploitation in
pornography by requiring producers of porn to keep the proof
of age of the actors on file. For the entire time this law has
been on the books, the understanding of the word "producer"
has been clearly understood to mean the entity that actually
creates the pornographic media. In expanding the scope of
enforcement of 18 USC 2257 to the Internet, the Justice
Department has decided that just about everyone with
potentially pornographic material online is a
producer of pornography and must keep proof of age on
file. Further, the Justice Department intends to make its
change in rules retroactive to a time before the
change was made.
----
This time, it's Big Porn. That's right. Mom and Pop operations can't afford the resources to keep all these records, but guess who can? Big, rich and powerful tycoons of the porn industry. It suddenly makes sense as to why Mary Carey was at a republican fundraiser...
Obviously, she was there with her boss in order to lobby for this effort. It all makes sense now!
http://news.google.com/news?q=mary%20carey&hl=en&hs=8Wv&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&sa=N&tab=wn
Tags:
Right now, I'm posting this post from FreeBSIE... It's a liveCD of FreeBSD (a UNIX variant... sorta like linux, but different)
Just figured I'd try something a little different.
So far it's kinda nice.
I also tried Damn Small Linux on my old 233 mhz pentium, and it runs really smoothly. I really should get a network card for that thing, though. Only has a modem in it. What good is a UNIX system without proper networking?
Just figured I'd try something a little different.
So far it's kinda nice.
I also tried Damn Small Linux on my old 233 mhz pentium, and it runs really smoothly. I really should get a network card for that thing, though. Only has a modem in it. What good is a UNIX system without proper networking?