#4
Could be, gromky and buwaya. But I know that soy, peas and other legumes affect fertility in stud dogs. My guess is that the Asians have selected for those who are somehow less affected by it than populations which traditionally haven't eaten the stuff.
#5
Asians are more sensitive to smaller doses of hormones and drugs per kg of body weight. If I remember my classes correctly, it is due to a higher receptor density. There are estrogenic compounds in foods, pesticides and even plastics. Sperm counts have dropped by about 1/2 in western countries since their widespread introduction (i.e. after WW2). But humans have a lot of reproductive overkill, and I see no evidence that any estrogenic effects are great enough to lower a societies birth rate by themselves.
Posted by: ed ||
06/23/2005 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
The U.N. Security Council on Wednesday voted to temporarily enlarge the peacekeeping mission in Haiti by more than 1,000 troops and police in the run-up to elections set for later this year.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/23/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A former US Pentagon official says asylum would have already been granted to defecting Chinese embassy official Chen Yonglin if he was in America. Dan Blumenthal, a China analyst for the American Enterprise Institute, was the Pentagon's senior director on China. Mr Chen claims China is using its trade agreement to apply pressure on Australia to ignore human rights issues and he has offered more specific information to help his case for asylum. But Mr Blumenthal has told the ABC's Lateline program he is surprised Mr Chen's plea has so far failed. "The Congress [in the US] would be pushing very hard to provide him with protection status or asylum," he said. Mr Blumenthal believes the US is following Mr Chen's case and Australia's handling of it very closely because of tension between China and Taiwan.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/23/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
oooh. That's a very public "were watching you" statement to a good ally. I wonder why?
A VIETNAM veteran who has lived in Australia for more than 30 years is facing deportation after he was bluntly told by a junior immigration official he had no reason to stay. Roger Harris, 60, was one of Australia's original tunnel rats and volunteered for two tours of duty with the Australian Army in Vietnam between 1965 and 1968, and attained the rank of sergeant. He said yesterday the Department of Immigration had made him jump through hoops and then told him his application for the renewal of his residency had been cancelled because he no longer had a compelling reason to stay.
Raised in a British orphanage after World War II, and sent to Australia at the age of 16 in 1961, Mr Harris said he did not realise he wasn't an Australian citizen until 1981 when he went to apply for a passport to go to Britain. Since then he had lived in Australia for 12 years, and then in the US where he kept, and regularly renewed, his resident return visa because he intended to settle back in Australia. However, after he came back to Australia in April to live with his son's family and watch his grandchildren grow up, he faced a wall of resistance from an officer at the Department of Immigration. "She said I don't see that you've got a compelling reason to be here. She said you've got no compelling reason because you've been away so long," Mr Harris said. "A week later she rang to say she was going to cancel the application. She said military service in the 60s doesn't count, it's too long ago. I just boiled."
Continued on Page 49
#1
Between the Chen asylum story and this one, I'm thinking that Howard needs to take a hard look and have a very short talk with whatever dingdongs are running Ozzie Immigration. Something is definitely wrong with both situations.
Still this is crap. The fact that his family lives in Australia is a 'compelling' reason in my book. Sounds like someone just wants to show their 'power'.
#7
Fire this bitch.My Father-in law(deceased)was a Tunnel rat(danmned fine man,I miss him),you had to be an exceedinglly brave person to crawl done one of those dank,dangerous hole.
#8
I still love the Aussies, but just when I had high hopes for them, some P.C. cr@p sneaks in like this. Beer_me's right...just "convert" to Islam and it'll all be o.k.
Posted by: BA ||
06/23/2005 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#9
It's no worse than anything that happens here in the US, BA.
#10
Touche', 2b! So true...I guess we all have to put up with our leftie fascists crackpots. It's just that it's getting worse, and I was born in the early 70's! I'm sick and tired of everyone picking on vets...they deserve our complete respect/support!
Posted by: BA ||
06/23/2005 8:39 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Tree. Immigration Puke. Rope.
Some assembly required.
Like Donny Rumsfeld said (more or less) tonight,shutting up Ted (what-was-her-name-again-who-drowned-in-my-car) Kennedy (Mary Jo Kopeckne, Ted) We're just gonna keep on doin' what we think is right - and that's fine by me!
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/23/2005 21:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Goodbye. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. It's well past time to reconfigure trade policy. It makes no sense to ship overseas 6% of out GDP. Bring those troops highly productive jobs home. Trade with friends and import only what is absolutely neccesary from real and wannabe enemies. Let our ersatz friends in Western Europe export to communist China.
Posted by: ed ||
06/23/2005 21:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Oops. Same story on Page 2, with graphics even. Sorry.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/23/2005 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Any poll in which Brits and the Chinese have roughly the same views about Uncle Sam is worth less than a bucket of warm spit. Of course, anything coming out of Pew basically stinks - it's been conducting loaded polls for a while now. The question is whether they can be trusted to conduct a neutral poll. My view is no.
A chance encounter over the Lake District between a Eurofighter trainer and two F-15 aircraft turned into a mock dogfight, with the British plane coming off best - much to the surprise of some in the RAF. The episode was hushed up for fear of causing US blushes.
The 'clash' took place last year over Windermere when the two-seater RAF Eurofighter was 'bounced' from behind by the two F-15E fighters.
The US pilots intended to pursue the supposedly hapless 'Limey' for several miles and lock their radars on to it for long enough so that if it had been a real dogfight the British jet would have been shot down.
But much to the Americans' surprise, the Eurofighter shook them off, outmanoeuvred them and moved into shooting positions on their tails.
The British pilots themselves were almost as surprised at winning an encounter with an aircraft widely regarded as the best fighter in the world.
Posted by: True German Ally ||
06/23/2005 07:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the two F-15E fighters.
The 15E is the two seat fighter bomber version, not the pure dogfighter. 15's are getting old and the Eurofighter is state of the art. Anyway, it all comes down to the man in the cockpit.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/23/2005 8:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Maybe. But never underestimate your adversary, that what it comes down, too.
#3
And actually, the F-15 isn't even the world's best anymore anyway, much less the F-15E ...
Then again, this DOES show an interesting "other perspective" to our trend towards strike fighters at the expense of dogfighting ...
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
06/23/2005 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Fear the Royal Flying Corps.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/23/2005 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Also, even if they were playing "dogfight" the US planes would have been operating under some rather strict flight rules over the UK that wouldn't obtain in combat.
But yes, the F15E is not the top dogfighter and is old.
Posted by: too true ||
06/23/2005 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
This is why I'm glad that the future plan is for the UK and the US to both switch over to the F-35 JSF for commonality ...
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
06/23/2005 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I dunno, I'm kind of skeptical of the value of this report. What were the rules and conditions? What were the pilots' training level?
As for that "best fighter in the world" stuff, well, the F-15 was built to be an interceptor. For a dogfight, the F-16 would be the more capable machine.
#12
Arguing over the wrong thing. Dogfights are glamorous but irrelevant. AWACS controlled theaters and stand-off weapons are what's dominating today. Soon it will be something else, but it won't be dogfights.
#13
Marlowe - you are right for small 2 on 2 ship formations. Fights involving hundreds of aircraft are different. The same thing was thought during the early days of Vietnam. Then, when there were more targets than missiles or the missiles missed, you were in a dogfight situation. Maneuverability is still very important, but is not seen very much because of the wonderful accuracy of our weapons and the small scale of the engagements today. If we fought China, we would see huge engagements and dogfights again.
#20
Good for the UK. There's nothing wrong with having an ally that's ready, willing and able to fight.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/23/2005 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Agreed, Matt. While we could argue all day long about "what were the conditions, F16 vs. F15, etc.", at the end of the day, we're on the same side and I look forward to many years of joint operations together. Now, about those German pilots..... (and how are the Aussies? Love having them as allies).
Posted by: BA ||
06/23/2005 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#22
First the Indians, now the Brits... what's going on?!? Send'em back to Top Gun school.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/23/2005 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Rafael ---> I read a report on the Indian engagment. Our planes were restricted on top speed, started in inferior positioning, etc as well as and a few other things. It wasn't a straight out fight.
As for the Brits...nice job. If the US gets a piece of humble pie, as stated, is good that it's
from a strong ally. It boosts confidence on the British side in their equipment and teaches a valuable lesson to "hot shot" air jocks on our side. They should thank those Brit pilots. In combat, the results would have been far less forgiving.
#25
There is a lot of nationalistic rah-rah in this story, and no attributed source. How do we know it came down like this? How do we know the intentions of the US pilots, Brit-hack clairvoyance notwithstanding? For that matter, how do we know that it happened at all?
The writer is certainly not very well informed in the areas we can check. As others have mentioned, the F-15, designed around 1970, probably isn't the top fighter in the world and is certainly not regarded as such by informed observers. The F-15E is not even the top version for this sort of thing. The "Eurofighter" was renamed Typhoon several years ago.
The Typhoon program is under some fiscal pressure. The lefty unions fear unemployment in spite of their peacenik principles, and they have good contacts with anti-American shills in the
bigoted Brit media.
Non-job of the week
By Jim Levi (Filed: 22/06/2005)
Job title
Director, The Sustainable Development Commission
The Employer
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)
Salary
Up to £95,000.
Is this a new appointment?
Yes.
Why?
The role of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) is evolving.
Formed to help save the planet five years ago, it was originally given just an advisory role under the chairmanship of veteran environmental campaigner Jonathon Porritt who sees his role as being "a critical friend" to the Government. SDC reports direct to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.
In "Securing the Future" - the new Government strategy on the environment launched just before the last election - the commission was promised more resources and a bigger monitoring role.
It may eventually be given statutory powers. Hence the need for a director, whose task is "to ensure that government, at all levels, is delivering on sustainable development."
What is sustainable development?
Even the SDC admits "there can be profoundly different understandings of what sustainable development stands for." There seems to be common ground only in the all-embracing idea of "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs".
What is chairman Porritt's line on this?
"For those of us closely involved in the Sustainable Development Stakes, it's nail biting stuff - even though it is a race being played out over decades rather than minutes. The stakes could hardly be higher: can we reach that point in our evolutionary history where we start to live sustainably on this planet before we in. ict irreversible damage on the life-support systems that sustain us?"
A tough task for the new director, then?
Most definitely. But he or she will be given "a helpful guide" from the five Sustainable Development Principles enunciated by the Government and the Devolved Administrations in March.
These include: living within environmental limits; ensuring a strong healthy and just society; achieving a sustainable economy; promoting good governance; and using sound science responsibly. To many, though, such a "wish list" appears so self-evident as to be not worth the consumption of the scarce resources in paper and ink used to print them.
Surely the task is more specific than that?
Yes. The Government has made 250 specific strategy commitments in areas like travel and sustainable procurement. It will be the director's job to make sure they meet them.
But if they fail will ministers responsible have to resign, forfeit their pension rights or go to jail?
Ten former members of the Nazi SS were convicted Wednesday of taking part in the 1944 massacre of more than 500 villagers in northern Italy and sentenced to life in prison. The defendants, all German men in their 80s, were tried in absentia in the Italian town of La Spezia. The men are believed to be in Germany. "After 61 years justice was done," Michele Sillicani, mayor of the Tuscan village of Sant'Anna di Stazzema, where the slaughter occurred, told the Italian news agency ANSA.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/23/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How can justice be done when none of the offenders were punished? Stupid.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
06/23/2005 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Justice needlessly delayed is justice denied. At this point a verdict and sentencing is almost meaningless as these criminals are nearly at the end of long, and relatively comfortable lives. It does serve as a healthy reminder to Germans though, especially in these times.
#3
It gives me a good feeling. Perhaps 50 years from now they'll be rounding up Islamists and trying them for cutting people's heads off in 2004 and 2005.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/23/2005 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
The European Union's executive commission has reportedly adopted a plan to reform Europe's heavily-subsidised sugar market that will sharply cut EU guaranteed prices. The AFP news agency says the plan proposes to cut the sugar prices guaranteed by the EU by 39 per cent over two years from 2007. The reform package is expected to be outlined later today by the EU's Agriculture Commissioner. The agency says it also includes a voluntary compensation scheme for sugar producers forced out of business by the price cut. The reforms come two months after the World Trade Organisation ruled EU sugar policies are illegal, in response to a complaint from Australia, Brazil and Thailand. Sugar producers reap billions of dollars from the EU's Common Agriculture Policy.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/23/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
The EU doesn't produce sugar on the continent, (although it does in its colonies). The US does. So when pressed for reform, they suggest a commodity where dropping the subsidies will pressure the US to do the same, with asymmetrical results (i.e. harder on US producers than on theirs) IIRC.
Posted by: too true ||
06/23/2005 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In the US, one of the major reasons for sugar price controls is the corn-sweetener producers like ADM. If sugar prices are high, food companies use high-fructose corn syrup instead. But if you've ever had a coke made with real sugar, you know it's better.
So much for relying on the Supreme Court to defend our rights.A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas. As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. "It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word." Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use." Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted. "We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling. The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight. "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum. New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday. The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/23/2005 11:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, I guess the Justices won't mind when the hacks running DC decide to toss 'em out of their houses to build a line mall then, will they?
#2
I can see it to revise ghettos and other sites of urban decay. In a situation where it is a good, historical neighborhood it isn't justified. Our society was buit around the idea that the good of the one outweighed the good of the many. Unlike communisim where the good of the many outweighed the good of the one or the few. Nice to see the individual rights are still being slowly eroaded. ""
#3
I'm shocked. Is there any part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not yet abused in order to violate individual rights?
Can Congress pass a law to properly delimit the meaning of the 5th amendment? maybe there should be a Republican watch group to quickly suggest appropriate legislation that upholds individual rights every time a Federal court violates the meaning of the Constitution.
BTW this is the type of decision that would lead a Midas Mulligan to shrug.
#7
This is one of many instances that proove just how inprotant the fight over the judges appointments in this country is. The Dems are doing everything they can to hold on. The Republicans are being too cautioned in thier approach. The next 30-40yrs will be decided on how the court is stacked in the next couple of years. LLL court and we can expect less freedom more gov control and abuse of our rights constitutionalist will hopefully stabalize and maybe if we are lucky take the judicial system back a little to when things were sane.
#8
*yawn* Big deal. They already lay claim to part of your earnings. They shake you down every year for property taxes, and can seize your property if you neglect to pay. How does that joke go? "We've already established what you are, my dear. Now we're just negotiating the price."
#9
MMurray, I believe there is a way for Congress to get rid of judges (I don't know if it's impeachment or outright "firing"), but the don't have the C.O.-Jones to do it. It's obvious (even before this case) that we couldn't rely on the Supreme Court to defend our rights, as they've already violated them in many other cases (McCain/Feingold being the most recent). This case was one of the few where I see the opportunity for the Repubs and the diehard Libertarians to join forces and fight this nonsense. There's NO reason for cities to take personal property (with the exception of what's allowed in the Constitution...like schools and roads), much less to seize it for private developers! I wouldn't even argue about "cleaning up" urban areas, unless it's a PUBLICLY-owned housing project or something like that.
Posted by: BA ||
06/23/2005 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I can see it to revise ghettos and other sites of urban decay
But that's the problem. Who gets to say what is a ghetto or not? If you live in a neighborhood comprised of $200K homes, that's a ghetto if a developer decides that would be a great site for $750K homes.
I understand that streets need to be widened, bridges need to be built, sewage plants sited, and we can't allow an individual or small group to hold a community hostage, but this strikes me as a gross perversion of eminent domain.
#11
You're exactly right, Dread. Neal Boortz (in Atlanta) has been making a BIG deal of this case. This is very bad news, as you notice (in the article) that the City not only seized land for a private developer to develop (not for "public purposes"), but did it in order to gain more taxes (the property coughs up more in property taxes as commercial vs. older residential). To me, the MOTIVE is just as important in this case as the fact that they did it for "Private" use (not public).
Posted by: BA ||
06/23/2005 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I say have all the homeowners put up signs on their front door or lawns and state their beliefs. Any drive to remove would be a violation of Article 1....
#14
Something else I thought of at lunch. A tactic similar to this was used to grind Ireland into submission by the British in the 1800s. Who is to say that a liberal leaning city/state government, with money from one like say, George Soros, couldnât declare a heavily Republican area to be a spiffy location for 3 new shopping malls. Your land is mine, now disperse peasants! And if they declared it years in advance, the property values would plummet since no one would want to buy a house that was going to be demolished anyway and no one would upkeep what they had. This has happened many times in large cities like New York. So by the time the âfair market priceâ was paid, it would be half of what the original property was worth. This mistake by the âsupremeâ court opens up all sorts of doorways for the abuse of the common man. Property and land is power. Who ever controls the land, controls the people. If the people own the land, they own the power. If the government owns the land, the government owns the people. For the first time in my life, I am questioning the right of my own government to rule me.
#15
In The Land of Your Home is Your Castle and The Last Bastion of Property Rights, I consider this to be just about the most unAmerican decision The Supremes have ever made. Definitely a Top Five. The Founding Fathers, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, et al are spinning like mad.
#16
Sickening--this is just disgusting. Further erosion of an individual's property rights and more power to the Nanny State. So much for the United States of America--let's just call it the People's Republic of America.
Posted by: Dar ||
06/23/2005 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#17
i have no strong opinion on this either way - Im amused though that the Majority ruling pointed out that whether a given project like a mall is really a public purpores is for ELECTED OFFICIALS to decide not JUDGES. IE all Scalia and pals, you're arguing FOR Judicial activism. Which dont bother me - I got nothing agin judicial activism, thats implicit in the constitution - and many folks more liberal than I am dont like this decision either.
Quibble - ghetto is not the same as slum. slum is delapidated housing, where poor people live. Ghetto, properly speaking, is where a discriminated against minority lives. Original used was the Jewish Ghetto in Venice (it an Italian word) and was then applied to quarters to which jews were restricted elsewhere in europe. Beleive me, some of them had housing that was NOT slummy. The word was applied to black neighborhoods, at a time when residential segregation, restrictive covenants, etc existed. It has been extended in two ways - to neighborhoods where a group more or less voluntarily self-segregates - ergo "gay ghetto" or modern "jewish ghettos" or due, to the focus on black ghettos, which, esp after the departure of middle class blacks with integration, became slums, it is used to refer to slums generically. This is however a confusing, and thus bad, usage.
I believe you are missing the objections being raised here. I certainly am not asking for "judicial activism" and absolutely agree that elected officials are better suited to make these sort of decisions than judges.
However, I am very concerned about what constitutes "public interest." O'Connors point sums it up best: cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. That is not judicial activism; that is keeping with the original intent of our Constitution.
Now, hopefully, elected officials who engage in this practice get voted out, but somehow I doubt it.
#20
dread - as the majority pointed out, states can impose rules restricting what cities and counties do. If you dont like what New London does, go to the Connecticut legislature. Just what Scalia and fans want to tell everyone else, on everything else.
#21
Normally I'm in agreement with your last statement (snarky as it was), but since many folks consider individual property ownership to be the underpinning of democratic society, this one I don't brush off so easily.
And as another poster has noted, the temptation to use this as a political weapon will now loom large since it now has the blessing of the USSC.
#22
To my thinking, the issue isn't either judicial activism or what officials are elected. It is a fundamental infringement of property rights, based upon nothing but greed.
Elected officials, especially at the local level, are no gurantor of an individual's rights. Tens of thousands of examples where greed, corruption, and machine politics have taken advantage of the individual are available.
Judicial activists, prior to this incredibly BAD decision, could have been reversed at higher levels upon appeal. *poof* What appeals court would reverse an eminent domain decision, now?
Sans nuance and irrelevant babble, what the individual had as his ultimate defender: redress, has been suddenly, and without due process or recourse, terminated.
#23
Part of the problem is on a city level here. 40% of our elected officials are real estate developers. Just think about how many more will jump in now that there is MAJOR money to be made, both in development and kickbacks. Plus, there is no part of the constitution which says the state can seize your private property and give it to another private person or buisness. I also saw on another site where a person who dabbled in real estate wondering if this was going to pop the housing bubble. He sure wasn't going to invest any more in a project since a buisness had its eye on the same property that was going to be used for residential use. Strip mall vs homes.
#24
There's enough irony here to start a blast furnace. I wonder how the Kossacks and DU types can handle it. The great liberal judges that the Left loves, including international law fans Ginsburg and Kennedy, side with the evil rapacious capitalist land developers against the working-class homeowners. Who sticks up for the downtrodden? Scalia and Thomas, the arch-conservatives, who the Left hates with an all-consuming, seething, vein-popping passion.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/23/2005 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
#25
LH:
I respect the hell out of you. You are the sort of liberal I love to be friends with; indeed, as a sometimes inhabitant of San Francisco I have a lot of smart, principled liberal friends like you. I also agree with you on several foreign policy issues. But this is where the rubber hits the road. Does my property belong to me or does it really belong to the state? Is ownership of property actual or purely hypothetical in our country? If it doesn't belong to me then either I shouldn't bother very work.... or I need to get my AR-15 out of the gun cabinet damn soon because âpolitician seasonâ is coming up. A free man or a free woman doesnât let their home, their business, or their property be seized by the authorities for no justifiable reason. As a liberal you may be happy with "gray areas" in the questions of individual property rights. As a conservative I emphatically, violently refuse to be comfortable with it.
The Supreme Court is supposed to protect us from the shifting vagaries and fashions of jurisprudence by accurately interpreting the constitution as the Founding Fatherâs intended it. Thatâs their job, period. Jefferson was very clear on this point. In his June 12th, 1823 letter to William Johnson he said "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." It that in some manner vague?
There may be room for argument when it comes to those issues that the Founders could not have foreseen, especially when it comes to advancing modern technology, but this is most emphatically not one of those. What do you think Washington, Jefferson, Adams, or Monroe would have said about this case? Itâs not too hard to figure out, is it, because they wrote their opinions into the constitution. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says ânor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensationâ It very clearly states for public use, not for private use that may or may not benefit the public. The majority of libs on SCOTUS are so wrong on this it nearly brings tears to my eyes.
Allow me to quote the late, great Oliver Cromwell when King Charles seized all of the gold being kept in trust in the Tower of London âMany a good merchant became a rebel upon that day.â
#26
It took a lot of time and debate before the colonist in North America decided that they could do without a king. Some even remained loyal to the bitter end. Today we just argue because we don't want to do what is truely necessary if we are to continue the experiment started over a hundred years ago. Either you accept that the third branch of government, like the other two, must be directly accountable to the people, or accept a modern form of aristocracy. Its been nearly a hundred years since the XVII admendment changed the office of Senator to one directly accountable to the people. Time is well past when this needs to apply to the Judiciary. There are no 'better' judges. The power is in their hands and Congress is not going to start impeaching them. The only realistic choice is to make them justify their time in office by being held accountable as any other office holder. On with that, the fun in the Senate gets to be moved to the public arena. Oh, joy!
Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded-i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public-in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings "for public use" is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property-and thereby effectively to delete the words "for public use" from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
-- Justice Sandra Day O'Conner
Dissent to the Kelo decision
#29
I know this sounds crazy,but if the local govt said they where taking my property for a Walmart or mall.They better bring lots of guns because I am going to war with them.
#31
disgusting - a look at the appointees who voted for it. As an engineer for a public entity, we have the right to utilize eminent domain for right-of-way acquisition in the public interest (streets, bridges, etc.). In my 22 yrs I have never had to do so and would consider it a failure of negotiation. To do so for a private interest, just to increase tax base, is absolutely contrary. I fully expect every-day people to lose their lives over this decision, while the grab-all nanny state elites stay safe behind their tinted limo windows. F*&kers. Ginsburg, Souter, et al can't die fast enough for me
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/23/2005 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Oh wow. Echos of communism. Bravo.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/23/2005 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#33
I still can't believe this is the Supreme Court of the United States that made this ruling... I wouldn't even bat an eye if it were the 9th Circus Circuit, but the Supreme Court?
Any real-estate developers out there want to start pressing for developing land where relatives of the assenting Supremes live? They're bound to have some nephew, cousin, or grandson or -daughter living in a moderately or less priced home somewhere around the country that can be claimed for building a mall, office building, etc. That will make for some fun holiday dinners when they discuss how Granddad paved the way for their house to get paved over.
Posted by: Dar ||
06/23/2005 20:21 Comments ||
Top||
#34
I saw this on MSN, truly heinous. Goes against everything I fight for and believe in. I to have listened to Boortz for the past several months predicting this travesty, I was hoping he was just ranting aimlessly. Boy was I wrong.
How do these justices live w/themselves. I feel so bad for these folks in these homes. Just to raise a few taxes! Fucking bullshit. How about mowing down a few abandoned crack houses instead of kicking grannie out of her 100 yr old house you slimey pieces of shit! Like connecticut needs more fucking shopping malls or high rises or $700K homes. If the American people don't stand together and fix this then we're all to blame. The President needs to make a strong statement in disagreement of this decision if he has not already.
I tell you what, if any asshole local politician thinks I'd give up my land and home for a fucking strip mall then they will be prying my gun out of my cold dead hands. I seem to recall a revolution was fought over similar abuses.
#35
We need to impeach and remove these guys (and gal). Of course, enough Senators are in the pockets of developers or love the idea of planners taking over our property that it will never happen.
One advantage in living in the 9th Circuit is that I can call for the assasination of Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy and it's Constitutionally Protected Speech. Huzzah.
#36
The courts are today, for all intents and purposes, utterly lawless and illegitimate entities.
It could be argued that, not only are the courts engaged in the systematic usurpation of powers not delegated to them, but that their recent actions constitute broad-based disenfranchisement of voters.
Some of the less patient in our land may well come to the conclusion that it is time, again, to water the Tree of Liberty.
And the more patient among us can't help but conclude that this "branch" of government needs to be fixed soon, or completely crushed.
Posted by: Red Lief ||
06/23/2005 22:12 Comments ||
Top||
#37
I have had a US flag on my house since I bought it. I have had a US flag around ever since I can remember. I joined the Army because I love my country. I am fiercely loyal to the constitution and the ideas, which brought about this great nation. Today, when I got home and read the opinions of the Court, I took down that flag and put it away. I will no longer have a symbol of tyranny on MY land and home. I don't give a fuck what the goddamn Court says; it is MY home and land. While I support the constitution and love my country dearly, I can no longer support my government. Everything I fought and watched friends die for was destroyed today. The ownership of private property is one of the PRIMARY rights we Americans have. If the government can take it away for no better purpose than "more money", the laws that they have used to bring us slavery no longer hold us. I cannot and will not support this or just shrug and do nothing. The declaration of independence was used once successfully. Don't make us use it again. Bush and the republicans need to do some serious law making to curb this atrocity before it permanently damages our nation. You are now on notice Washington DC. Don't. Fuck. This. Up. Or we, the people, the very population that your power comes from, will snuff you and your evil laws out. Thatisall.
#39
This has been going on for years. We called it urban renewal first. We tore down most of the inner-city, crowded but stable black neighborhoods and built socialist workers paradise apartments. What happened? Drugs, violence and decay. Here in So Cal, one town tore down a an 80 year old barrio and probably the only authentic false front bar left in the LA basin and replaced it with a mall and "new urban" housing. Another town condemned a bunch of solid 1950's housing and gave it to a private high school using urban renewal laws. The court only legitimized fifty years of de facto behavior. I normally am against attempts to amend the constitution, but I would really get behind one to rectify this situation.
Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) has introduced a bill called the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005, S.147. Akaka wants to extend the government's policy of self-governance and self-determination to Native Hawaiians. He, and fellow Hawaiian Senator Inouye intend to do this by creating a race-based and racially separate government for Native Hawaiians. Under S. 147 Native Hawaiians would be under the federal Indian law system and would be designated as a "tribe." This new race-based government would have jurisdiction over 20 percent of Hawaii's citizens as well as 400,000 citizens nationwide... The author is strongly opposed. However, while I wouldn't want to put anybody under the jurisdiction of the BIA, the Hawaiians have been in a legal black hole for far too long.
#3
Indians still get tribal bennies when they are off the res. There are really three classes: permanent resident, permanent off-res, and back-and-forth. Things like going to school, joining the military, off-res employment too far to commute, etc. The law is distinctly different, too. Felonies on the res are federal court, lesser are tribal court, even for non-res non-indians. Civil disputes are based in mostly federal law, not State. What is in this for the Hawaiians, is first, that they get the equivalent of a tribal government, which should address purely native issues. Second, they should get some kind of reservation, possibly one on each of the islands, just for their own use (also, so they don't get priced out of their own homes.) This reservation can easily come out of federal lands on the islands, of which there is an abundance, especially on the Big Island and Kauai. Empty and isolated, but with fresh water, some arable land, and almost no people. If done properly, it would do the Hawaiians a world of good and wouldn't infringe on the non-native residents of the State.
#5
Waitaminute! I thought the Hawaiian VOTED to join the US? I know the Native Americans were drafted.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/23/2005 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If Hawaii gets this, look for Puerto Rico to hold another vote on becoming a state with an eye towards claiming to be an "indian tribe".
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/23/2005 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Bobby__ you're so naive. I had the dubious pleasure of listening to the head of the local "Re-instituted Hawaiian Government" (we want it all back now) mouthing off at a restaurant on 9/12/2001, saying how he was sorry the "Americans" had been hit but it wasn't any skin off their nose.
#11
No problem, as long as General Sheridan and the cavalry are also brought back.
Posted by: ed ||
06/23/2005 18:10 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Ward Churchill: Diamondhead is nasty. It's just an extinct and weathered deserty volcano. Sure, it's near Waikiki, but near isn't in. (Waikiki, BTW, is nasty in its own right, think Rodeo Drive but with a lower class of shoulder-to-shoulder Yuppie.)
#1
It's just like Vietnam. Also, think of the opportunity cost: the $11.4B would provide defense counsel for every dissident in Gitmo.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/23/2005 11:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Typical liberal crap. Throw money at a feel-good-green project until you don't have anymore. Then, raise taxes to fund more feel-good-green-socialsim projects that don't work.
Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car
Monorail!
What'd I say?
Ned Flanders: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
Patty+Selma: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: That's right! Monorail!
[crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]
Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud...
Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.
Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?
Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?
Lyle Lanley: You'll be given cushy jobs.
Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?
Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I'm on the level.
Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.
Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.
I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: What's it called?
All: Monorail!
Lyle Lanley: Once again...
All: Monorail!
Marge: But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...
Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!
All: Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
[big finish]
Monorail!
Homer: Mono... D'oh!
Maybe they should have a special screening of this show for the folks in the Pathetic Northwet.
#4
Transit systems have their place as do private automobiles. But it seems all to often public officials become enamoured with gee whiz transit ideas when there are other options available. Why not just upgrade the bus system instead. The problem with rail ssytems is of course their basic inflexibility. Not in scheduling but in that they are tied to their routes. If population shifts take place they're screwed in being able to adapt. But that said I am in favor of regional high speed rail if it can be run at a reasonable cost. Up to a cerain distance it is generally faster than air travel in total trip time when taking into consideration waiting times in airports and the such. Its just that the do gooders want rail ala Amtrak to "affordable"
#5
$2.1 billion present day construction costs for 14 miles! That's $150 million per mile for something a only a few thousand will ride each day. And who finances public projects with 50 year bonds? It's cheaper to build each projected rider a new house next to their workplace than to build this turkey. The only monorail that should be built is one that is used to ride it's advocates out of town.
Posted by: ed ||
06/23/2005 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This is base on the existing monorail which runs from Westlake Center to Seattle Center (about 1 mile) which was built (drum roll please.....) for th 1962 Worlds Fair. Thats right folks its 43-year old technolgy (ooohhhhh!!! aaaahhhh!!!).
Just what we farking need!
And Seattle recenty bought the Mariners a new baseball stadium (ok, about 5-10 years ago) and the Seahawks (sometimes call sea-hens) another Stadium.
Space agencies around the world, take note: The burgeoning private space industry isn't content to follow your lead.
At least three space tourism startups are building spacecraft that forgo the wing-and-parachute landing systems used by space shuttles and space capsules in favor of retrorockets. These rockets will slow down the new spacecraft enough to land gently on their feet, UFO-style.
There's more at the link.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
06/23/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has accused African leaders of denying the "horror" taking place in Zimbabwe and failing to crack down on President Robert Mugabe. Mr Straw says that African leaders need to "recognise the horror" taking place in Zimbabwe and until they do, it will not stop.
They won't, and it won't stop.
The British Foreign Secretary was referring to a crackdown on squatters living in shanty towns that has left up to 200,000 people homeless. He says that unless African leaders unite against him, Mr Mugabe will continue what he calls a clean-up campaign for many months. But Zimbabwe's Government says the crackdown has already had an impact on rooting out crime and black marketeers living in squatter camps. Police say more than 42,000 people have been arrested. Next they plan to remove crops planted in urban areas by residents trying to fight famine.
I thought I just heard Pol Pot's ghost call out "Hermano!"
Posted by: Fred ||
06/23/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Time to put some SAS commandos to work killing Bob. For the rest of Africa's leaders Bob is a hero. Time to put an end to that.
#2
Says it all about African leaders if Bob's their hero. If this was a white leader this would have been a major world issue. Africa makes me sick.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
06/23/2005 5:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
cost of African aid = billions
cost of a spec ops team = millions
cost of a few bribes = thousands
cost of a rifle = hundreds
cost of a hooker to lure Bob = dollars
cost of a bullet = cents
lives saved = priceless
#4
Good one, 2b!
While I'm not surprised about the silence from African leaders, I am pissed about the silence from church leaders who cry "more aid, debt relief" but say nothing about the real problem facing Africa, namely tyrants like Bob. Until he and his ilk are gone, all the aid and debt relief in the world will be flushed down the toilet while millions suffer, starve, and die.
#5
The British Foreign Secretary was referring to a crackdown on squatters living in shanty towns that has left up to 200,000 people homeless.
This is a shame, but no mention of the white farmers getting their land seized and many even being killed by Bob's goons? Like 2b sayz, someone needs to finish the job and quick before all of ZimBOBwe starves (like lil' Kimmie's kingdom).
Posted by: BA ||
06/23/2005 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Your Excellency,
You will forgive please. This horror as you call it is so much like the other horrors as you call them as to be virtually unrecognizable from what we consider the ordinary course of life.
If you would be so good as to help me, I have a large amount of cash that is proving of great difficulty to move. It will only require your bank account and....
Posted by: Idi Amin ||
06/23/2005 9:37 Comments ||
Top||
#7
There's this from the BBC,
Zimbabwe blitz to hit rich areas
Going after the folks with money now Bob?
That might not be a smart move. Folks with money like to keep it. And they probably wouldn't be to averse to paying someone to have you killed.
#8
Posts 1-3 hit the nail on the head, thanks, Ship. You guys got the picture.
And tonight/today as I listened to Jack Straw telling the African Union to sort it, I remembered that the same Jack Straw shook the kaffir's hand, and also Prince Chazza did the same at the Pope's funeral. Is this High Politics?
It may be a veiled pansy-feint on the uk's behalf towards the South Africans and Nigerians, but I think it's their message to Africa that it's on it's own.
What a pity, because I know, (with a little bit of back-up), lots of people who would slot Bob.
As for the Church, let's check this out. Zanu-Pf has an attitude towards them, Spot. Check out the Elim Mission Massacre, Rhodesia. Their main targets after the local population were Missionaries, civilans and tourism/infrastructure. I would also add as required reading "The Viscount Disasters".
The Church (of England) may speak about this and raise awareness, but that is all they can do. They will not raise arms because they are not there, (in situ), and they learnt their lesson at Elim, and, well, it's not pc to kill kaffirs now.
OTOH, maybe the Brits are saying something else entirely, lol!
OK, guys that's my rant, when's the rantapaloooza-uk-side?
Scientists believe they have lifted the veil on an earthquake-prone region in the southern United States that lies more than 2,000 kilometres (1,650 miles) from the nearest boundary in the Earth's plates, the major source of quakes. The zone lies around New Madrid, a town in eastern Missouri that lies on Mississippi River. A monster quake, since estimated to measure 7.4-8.0 on the Richter scale, ripped across the town on December 16, 1811, causing surface waves across the ground locally and inflicting damage as far as Washington. Aftershocks continued there for much of the following year, and there were major quakes in 1843 and 1895 measuring 6.3 and 6.7 respectively, making it the most seismic region in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains.
But these events happened when the region was sparsely populated -- New Madrid had a population of just 400, all of whom were reportedly killed. Today, the region is home to millions of people, which thus makes it vital to try to estimate when the next big quake could hit. US scientists, reporting in the British science journal Nature on Thursday, say the New Madrid Seismic Zone is deforming rapidly, experiencing rates of strain that are similar to those in notoriously active plate boundaries. They sowed the area in the late 1990s with a network of monitors that use the Global Position System (GPS), the US satellite navigation network, to record minute movements in the ground.
They also found that the 1811 temblor was so violent that it liquefied the ground. Geological drilling showed previous liquefactions occurred in layers dated to approximately 1450 AD, 900 AD, 300 AD and in 2350 BC. On that basis, the buildup of seismic strain results in a quake greater than 7.5 roughly every 500 years or so. The study is headed by Michael Ellis, an associate professor at the Center for Earthquake Research and Information at the University of Memphis, Tennessee. This knowledge should be factored into construction standards, so that new buildings in Memphis and other cities in the central United States can be protected against big quakes, a commentary published in Nature said. The New Madrid Seismic Zone is believed to have been formed more than half a billion years ago.
And they say they think the big quakes hit every 500 years...
So maybe we should start worrying in around 250 years??
Posted by: Sheik Abu Bin Ali Al-Yahood ||
06/23/2005 4:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Think Charleston's due for one even sooner than that, won't be that large, but enough to scare hell out of everybody. Put me down for 5.9 inside 30 years.
This isn't news. The New Madrid Fault's been known for years.
Ok, last quake was in 1811...
Actually, 1895 according to the story. And, honestly, we get small quakes more often than anyone wants to think. A very small one hit Kentucky just in the last couple of weeks, and there was one big enough to feel here in Cincinnati a couple of years ago.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/23/2005 8:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Heck, RC, we even had one that we felt here in Atlanta that was centered around Ft. Payne, Alabama (home of the country group Alabama) in the far NE corner of AL. Like others, I won't be surprised with smaller quakes, but I would be surprised at a 7.5+ one in that neck of the woods.
Posted by: BA ||
06/23/2005 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The ANSS Recent Quakes Online Map always seems to have a few tremors marked on the New Madrid Fault. Not as busy as Californina or Alaska, but it keeps on twitching...
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A former US Pentagon official says asylum would have already been granted to defecting Chinese embassy official 
The European Union's executive commission has reportedly adopted a plan to reform Europe's heavily-subsidised sugar market that will sharply cut EU guaranteed prices. The AFP news agency says the plan proposes to cut the sugar prices guaranteed by the EU by 39 per cent over two years from 2007. The reform package is expected to be outlined later today by the EU's Agriculture Commissioner. The agency says it also includes a voluntary compensation scheme for sugar producers forced out of business by the price cut. The reforms come two months after the World Trade Organisation ruled EU sugar policies are illegal, in response to a complaint from Australia, Brazil and Thailand. Sugar producers reap billions of dollars from the EU's Common Agriculture Policy.
British Foreign Secretary 
Scientists believe they have lifted the veil on an earthquake-prone region in the southern United States that lies more than 2,000 kilometres (1,650 miles) from the nearest boundary in the Earth's plates, the major source of quakes. The zone lies around New Madrid, a town in eastern Missouri that lies on Mississippi River. A monster quake, since estimated to measure 7.4-8.0 on the Richter scale, ripped across the town on December 16, 1811, causing surface waves across the ground locally and inflicting damage as far as Washington. Aftershocks continued there for much of the following year, and there were major quakes in 1843 and 1895 measuring 6.3 and 6.7 respectively, making it the most seismic region in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains. 
