home

Thursday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Jun 23, 2005 at 09:23:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Lots going on offline here today...here's a place for your thoughts.

Scary story of the day:

The Defense Department began working yesterday with a private marketing firm to create a database of high school students ages 16 to 18 and all college students to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches.

The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying.

[Via Huffington Post.] Arthur at Light of Reason has a lot to say about this.

< Karl Rove's Sleazy Attack on Liberals | Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Open Thread | 51 comments (51 topical)
    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    The founder of my profession has passed on.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Did you know that ANY diesel engine vehicle can be run on vegetable oil? Believe it or not, it can be done. Check out my buddy's blog about his own experience doing it with a new VW Passat in metro L.A. Power your car on vegetable oil

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Real Scary story of the Day: The Supreme court's decision on private property rights.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Looks Like Gen. Abiziad didn't get Cheney's memo that the Iraq insurgency is in it's last throws, at least according to the Generals' own testimony to the Senate. Meanwhile, while we are being assured that all is well by the Bush admin., Jesus' General continues his great work to get those Chickenhawks that act as cheerleaders for the Iraq war to support it in a more concrete manner (i.e. enlisting).

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Ray Killen gets 60 years The murderer Ray Killian got the maximum sentence for his manslaughter convictions. Definitely a triumph for American justice, though admittedly far too slow in coming. Just when my faith in American jurisprudence is wearing tissue paper thin... some redemption. Lady liberty may be slow in dealing out her justice, but thankfully she usually gets around to it in the end.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    errr....throes, not throws.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Today during the Senate armed services committee, John McCain discussing the problem of foreign fighters entering Iraq and Syria not enforcing its borders, asking the pointed question "... if Syria doesn't enforce its borders, should we reach a point where we may not want respect those borders?"

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Wile, We agree on something. Siezing property to build non-essential office space, sure, that seems right. BUT...I do find the database of kids more disturbing. If you cannot convince a free people that their military is used justly than you cannot expect those free people to join. That's the problem right now. No kid will join a military that is engaged in endless, poorly planned for, quite bloody missions of completely dubious merit in terms of making the nation safer.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Aaron, I don't know what exactly McCain meant, but if he means we start military missions in Syria, oh my lord, help us all. We can't get Iraq right to save our lives, and we're going to start in on Syria? To what end? To get EVERYONE in the region to despise and doubt our every action, while at the same time further hindering our military's role to actually protect our OWN country.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:26 PM EST
    Aaron, I don't know what exactly McCain meant, but if he means we start military missions in Syria, oh my lord, help us all. We can't get Iraq right to save our lives, and we're going to start in on Syria? To what end? To get EVERYONE in the region to despise and doubt our every action, while at the same time further hindering our military's role to actually protect our OWN country.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Did you know that ANY diesel engine vehicle can be run on vegetable oil? There's a dangerous downside to biodiesel.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Has anybody else seen the stories that say that this administration is planning to set off a nuke in Iraq so that they can blame Iran, and use that as an excuse to invade Iran?

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Has anybody else seen the stories that say that this administration is planning to set off a nuke in Iraq....
    If you're going to promote made-up crap, you need to link to somebody else's made up crap. It looks more authentic that way, and gives you a way to pretend not to be responsible for rumor-mongering.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Chupetin: No, i haven't, but it sounds like something shrub would do. The day a nuke takes off is the day I go live in the sh***iest town in impoverished desert mexico I can find.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    BigMediaBlog, My bro isn't running his car on recycled fast food grease, but on 100 percent soybean oil. Also, bio-diesel will eventually eat through rubber hoses, you just need to have them replaced with non-rubber. He's getting great mileage, is emitting a fraction of the pollutants, and he's using a renewable resource.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Dadler- Hats off to your brother. Concern for the land we live on and the air we breathe; that's an act of patriotism.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    There's a dangerous downside to biodiesel.
    Well, it makes your car smell like a giant french fry for one.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    I mean freedon fry.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    I mean freedom fry.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Once more, that energy independence blog is: Fuel your car on 100% vegetable oil

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    I'm with Wile E. I got sucked into reading past decisions on the Takings Clause during the debate over the confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown. Today's decision didn't really break any new ground. The majority relied on past decisions to punt the meaning of "public use" of property to local legislatures. They say, in effect, that as long as a local governing body says the magic words "public use," they can take anything they want. I think O'Connor really nailed the issues in the dissent. She finds a flaw in the reasoning of the past decisions the majority relied on, and exploits it. In those past decisions, she says, the public benefitted directly from the taking of property: slums were cleared or land-owning oligopolies were broken. In today's case, there's no such direct benefit. The city of New London simply says: "Well, think of the jobs!" that will come when we take your house and hand it over to some rich developers. I think O'Connor rightly determines that this means any taking of private property meets the definition of "public use."

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    I'll get to the SCOTUS' new "public use" takings case in a minute, but did you all see it didn't take the DEA long, contrary to their protestations to the contrary last week about not going after anyone but commercial marijuana "kingpins" and not sick people, to start going after cannabis dispensaries in California. They had a big raid of storefronts in San Francisco yesterday, some with jeering crowds outside, as reported in today's wires, e.g., here.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    For those not familiar with the case that prompted today's Supreme Court decision, here's quick rundown: The City of New London, CT, wanted to condemn parts of a residential neighborhood as part of an economic redevelopment plan. Some of the residents of the neighborhood (including an 87 year old woman who has lived in her house all her life) fought the condemnation. Although the city has offered to pay for the property taken, the residents have refused to sell at any price, preferring to keep their homes. In today's decision, the Supreme Court sided with the city by a 5-to-4 vote.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    From O'Connor's dissent:
    Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. 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, 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.


    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    I mistakenly cited the AP wire story about the DEA and California medimar...the article published in today's print NYT is here.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Quaker: There may be less to the eminent domain case than meets the eye, props to O'Connor for her dissent and all that. The issue here was more 'is a private redevelopment effort the same as a purely public good like a highway or post office'? The constitutional limitation is not against condemnation of private property for public use per se (where "just compensation" for the property is the requirement), but rather whether privatized projects are "public uses". A lot of large-scale urban redevelopment projects are going to involve privatized public use -- for instance, the World Trade Center redevelopment. If a McDonalds or shoeshine stand across the street from the WTC were taken for public use, assuming just compensation, few would have any issues (well, except for that automobile brake shop guy who's been complaining about the issue on '60 Minutes' and some other folks organized by the libertarian Institute of Justice). But when mom and pop's old bungalow, or a neighborhood of bungalows, is taken for a commercial or industrial urban renewal project, people think that's unfair. That's the relatively restricted context of today's decision. But the socioeconomic issues have also affected "normal" eminent domain projects. The original World Trade Center construction in New York City, and the Empire State Plaza in Albany also displaced acres of working class brownstone tenement neighborhoods. The interstate highways similarly ran through "blighted" poor neighboorhoods or public parks, where political opposition to siting was weakest. The Supreme Court decision does not change the facts about eminent domain generally, even where public use is not an issue, to take property where land values tend to be cheapest and political opposition the weakest. Poor neighborhoods often fit this bill.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Iraq creating new jihadists. I told you so is an understatement. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1512597,00.html

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    I'm with you too Wile...a shameful SC decision.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Roy, the fact is I read a lot of blogs and I dont remember where I saw this at but I do know it was in one of the comments section of one of them. It was not my intention to spread rumours, but since I saw this in two separate blogs I was wondering if anybody else had also. I'll try to find the links though,you have a good point.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by jackl2400 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    TChris: My bad on mistposting the cali DEA medimar story on the open thread...it was already on the front page below...very nice catch and way ahead of the other drugwar blogs. Good work, props!

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    It's like bizarro world land re-distribution. Stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Only in America.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#32)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    Dadler - yeah I heard that. Too bad there's built in negative feedback with using biodesel. Figures I heard is the price is $0.77 a gallon if you distil it correctly because restraunts are giving away their used cooking oil. However, at that low price the cat has to stay in the bag to keep prices down. There's only so much cooking oil to go around. This is a good concept to using conventional fuels though.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#33)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:27 PM EST
    The Supreme Court decision does not change the facts about eminent domain generally, even where public use is not an issue, to take property where land values tend to be cheapest and political opposition the weakest.
    You're right, the decision doesn't make any fundamental changes in the use of eminent domain. However, the decision does expand condemnation powers in an interesting way. In previous decisions, the "public use" of property was predicated on a direct benefit of taking the property, e.g. clearing slums (Berman decision) or breaking up a land-owning oligopoly (Midkiff). Today's decision expands on that and allows the anticipated, speculative, second-hand benefits (e.g. "more jobs") of taking private property to count as "public use." To be sure, I'm not a private property absolutist. (For a view on that, see Thomas' separate dissenting opinion. He'd wipe out both Berman and Midkiff). As a homeowner, though, I don't think it's fair for the city to take away my unblighted, adequately maintained house so it can turn the property over to a big corporation in hopes that the Starbuck's in the office tower they're going to build will hire a few part-time workers.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#34)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Just to break up the unanimity wrt to the New London decision... You Liberals encouraged the government to expand its eminent domain powers, and now you want to act surprised when that power has been abused. I guess it's OK to have a heavy-handed government so long as its used to pursue a Liberal agenda? (Sorry for being slightly inflamatory, but don't read this apology until after you respond if you're going to)

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#35)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    “I guess it's OK to have a heavy-handed government so long as its used to pursue a Liberal agenda?” Ditto with Raich. Here’s Julian Sanchez’ take on the liberal paradox …
    As Raich taught us that growing pot in your backyard for personal consumption is "interstate commerce," Kelo informs us that taking people's homes to hand over to private developers building an office complex is a "public use." You do wonder: Now that the "liberal" justices on the court have sided with the drug warriors against cancer patients, and with a plan to rob people of their homes for the benefit of wealthy developers, will some court-watchers on the left begin to question the wisdom of having let economic freedom become the red-headed stepchild of modern jurisprudence?
    Since I’m feeling very cynical today my answer is an unequivocal no. The left will continue, intoxicated by federal power, and convinced that if only they were in the driver’s seat …

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#36)
    by Slado on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Thanks roy, When the US gov't takes my tax money to fund hopeless gov't programs that keep people in poverty that's ok. but use some wasted space row houses to improve the local community and the gov't is out of line. I for one don't agree with the decision because I'm consistent. Like most true conservatives the government shold stay out of the way and let "nature" the economy take it's course. If someone wants these residences then make them an offer they can't refuse. otherwise back off. I'll leave the legal rangling to you lawyers.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#37)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    "I guess it's OK to have a heavy-handed government so long as its used to pursue a Liberal agenda?"
    Not at all. In fact, the very reason I find this decision so dangerous is because it threatens the logical underpinnings of some of the things we lefties hold so dear. Liberal views on topics like abortion, gay rights, medical marijuana, physician-assisted suicide, and many freedom of speech and religion issues are based on the notion that there's no reason for the government to restrict individual rights in any of these areas. If the court can rule that the incidental economic benefits of a new office development are a "public use" of property, they can just as easily rule that incidental benefits of banning gay marriage (just for an example) can also be justified. (OK, I'll grant that property rights have been treated in a vastly different way from other rights in court decisions. But those rights we liberals defend are assertions of "substantive due process"--the requirement that the government show it has a good reason to abridge those rights rather than just show it followed the rules.) I think O'Connor's dissent was brilliant. It carved out enough room from previous decisions to hold in favor of the home owners without diminishing the power of eminent domain. It's a shame there wasn't one more justice willing to sign on to that opinion. And roy and pw, the "serves you right" point of view is unilluminating.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    From April 2004: Even Kenneth Pollack, one of the nation's leading experts on Iraq, whose book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq made the most authoritative case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, says, "My instinct tells me that the Iraq war has hindered the war on terrorism. You had to deal with Al Qaeda first, not Saddam. We had not crippled the Al Qaeda organization when we embarked on the Iraq war." The damage to U.S. interests is hard to overestimate. Rohan Gunaratna, a Sri Lankan academic who is regarded as one of the world's leading authorities on Al Qaeda, points out that "sadness and anger about Iraq, even among moderate Muslims, is being harnessed and exploited by terrorist and extremist groups worldwide to grow in strength, size, and influence." Similarly, Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of counterterrorism at the CIA under presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, says the Iraq war "accelerated terrorism" by "metastasizing" Al Qaeda. Today, Al Qaeda is more than the narrowly defined group that attacked the United States on September 11, 2001; it is a growing global movement that has been energized by the war in Iraq.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Harry "Skip" Brandon, a former senior counterterrorism official at the FBI, says the Iraq war "serves as a real rallying point, not only for the region, but also in Asia. We've seen very solid examples of them using the Iraq war for recruiting. I have seen it personally in Malaysia. The Iraq war is a public relations bonanza for Al Qaeda and a public relations disaster for us the longer it goes on." Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak's prediction that the occupation of Iraq would create "a hundred bin Ladens" is beginning to look prescient. We may soon find ourselves facing something akin to a global intifada.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Judith Yaphe, who was the CIA's senior analyst on Iraq during the first Gulf War, says Iraq is "open to terrorism in a way that it was not before. The lack of central authority makes it more amenable to terrorists." Iraq is convenient for Arab militants, who can blend into its society in a way they did not in Bosnia, Chechnya, or Afghanistan. Dr. Saad al-Fagih, a leading Saudi dissident, says that hundreds of Saudis have gone to fight in Iraq; one source of his, he says, compares Iraq to "Peshawar during the 1980s," a reference to the Pakistani city that attracted Muslims from around the world seeking to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    1-14-05 WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq is creating a training and recruitment ground for a new generation of "professionalized" Islamic terrorists, and the risk of a terrorist attack involving a germ weapon is steadily growing, an in-house CIA think tank said in a report released Thursday. The "dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq" to other countries will create a new threat in the coming 15 years, especially as the Al Qaeda network mutates into a volatile brew of independent extremist groups, cells and individuals, according to the report by the National Intelligence Council.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Looks like the liberals were right and the wingnuts were wrong... [mangled link deleted]

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    The CIA report suggests the new breed of jihadists will be more deadly than those who fought in Afghanistan. It said that they have learned skills in urban warfare in Iraq.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#44)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    In 1999 Bill Clintion prosecuted over 350 illegal alien employers and sent over 40 guys to prison, stopped companies from hiring illegalS and sent back to 30 countries over 300,000. Bill Clinton had the DEA Arrest over 300 drug dealers in side the usa and over 100 out side the usa..getting my point? bush has prosecuted 3 in 2003, get what i mean? oh yes under bush we now have over 5000 mexican armed forces who now work for mexican drug dealers and all the mexican armed forces guys have been and are still being trained by the bush Military and are working in six (6) states inside the usa, or also called usa, with drug dealers doing business with terrorists in the mideast, can i say more? and can bush attack us all more?

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Jlvngstn- Thanks for the link. "The concern expressed in the CIA report contrasts with the optimism of US Defence Secretery Donald Rumsfeld two years ago when he welcomed the prospect of Iraq as a magnet for jihadists." Where was his concern for our troops at that time? How could anyone, especially in his position, have said this in the first place? And now, who really pays for that error in judgement? I put this right alongside Bush's "bring 'em on" remark. These people need to be held accountable!

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    There were two very distinct issues with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In afghanistan, we new that they were the sanction for Bin Laden and THE terror training center for his henchmen. Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9-11 and the world saw little wrong with the US attacking Afghanistan in an effort to break the back of Bin Laden. This administration decided to all but abandon Bin Laden efforts and spend the bulk of military might on a war and post-war security in Iraq, which of course was a secular state albeit run by a madman, with no links to Bin Laden or 9-11. Being that there was a general consensus that Afghanistans' support of Bin Laden was worthy of an attack to root out BL, most of the world agreed that it was in international interests to target BL and the Taliban. Most of the world did not agree with the allegations of association with Saddam and BL and most felt that the US rushed to judgement and failure to find wmd fueled resentment and anger especially in the arab world. Many scholars, intel agents, former military personnel and liberals, feared that an unjustified war in Iraq would result in more recruitment and training for new terrorists. This report supports that theory in full. The administration theory that the backbone of terrorism would be broken was hollow and is proven to be wrong. For those that supported the war under the guise of making us safer and the eradication of terrorism, you were not only wrong, but you have put your fellow americans in greater danger. You have fueled anti-US sentiment, created new and more proficient terrorists and have made us all less safe. We told you it was going to happen and it is. Let's combine some real diplomacy and humility with our allies and other governments around the world in an effort to restore our reputation as a nation that leads by example, not by muscle. Ignoring our allies and dismissing Amnesty Int'l and HRWatch and acting as if we are above the law is tyrannical, and I hope that we turn this around soon.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    had to say one more thig about the flag burning. MOST FLAGS ARE MADE IN CHINA. COMMUNIST CHINA

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#48)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    Quaker..., I agree with you completly on this issue. The idea that a developer can donate money to certain local political campaigns and then essentially throw the rightful owners off their properties for less than market value is wrong. If the Gov't/Private developer wants the property then let them pay the higher value that that property has because of this public/private scheme. Most of these folks moved into this neighborhood because it was affordable when they bought in and most had made property improvements. They saw the potential before the others did and they should be hansomly rewarded for their homes if they are forced to move. Afterall just because it is waterfront it should be worth a small fortune and those that own it should be compensated, big time. I get the feeling from many blogs that this might be a good thing and might break the dogmatic Right/Left thing that is happening now. This is a case that should be a concern to anyone who owns property. It is not a Left or Right thing. It is just bad Law. Perhaps it will spur more interest in local politics as well.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#51)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    The blog storm started in part by TalkLeft has paid off: "Love in Action", the brainwashing camp for gay kids, is being investigated on reports of child abuse by the state of Tennessee. While the investigator won't discuss the details of the case, she did indicate that it was the department's opinion that the program is practicing therapy without a license. To me, that says that it's one step closer to being shut down, which is exactly what should happen.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#49)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    jimcee, I've been seeing the same sort of reactions you have. People on both the left and right are unhappy with this decision. To be sure, I don't think the majority made an egregiously bad ruling. If you read the opinion, they relied heavily on precedent. The heavy dissenters--Scalia, Thomas, and Renquist--were looking for a big rollback in eminent domain powers. O'Connor's opinion managed to split the difference, upholding precedent, but finding enough room to favor the homeowners. I wish you were right about local politics. Unfortunately, this isn't the sort of issue that makes for good bumper stickers or slogans.

    Re: Thursday Open Thread (none / 0) (#50)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    Random question for any registered Democrats out there... What little, slightly off-beat, act of charity fits Democrats better than any other political ideology? I'm setting up a little web-store (I'm not linking to it because I don't want to abuse TL as a hostess) as a backup income source in case I get fired for reading blogs all day at work. I thought it might be fun to make t-shirts with political affiliations printed on them (Democrat, Neo-con, Socialist, etc...) and donate $0.50 per purchase toward something appropriate for each affiliation. I'm already planning on giving to a local panhandler for the Liberal shirts, and to a state-run hospital for Socialist. Any suggestions?

    Thursday Open Thread | 51 comments (51 topical)