Following the horrific Supreme Court decision which greatly increased the power of governments to seize private homes in favor of development and higher tax revenues, many states are limiting the scope of eminent domain seizures.
No government has the right to take away a person's home in favor of ripping it down and putting a shopping center or other development without the consent of the person that they are trying to remove.
The negotiations should be between the landowners and the developers; government shouldn't be involved. They should be protecting the rights of homeowners who decide to say 'no' to any offer that a developer gives them and punish developers who harass those landowners who decline the developer's offer.
The only way that the government should be involved is if it seizes a property for non-payment of property taxes.
It is unbelievable that the Supreme Court ruled to open Pandora's Box the way it did. And it's a relief that the states are applying a generous amount of common sense (that the Supreme Court was missing in their decision) to deal with the injustice being dealt to landowners.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Friday, February 17, 2006
Patriot Act Misapplied Again: Man Charged With Shining Laser into Jet Cockpit
Here they go again with misapplying the Patriot Act.
A court in New Jersey applied the Patriot Act against a man who was charged with firing a laser into a jet cockpit and a police helicopter and sentenced him to two months probation.
TWO MONTHS PROBATION??!
Existing statutes should have been applied; he would have gotten significant jail time AND probation. Instead this man is getting two months probation for endangering a commercial jetliner on landing approach and a police helicopter some time later.
They need to either upgrade the Patriot Act sentencing guidelines or stop applying it and let more stringent federal laws punish the transgressor.
A court in New Jersey applied the Patriot Act against a man who was charged with firing a laser into a jet cockpit and a police helicopter and sentenced him to two months probation.
TWO MONTHS PROBATION??!
Existing statutes should have been applied; he would have gotten significant jail time AND probation. Instead this man is getting two months probation for endangering a commercial jetliner on landing approach and a police helicopter some time later.
They need to either upgrade the Patriot Act sentencing guidelines or stop applying it and let more stringent federal laws punish the transgressor.
Bird Flu Could Enter U.S. Through New Mexico or Louisiana: States Allow Cockfighting and Transportation of Fighting Birds
The U.S. has gaping holes in its efforts to keep avian bird flu out of the country.
It stems from the fact that New Mexico and Louisiana allow cockfighting (rooster fights) and the fact that the Animal Welfare Act allows for combat roosters to be transported over state and national lines to those states where the bloodsport is legal.
The concern comes from overseas, as some people have gotten bird flu from their contaminated combat roosters, mainly in Thailand.
The current conventional wisdom is that each time the bird flu jumps from an animal to a human, it increases the possibility of the bird flu mutating into a monster epidemic/pandemic that goes airborne, easily infects humans, and is resistant to antibiotics. This must not be allowed to happen.
The U.S. government should ban the import and/or transport of combat roosters to any U.S. territory, whether cockfighting is legal in the states or not.
Efforts to amend the Animal Welfare Act have failed thus far; cosponsors in the House and Senate tried to attach an amendment to a Department of Defense Bill, which they shouldn't have done. It should have been a stand-alone bill: the Senate unanimously passed the amendment, and the House amendment had two hundred cosponsors. But the amendment was killed in committee.
Hopefully the state governments of Louisiana and New Mexico do the right thing and ban both the import of foreign birds and criminalize cockfighting, since it has been shown to be an avenue for avian bird flu to contaminate humans.
But the U.S. government should get with the program and pass the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act regardless of what Louisiana and New Mexico choose to do.
It stems from the fact that New Mexico and Louisiana allow cockfighting (rooster fights) and the fact that the Animal Welfare Act allows for combat roosters to be transported over state and national lines to those states where the bloodsport is legal.
The concern comes from overseas, as some people have gotten bird flu from their contaminated combat roosters, mainly in Thailand.
The current conventional wisdom is that each time the bird flu jumps from an animal to a human, it increases the possibility of the bird flu mutating into a monster epidemic/pandemic that goes airborne, easily infects humans, and is resistant to antibiotics. This must not be allowed to happen.
The U.S. government should ban the import and/or transport of combat roosters to any U.S. territory, whether cockfighting is legal in the states or not.
Efforts to amend the Animal Welfare Act have failed thus far; cosponsors in the House and Senate tried to attach an amendment to a Department of Defense Bill, which they shouldn't have done. It should have been a stand-alone bill: the Senate unanimously passed the amendment, and the House amendment had two hundred cosponsors. But the amendment was killed in committee.
Hopefully the state governments of Louisiana and New Mexico do the right thing and ban both the import of foreign birds and criminalize cockfighting, since it has been shown to be an avenue for avian bird flu to contaminate humans.
But the U.S. government should get with the program and pass the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act regardless of what Louisiana and New Mexico choose to do.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Press Criticizes Decision to Delay News of Cheney Hunting Accident: So?
The press is complaining about not being notified that the Vice President was involved in a hunting accident immediately after it happened.
Too bad.
Perhaps they could point to the part of the Constitution or the law that requires the White House to inform the press IMMEDIATELY that the Vice President was involved in a hunting accident?
Maybe they would have dropped their cameras and rushed to the scene to render first aid? NOT!!
The press didn't NEED to be informed ASAP. They would have swarmed the scene and interfered with a rescue situation to get the story out.
Granted, this is a very interesting story; but the press can go jump in a lake with their demands. They're not next of kin.
Too bad.
Perhaps they could point to the part of the Constitution or the law that requires the White House to inform the press IMMEDIATELY that the Vice President was involved in a hunting accident?
Maybe they would have dropped their cameras and rushed to the scene to render first aid? NOT!!
The press didn't NEED to be informed ASAP. They would have swarmed the scene and interfered with a rescue situation to get the story out.
Granted, this is a very interesting story; but the press can go jump in a lake with their demands. They're not next of kin.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Thousands of Displaced Katrina Victims Facing Eviction: This Isn't Right
Monday will be a national disgrace.
It's when thousands of Katrina families will be turned out into the streets to fend for themselves, in spite of the fact that the government hasn't done what it promised to help them. Many are still waiting for FEMA trailers that are currently sitting unoccupied at an airport in rural Arkansas.
What the hell are we paying taxes for?
Our government would rather spend money to rebuild Iraq (that will never be a true democracy), but not on fellow Americans who got ran out of their own homes because the government-built levees surrounding New Orleans failed. This isn't right.
Until the government fulfills it's pledge to rebuild the Gulf Coast, it shouldn't be putting ANYONE onto the streets just yet. They have a LONG ways to go before this should be even considered.
It's when thousands of Katrina families will be turned out into the streets to fend for themselves, in spite of the fact that the government hasn't done what it promised to help them. Many are still waiting for FEMA trailers that are currently sitting unoccupied at an airport in rural Arkansas.
What the hell are we paying taxes for?
Our government would rather spend money to rebuild Iraq (that will never be a true democracy), but not on fellow Americans who got ran out of their own homes because the government-built levees surrounding New Orleans failed. This isn't right.
Until the government fulfills it's pledge to rebuild the Gulf Coast, it shouldn't be putting ANYONE onto the streets just yet. They have a LONG ways to go before this should be even considered.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Yahoo Should Be Punished for Helping Chinese Government Jail Chinese Pro-Democracy Writers
Yahoo screwed up. Again.
The Internet company aided Chinese authorities in their persecution of Chinese dissidents by providing evidence that led to Chinese dissident Li Zhi being sent to prison for eight years for writing in favor of democracy and trying to join a pro-democracy group.
This is the second time that Yahoo has helped the Chinese communists put pro-democracy writers into jail. The first dissident was sentenced to ten years in prison for writing about what kind of effect that communist rule was having on average Chinese citizens and about protest movements that the Chinese government put down with extreme levels of violence. Yahoo helped lock him up too.
Yahoo needs to STOP assisting the Chinese communists in their oppression of people with different views than the official Chinese Communist Party line.
Yahoo is guilty of conspiring with the Chinese government and should be punished! And so should any Internet company that puts pro-democracy supporters under threat from their oppressive governments by giving assistance in convicting them of POLITICAL crimes.
If China becomes a democracy one day, hopefully the Chinese people will remember which companies were willing to sacrifice their freedom for the sake of profit.
Yahoo should be ashamed of what they have done for their bottom line.
The Internet company aided Chinese authorities in their persecution of Chinese dissidents by providing evidence that led to Chinese dissident Li Zhi being sent to prison for eight years for writing in favor of democracy and trying to join a pro-democracy group.
This is the second time that Yahoo has helped the Chinese communists put pro-democracy writers into jail. The first dissident was sentenced to ten years in prison for writing about what kind of effect that communist rule was having on average Chinese citizens and about protest movements that the Chinese government put down with extreme levels of violence. Yahoo helped lock him up too.
Yahoo needs to STOP assisting the Chinese communists in their oppression of people with different views than the official Chinese Communist Party line.
Yahoo is guilty of conspiring with the Chinese government and should be punished! And so should any Internet company that puts pro-democracy supporters under threat from their oppressive governments by giving assistance in convicting them of POLITICAL crimes.
If China becomes a democracy one day, hopefully the Chinese people will remember which companies were willing to sacrifice their freedom for the sake of profit.
Yahoo should be ashamed of what they have done for their bottom line.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Iranian Newspaper Plans on Holding Holocaust Cartoon Contest
Iran's Hamshahri newspaper announced an international contest for Holocaust cartoons to see if the same papers who printed the Mohammed cartoons would also print the Holocaust ones.
One clear result will come out of this for the entire world to see:
Jewish reaction to it will be much more mature than militant Islamic reactions to the prophet cartoons has been. Don't expect to see Jewish demonstrators burning down Iranian embassies, burning Muslim flags or parading children through the streets chanting anti-Iranian or anti-Muslim slogans as the militant Muslims have done in recent days. Nor will they attack the embassies of Western nations who do run the cartoons.
The international reaction will probably be very muted in contrast to the juvenile-like violence taking place in the Islamic world.
It should be noted that the hostage-taking Iranian President's friends control this newspaper, and that this also is not about freedom of speech, but keeping the hatred of Israel and Jews alive in the Muslim world.
Since Iran and most of the Muslim world have no free speech or free press, they have little credibility in making critical observations about the free press in other nations and have no right to ask Western media outlets to spread their anti-Jewish venom to make a point.
Freedom of speech is no more a weapon for Islamic nations to use against their enemies than it is for a Western newspaper to use as a shield to hide behind instead of admitting to a major screw-up.
So if this Iranian terrorist paper wants to publish their hatred and demand that Western newspapers republish them, they should probably print them into toilet paper form so that they'll have a practical use afterwards.
These Holocaust cartoons will probably be much worse than the prophet cartoons as the Holocaust cartoons will be based on revenge-style hatred and will be propaganda, not free speech.
One clear result will come out of this for the entire world to see:
Jewish reaction to it will be much more mature than militant Islamic reactions to the prophet cartoons has been. Don't expect to see Jewish demonstrators burning down Iranian embassies, burning Muslim flags or parading children through the streets chanting anti-Iranian or anti-Muslim slogans as the militant Muslims have done in recent days. Nor will they attack the embassies of Western nations who do run the cartoons.
The international reaction will probably be very muted in contrast to the juvenile-like violence taking place in the Islamic world.
It should be noted that the hostage-taking Iranian President's friends control this newspaper, and that this also is not about freedom of speech, but keeping the hatred of Israel and Jews alive in the Muslim world.
Since Iran and most of the Muslim world have no free speech or free press, they have little credibility in making critical observations about the free press in other nations and have no right to ask Western media outlets to spread their anti-Jewish venom to make a point.
Freedom of speech is no more a weapon for Islamic nations to use against their enemies than it is for a Western newspaper to use as a shield to hide behind instead of admitting to a major screw-up.
So if this Iranian terrorist paper wants to publish their hatred and demand that Western newspapers republish them, they should probably print them into toilet paper form so that they'll have a practical use afterwards.
These Holocaust cartoons will probably be much worse than the prophet cartoons as the Holocaust cartoons will be based on revenge-style hatred and will be propaganda, not free speech.
Ricky Holland's Parents Charged with Murdering Him
The developing Ricky Holland story out of Williamston took another turn today when the prosecutor charged both parents with murdering Ricky. If convicted, they face life in prison.
Tests to determine how the boy died are continuing.
These people (the boy's foster-parents) have some nerve, watching as hundreds of volunteers from around the region turned out to search for the boy after the foster-parents reported him missing on July 2nd of last year and KNOWING full well that the boy was already dead.
Innocent until proven guilty, I know, but they told the cops precisely where to find the body and swore that the other had killed him. That's incriminating enough as it is. If there was an accident, why didn't they call the police straightaway, instead of inventing a bunch of HOOEY about what happened to this child?
Here's the LSJ collection of stories on this case.
Monday, February 06, 2006
European and American Use of "Freedom of Speech" in Real-World Situations are Clearly Not the Same
The ongoing cartoon row between the Islamic world and the West has illustrated major differences in how freedom of speech is applied in real-world situations.
One European newspaper after another ran the Mohammed cartoons simply because they could. After it blew up in their faces, they took the HOW DARE ANYONE ATTACK OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! defense. This militant approach isn't helping Europe's cause.
In contrast, American newspapers didn't run the cartoons simply because they could; a few outlets did run them, but, according to some of these newspapers, they ran them deep inside their papers with various explanations of why they did so, and to let readers decide for themselves if the cartoons were offensive or not.
For the most part, most American papers and broadcast outlets refused to air the photos as they subscribe to the notion that fighting words (or pictures) are not protected speech. Yelling FIRE in a packed room which leads to a stampede is not protected speech either. These cartoons have the same effect as fighting words. They shouldn't have, but they did.
The failure that happened was when the Western newspapers ignored what was already happening in the Islamic world and ran the cartoons. They did so regardless of the serious consequences that were playing out on the news right in front of their faces. If one is trying to extinguish a fire, does one throw gasoline on the fire to put it out? DUH!!!
This is not about a threat to freedom of speech. This is about newspapers realizing that they've made a catastrophic mistake but choosing to hide behind the freedom of speech instead of admitting their mistake and getting it right.
This also shows that in spite of what happened to it on 9/11, America is a more tolerant society than the Europeans give it credit for. The fact that most American news sources refused to show the photos out of respect for the various Islamic faiths is proof of it for one thing; American news media is also more open to admitting when they make a mistake.
Remember Memogate on CBS's 60 Minutes program during the 2004 U.S. Presidential election campaign? Remember the outrage following incorrect reports that the Quran was flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay? Both news agencies involved apologized there.
Europe needs to get their act together and get this right.
Using freedom of speech as an excuse to cover up deeply irresponsibile behavior should not be tolerated by any free society; especially if people are dying because of what the newspapers did. This is a sickening situation.
One European newspaper after another ran the Mohammed cartoons simply because they could. After it blew up in their faces, they took the HOW DARE ANYONE ATTACK OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! defense. This militant approach isn't helping Europe's cause.
In contrast, American newspapers didn't run the cartoons simply because they could; a few outlets did run them, but, according to some of these newspapers, they ran them deep inside their papers with various explanations of why they did so, and to let readers decide for themselves if the cartoons were offensive or not.
For the most part, most American papers and broadcast outlets refused to air the photos as they subscribe to the notion that fighting words (or pictures) are not protected speech. Yelling FIRE in a packed room which leads to a stampede is not protected speech either. These cartoons have the same effect as fighting words. They shouldn't have, but they did.
The failure that happened was when the Western newspapers ignored what was already happening in the Islamic world and ran the cartoons. They did so regardless of the serious consequences that were playing out on the news right in front of their faces. If one is trying to extinguish a fire, does one throw gasoline on the fire to put it out? DUH!!!
This is not about a threat to freedom of speech. This is about newspapers realizing that they've made a catastrophic mistake but choosing to hide behind the freedom of speech instead of admitting their mistake and getting it right.
This also shows that in spite of what happened to it on 9/11, America is a more tolerant society than the Europeans give it credit for. The fact that most American news sources refused to show the photos out of respect for the various Islamic faiths is proof of it for one thing; American news media is also more open to admitting when they make a mistake.
Remember Memogate on CBS's 60 Minutes program during the 2004 U.S. Presidential election campaign? Remember the outrage following incorrect reports that the Quran was flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay? Both news agencies involved apologized there.
Europe needs to get their act together and get this right.
Using freedom of speech as an excuse to cover up deeply irresponsibile behavior should not be tolerated by any free society; especially if people are dying because of what the newspapers did. This is a sickening situation.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Conflict Over Anti-Islamic Cartoons: Newspapers Are Fueling the Fire
A major culture clash is taking place between Europe and the Islamic world.
It stems from European newspapers depicting caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, which are viewed as highly insulting to the Muslim world. A newspaper in Denmark ran the cartoons first, and other European newspapers in Germany, France and Norway ran them as well.
A rage far worse than what was seen during the Abu Gharib prison photo scandal has enveloped much of the Muslim world; militants are threatening to kill Westerners in reprisal in Palestine and other countries.
The outrage stems from Islamic law that strictly prohibits Mohammed from being portrayed visually.
The original idea was to see if cartoonists drawing the original cartoons would change their work in the face of "offending Muslim sensibilities" or if they would go all-out and do what they wanted. Most went all-out; the cartoons were printed and protests around the world began.
Then more newspapers printed the cartoons.
Consider: after the severe political backlash against Denmark, why did other newpapers in other nations run the cartoons as well, knowing that it would enrage the Muslim world even more and reinforce a Muslim-held belief that Europe was Islam-hostile? And that it would give Muslim extremists another excuse to kill Westerners?
The real problem is that the cartoons don't just insult Islamic extremists; it offends every Muslim, including moderate and neutral Muslims. The ban on Mohammed drawings and pictures is observed by the Shiite and Sunni sects of Islam.
I am sensitive to free-speech issues, but when free speech causes innocent people to die, then there's a problem, and the less said the better. For that reason, I will not post the photos here and contribute to an innocent person or persons being beheaded by sword-waving extremist idiots.
This should never have made it into print in the first place. The more the photos are reproduced, the worse this will get, and the deeper the divisions between Islam and the West will become.
It stems from European newspapers depicting caricatures of the Islamic prophet Mohammed, which are viewed as highly insulting to the Muslim world. A newspaper in Denmark ran the cartoons first, and other European newspapers in Germany, France and Norway ran them as well.
A rage far worse than what was seen during the Abu Gharib prison photo scandal has enveloped much of the Muslim world; militants are threatening to kill Westerners in reprisal in Palestine and other countries.
The outrage stems from Islamic law that strictly prohibits Mohammed from being portrayed visually.
The original idea was to see if cartoonists drawing the original cartoons would change their work in the face of "offending Muslim sensibilities" or if they would go all-out and do what they wanted. Most went all-out; the cartoons were printed and protests around the world began.
Then more newspapers printed the cartoons.
Consider: after the severe political backlash against Denmark, why did other newpapers in other nations run the cartoons as well, knowing that it would enrage the Muslim world even more and reinforce a Muslim-held belief that Europe was Islam-hostile? And that it would give Muslim extremists another excuse to kill Westerners?
The real problem is that the cartoons don't just insult Islamic extremists; it offends every Muslim, including moderate and neutral Muslims. The ban on Mohammed drawings and pictures is observed by the Shiite and Sunni sects of Islam.
I am sensitive to free-speech issues, but when free speech causes innocent people to die, then there's a problem, and the less said the better. For that reason, I will not post the photos here and contribute to an innocent person or persons being beheaded by sword-waving extremist idiots.
This should never have made it into print in the first place. The more the photos are reproduced, the worse this will get, and the deeper the divisions between Islam and the West will become.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)