Saturday, September 25, 2004

Wampum takes at long look at eminent domain and its uses and abuses. Of course the righties have tried to take it up as THEIR issue, what with big goverment just taking away private property at any whim. Yet again its all just wing-nut delusion. Its business and the welathy and powerful that are the real threat.

Just one example from the post:

The taking of property by local governments on behalf of devdelopers or other favored groups is a growing problem.

Mike Wallace reported the following:

Jim and Joanne Saleet are refusing to sell the home they've lived in for 38 years. They live in a quiet neighborhood of single-family houses in Lakewood, Ohio, just outside Cleveland.

The City of Lakewood is trying to use eminent domain to force the Saleets out to make way for more expensive condominiums...

Jim Saleet worked in the pharmaceutical industry, paid off his house and then retired. Now, he and his wife plan to spend the rest of their days there, and pass their house on to their children.

But Lakewood's mayor, Madeleine Cain, has other plans. She wants to tear down the Saleets' home, plus 55 homes around it, along with four apartment buildings and more than a dozen businesses.

Why? So that private developers can build high-priced condos, and a high-end shopping mall, and thus raise Lakewood's property tax base
.


As Dwight explains, "Eminent domain is the power of the government (federal, state, and local) to take property from citizens. Having the power to take private property is essential to the operation of government. It is a power necessary to build roads, construct water and sewer systems, build schools and parks, and provide electrical grids."
Thats certainly been my understanding, and Lakewood's plans clearly don't fall within the criteria.
The far-right is wrong again. Looking for the enemy? Look in your own camp.

"George Bush is the president, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

-- CBS News anchor Dan Rather, after the Sept. 11 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center

Thursday, September 23, 2004

Mark Kleiman makes note of The high cost of stategery
in the White House, where "stategery" -- the habit of making every decision, no matter how technically complex, based on perceived political advantage -- is apparently the single operating principle.

He's not called the Preznut for nothing and the worse of it is, that a huge block of his supporters enjoy the blood. They see the deaths of our soldiers as a kind of patriot martyrdom. Sometimes its hard to tell the homegrown nuts from the Islamic ones.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

Via Liberal Oasis the press on occasion does its job.
PETER JENNINGS: We were struck today by a very pointed attack by President Bush on John Kerry.

First of all, this is what Mr. Bush said.

[begin video clip]

BUSH: We agree that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein sitting in a prison cell.

And that stands in stark contrast to the statement that my opponent made yesterday, when he said that the world was better off with Saddam in power.

I strongly disagree.

[end video clip]

JENNINGS: And this is what Mr. Kerry actually said. [emphasis original]

[begin video clip]

KERRY: Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in Hell.

But that was not...in and of itself, a reason to go to war.

The satisfaction...that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact:

We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

[end video clip]

JENNINGS: Trying to keep track of the Iraq debate.