missing time

10 Comments

1. dan from austin
   Posted June 26, 2005 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

   This is pretty interesting.
   Are we thinking brainwashing? Or some kind of ransom/ hostage concept? It sure does seem orchestrated in some way. Tom’s appearance on Oprah was pretty strange (like an act?) Maybe L. Ron Hubbard (or whoever is in charge of Scientology) needs a child bride due to some pact with the devil?

   I like the idea of Scientologists being a sort of demon worshipping cult/ mafioso underworld cabal.

2. [steph]
   Posted June 27, 2005 at 9:51 am | Permalink

   From the linked article:
   “Mr. Rove made the comments at a fund-raiser in Manhattan on Wednesday, saying: “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”

   “Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, ‘We will defeat our enemies,’ ” Mr. Rove continued at a gathering in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. “Liberals saw what happened to us and said, ‘We must understand our enemies.’ “
   —
   While I think it’s glib to suggest that liberals wanted to “offer therapy” to our attackers, I don’t see what’s so disturbing or spineless or unpatriotic about trying to understand them. We don’t want to sit around and hold hands with terrorists, but the idea of looking into what the motives for such a brutal act might have been seems logical to me.

   I’ve watched enough Law & Order to know that the Prosecution pretty much needs to find some motive for a crime in order to get a conviction–not always, but most of the time, even when they have plenty of evidence. Finding the motive helps the jury wrap their heads around why something happened and how to deal with it, it doesn’t excuse a crime.

   I think the conservatives Rove is referring to saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, “We will defeat our enemies by blowing things up, and we’ll go into war without a real plan because we don’t really have any understanding of the people who attacked us or why they felt compelled to do so. Oh, except that they are EVIL.” Whereas the reaction of many iberals was more like, “We need to understand why this happened, both in terms of our own inability to prevent it or properly defend against it, and what made them do this in the first place. We need to seek out and bring to justice the people behind the attacks. And we also need to have an understanding of why this happened in hopes of preventing something like this from happening in the future. If we need to work toward changing the way America is viewed in certain parts of the world, then we should do so, for the sake of our own safety and of world peace.”

   People aren’t just “evil.” Anyone who says that is living in a fantasy world. Many people who do things we would call “evil” believe they are doing so in the name of good. (America has acts in its own past that we might call evil nowadays, though Americans didn’t think so at the time.) They are working under a different moral compass and they view the world very differently. That doesn’t excuse what they’ve done by any means, but to simply dismiss them as “evil” is to suggest that the way they see America and the actions they will take will never change, so this war will go on forever.

   America’s view of justice is supposedly based upon the idea that people who commit wrongs can in many cases be reformed. It is too late for those who participated in the attacks, but for the rest of the people who might be viewing America in the same light as the terrorists, we still have time to try to change the way they see us and to make sure this won’t happen again. It’s not a perfect world, so this won’t be possible for everyone. But if changing something large like our actions or even something small like the way we handle our public relations might help to prevent another attack, it seems a good enough reason to try to understand what happened and why, in hopes of doing so. If the view that one is better prepared going into war with a full understanding of one’s enemy makes me spineless, then I am gladly spine-free.

3. mark
   Posted June 27, 2005 at 11:36 am | Permalink

   Nicely put, Steph… In order to be proactive in this fight against terrorism, we need to understand why it is that we’re being attacked, and it clearly isn’t, as Bush has suggested over and voer again, because “the evil-doers hate freedom.”

4. john galt
   Posted June 27, 2005 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

   from boortz..

   BARELY A RIPPLE IN WASHINGTON

   Judging from my email and from a selection of blogs, the people of this country continue to be completely outraged over the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo vs. New London. No matter what those five Supreme Court justices say, Americans just don’t seem to be warming up to the idea that a government can seize one person’s private property and then turn that property over to another private individual or corporation for private development … all for no other purpose than to increase tax revenue.

   Scanning the nation’s newspapers over the weekend I saw that quite a few local government officials are a bit worked up also. Many are making pledges to seek rules or new legislation to prevent these private party to private party eminent domain transfers in their states or jurisdictions. In Connecticut the officials from New London are working on damage control. They’re telling the nation that the very economic survival of their community depends on them kicking these people out of their well-kept homes so that Pfizer Corporation will have a nice hotel, work out facility and some office buildings next to their new facility. Elsewhere in Connecticut state legislators are looking for ways to stop the New London land grab.

   State and local officials? They recognize the public outrage over this decision. They see the outrage, and they’re reacting. But what about Washington? Where’s the outrage from inside the Beltway? Well … it just doesn’t seem to be there. I can’t read every word in every newspaper, nor can I check every congressman and senator’s website to look for press releases … but what searching I did do turned up absolutely no congressional outrage over this hideous, anti-American Supreme Court decision.

   So .. why are local government officials reacting, and we’re hearing next-to-nothing from the Washington crowd? One reason .. and one reason only. The state and local politicians feel you, the voters, breathing down their neck. The feel the anger, and they know that their political survival may well depend on what they do at the state and local level to reinstate the private property rights that have been decimated by the Supreme Court. Not so in Washington. Every one of those 435 members of the House of Representatives knows that year after year the voters return 95% of them to the perks and power of Washington. They want to ignore this Supreme Court decision. They want to ignore it because they like it, as do their local counterparts. But unlike their local counterparts, DC politicians feel that there will be no price to pay for their silence. They have the voters under control … or so they think.

   Let’s think for a moment about why politicians like this Supreme Court ruling so much. It won’t take long for you to figure it out. They like it because it weakens the individual and empowers government. Simple as that.

   Let’s draw a comparison here. We’ll compare President Bush’s idea for private Social Security accounts to the Supreme Court Kelo vs. New London decision.

   First .. the Social Security plan. Bush’s idea was essentially to allow American wage earners to maintain control over some of their private property. All property isn’t dirt. The money your earn with your sweat and brains is property also .. it’s the property you convert to the necessities of life and the property you convert into the fulfillment of your dreams. When Bush suggested that the people who earned this money — this property — be allowed to maintain some degree of ownership and control over it, the Washington left came unglued. The usual cast of characters came out of the woodwork. The Democratic Party, the AARP, the NAACP, Moveon.org …. all united with one goal .. to kill the idea of personal Social Security accounts. There was just no way that the left could sit back and allow Social Security to shift, even partially, from a system whereby the government has complete and absolute control over the assets seized from American workers, to one in which the workers are allowed ownership and control of those assets .. no matter how limited.

   Now .. the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision. Here the Court crippled the idea of private ownership of real estate. Thanks to the Kelo decision we find ourselves in a situation whereby we can proceed as if we “own” our homes and real estate so long as some developer doesn’t convince the local political establishment that he could generate a lot more tax revenue with our piece of dirt than we can. Our real estate is now essentially owned by the community … or the commune, if you will. As long as you use your property in a way that best suits the needs of the community, you will be allowed to remain. If the community comes up with a better use, kiss your house a big goodbye. This decision greatly weakened our rights to our own property, and strengthened the hand of government. Now listen — do you hear that? Do you hear the Democrats, the AARP, the NAACP, Moveon.org or any other liberal organization rising up in indignation and anger over this decision? Many older citizens are going to be kicked out of their homes in New London. Is the AARP there to raise hell and protest? I checked the AARP website yesterday. Nothing. And what about the NAACP? History shows that eminent domain is used disproportionately to seize the homes of the elderly and minorities. What did the NAACP website have to say about the Kelo decision? Nothing. Apologies for lynchings seems to be the hot issue over there.

   The fact is that the left — at least at the national level — is all but silent on the Kelo decision. The five liberal members of the Supreme Court issue their ruling, and the left quietly nods in agreement and turns its attention to demonizing American men and women in uniform and cooking up the next sequence of Senate apologies.

   Suggest private Social Security accounts — the left goes nuts. Destroy the concept of private property — the left sits back in quiet satisfaction.

   You do see what’s happening here, don’t you? You do recognize the essential difference between private Social Security accounts and expanded eminent domain powers? Come on! Say you do! You’re Boortz listeners! It’s easy! Bush’s plan for private Social Security accounts empowers citizens! The Kelo decision weakens citizens and empowers government! When you try to empower citizens and weaken government the left is going to rise to the fight! When you weaken citizens and empower government the left is going to remain silent.

   Hopefully it isn’t news to you that the left is historically not friendly with the concept of private property rights. Do you happen to remember one of the Senate Democrat’s principal objections to the appeals court nomination of Janice Rogers Brown. They were concerned that she was too proactive on the issue of private property rights. You can hardly expect a political party that celebrates a war against individualism to be friendly to someone who believes strongly in individual property rights, or to protest a Supreme Court decision that critically injures the concept of private property.

   Eminent domain abuse crosses party lines .. but it is usually the province of the left. Timothy Carney wrote in Human Events of a group in New York called the Group of 35. This group was composed of business, political and labor leaders in New York City. The purpose of the group was to advocate the use of eminent domain to increase the commercial capacity of Manhattan. Heading this effort was the liberal Democrat Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, and Clinton’s former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. Liberals have never seen a property right that couldn’t be taken away.

   Friday afternoon I was interviewed by Fox News Channel. Jonathan Serrie asked me if I thought that the Supreme Court Kelo vs. New London decision was anti-American. Well, anti-American is not a phrase I use lightly. After a few seconds consideration I came to the conclusion that the decision fit the definition of anti-American just fine, not to mention anti-Constitution. When you tell a couple in their 80s that they must leave the house in which they celebrated their wedding day; the house in which they conceived and raised their children; the house where friends gathered to celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary; and the house they wanted to live in until they died …. when you tell them that they have to leave that house, and that the government will use deadly force to make them leave that house if necessary, so that Pfizer, or any other private business or individual, can enjoy a nice corporate campus — then you’re damned right. That’s un-American.

   Some places you should visit: Institute For Justice & the Castle Coalition. There is also a blog that focuses on eminent domain issues. Want to contact your representatives and tell them how you feel about this? Look them up here.

5. chris
   Posted June 27, 2005 at 10:11 pm | Permalink

   John, do you and I finally agree on something? I feel the eminent domain ruling is unAmerican bullshit as well, as I am sure Brett-your other arch nemesis-will to given his posted interests.

   I find it ironic that Schumer is supportive of legalizing this option when our (he lives in my neighborhood) is about to be ass raped by a developer with a long history of bad taste and other architectural insults. The developer plans on building a stadium for his new basketball team replete with high rise apartments.

   His support boggles my mind as this new development is centerd on one of the most traffic snarled intersections in the five burroughs. As a result of the new construction and subsequent structures his chauffer driven Town Car will be stuck in traffic a good many times. Perhaps he plans on having a helicoptor landing pad built in our park.

   Yes, people losing their homes are those who have struggled for years to buy them. I suppose the developer will give pay them off but given property values where will they go? I have never liked Schumer.

   But, on everything else I vehemently disagree with you. As you were.
   But

6. john galt
   Posted June 28, 2005 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

   Press Release

   For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
   For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

   Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.

   Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

   On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.

   Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

   The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Caf

7. john galt
   Posted June 29, 2005 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

   I seriously doubt that the state police will protect the homes in new london from being siezed… Its good to be king..

   EARE, N.H. – Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice
   David Souter’s New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into a hotel.

   “The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare,” Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

   Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

   The letter dubbing the project the “Lost Liberty Hotel” was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh’s Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the “Just Desserts Cafe” an a museum focused on the “loss of freedom in America.”

   A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

   A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter’s property Tuesday.

   “It was a precaution, just being protective,” said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

   Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights “abusive” government through a Web site and cable show. He plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers, the Monitor reported.

   The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board. Messages seeking comment were left with Laura Buono, board chairwoman.

   “Am I taking this seriously? But of course,” said Charles Meany, Weare’s code enforcement officer. “In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin.”

   Souter’s two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

   The Supreme Court case involved the city of New London, Conn. The justices ruled that City Hall may take over property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

   In his majority opinion, Justice
   John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

   At least eight states

8. john galt
   Posted June 29, 2005 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

   More reasons why we need more contructionist judges on the SCOTUS, Note who voted for and against the elimination of property rights. I think I’ll build a mini-mall where Mark’s house is.. Its all for the greater good of course… I find this to be the most disgusting and anti-american thing I can think of, what’s the point of even owning land if it can be taken from you at gunpoint.. I predict some gunplay in the future from people who don’t want to be robbed by the Govt… Note: Hillary was (before she attempted to not look like a moonbat) was all for this sort of thing.

   Mark, on a related note maybe this is Yipsi’s salvation.. They can just bulldoze your house and put in something that gets more tax $$$, why hold a bake sale when you can just steal peoples property, if they don’t like it just arrest them (Just don’t fight back or you’ll be a criminal ). This is much better than the hippie Jam fest I suggested.

   June 29, 2005 The Kelo Floodgates, Ct’d…

   From an Institute for Justice press release:

   # Lake Zurich, Ill. — Five property owners facing condemnation for private development had asked Lake Zurich officials to hold off until the Kelo decision. The Chicago Tribune reports that City officials are now moving to condemn.

   # Arnold, Mo. — “Arnold Mayor Mark Powell applauded the decision,” reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The City of Arnold wants to raze 30 homes and 15 small businesses, including the Arnold VFW, for a Lowe’s Home Improvement store and a strip mall–a $55 million project for which developer THF Realty will receive $21 million in tax-increment financing. Powell said that for “cash-strapped” cities like Arnold, enticing commercial development is just as important as other public improvements.

   # Baltimore, Md. (West Side) — The City of Baltimore is moving to acquire shops on the city’s west side for private development. Ronald M. Kreitner, executive director of Westside Renaissance, Inc., a private organization coordinating the project with the city’s development corporation, told the Baltimore Sun, “If there was any hesitation because of the Supreme Court case, any question is removed, and we should expect to see things proceeding in a timely fashion.”

   # Baltimore, Md. (East Side) — Baltimore’s redevelopment agency, the Baltimore Development Corp., is exercising eminent domain to acquire more than 2,000 properties in East Baltimore for a biotech park and new residences. BDC Executive Vice President Andrew B. Frank told the Daily Record the Kelo decision “is very good news. It means many of the projects on which we’ve been working for the last several years can continue.”

   # Newark, N.J. — Newark officials want to raze 14 downtown acres in the Mulberry Street area to build 2,000 upscale condo units and retail space. The Municipal Council voted against the plan in 2003, but then reversed its decision eight months later following re-election campaigns in which developers donated thousands of dollars. Officials told the Associated Press that the Mulberry Street project could have been killed if the U.S. Supreme Court had sided with the homeowners in Kelo.

   # Lodi, N.J. — Save Our Homes, a coalition of 200 residents in a Lodi trailer park targeted by the City for private retail development and a senior-living community, goes to court on July 18 to try to prevent a private developer from taking their homes. Lodi Mayor Gary Paparozzi called the Kelo ruling a “shot in the arm” for the town. He told the Bergen County Record, “The trailer park is like a poster child for redevelopment. That’s the best-case scenario for using eminent domain.”

   # Cleveland, Ohio — Developer Scott Wolstein has planned a $225 million residential and retail development in the Flats district. Wolstein has most of the property he needs, but is pleased that Kelo cleared the way for the City to acquire land from any unwilling sellers. If eminent domain is “necessary,” he told the Plain Dealer, “we think this makes it clear that there won’t be any legal impediments.” Previously, city leaders publicly supported Wolstein’s call for eminent domain.

   # Dania, Fla. — The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports that Dania Beach City Manager Ivan Pato “expressed joy” over the ruling in Kelo. Dania plans to buy a block of properties for a private development project, and Pato said the city will use eminent domain to oust unwilling sellers. “Unless we expand the city’s tax base . . .our residents are facing rising taxes on their property,” Pato said. “Redevelopment is the only way we will be able to make ends meet.”

   # Memphis, Tenn. — The Riverfront Development Corp. is planning a massive, 5-mile development effort, including the use of eminent domain to claim a four-block section from the current owners for a mixed-use development. “[Kelo] definitely gives the city more tools in its tool box for dealing with the legal issues surrounding that piece of property,” RDC president Benny Lendermon told the Commercial Appeal.

   # Hollywood, Fort Lauderdale and Miramar, Fla. — Broward County officials yesterday cleared the way for new condo and retail development in these three cities. Hollywood residents in the targeted area fear their homes may now be taken for economic development following the Kelo decision. Mayor Mara Giulianti said the City would use eminent domain on a “case-by-case basis” to remove homeowners unwilling to sell.

   What a great quote from New Jersey.

   “The trailer park is like a poster child for redevelopment. That’s the best-case scenario for using eminent domain.”

   Telling of how the left’s lust for government power really affects the poor, isn’ it?

9. john galt
   Posted July 1, 2005 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

   the dems have spoken, from my perspective seems they have no problem with stealing property from people.. from Taranto.. http://www.opinionjournal.com for those of you who don’t know…

   And They Say Republicans Are Dumb
   At a press conference yesterday, a reporter asked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi for her reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, which authorized state and local governments to use eminent domain to seize private land for private use:

   Q: Later this morning, many members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

   Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

   Pelosi: As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we’re going to withhold funds for the court because we don’t like a decision.

   Of course, the proposed legislation would not “withhold funds from the court”; it would withhold funds from projects that take private land for private use. The reporter clarified this, and Pelosi still didn’t quite get it: “When you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court.” Again, there’s nothing to enforce. The court said governments may use eminent domain in this fashion, not that they must do so.

   Pelosi also said that when the Supreme Court renders a decision, it “is almost as if God has spoken.” Only if God followed Supreme Court precedent on the Ten Commandments, he would have told Moses in Exodus 34:27: “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel–but whatever you do, don’t tell anyone!”

10. john galt
    Posted July 1, 2005 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    hmmm.. If the SCOTUS is like the voice of God, then why do the Dems still whine about the decision concerning the Fla. Vote… I guess you only have to respect the Supremes (they should be a vegas group) if you want to steal poor peoples propery (actually anyone’s property.. They have guns you know..) Sure they’ll give you some money for your property but what choice do you have.. Either take their crappy offer or loose everything… My Grandmother recently had a road put through her field due to emminent domain (she leases out the farmland, shes 82).. I was really worried that she might have shot one of the workers (she took no money). Of course it was for the greater good…