Carview!

CARVIEW

MOTORHOMES

Select Language

HTTP/2 200 content-type: text/xml; charset=utf-8 vary: Sec-Fetch-Dest, Sec-Fetch-Mode, Sec-Fetch-Site feedburnerv2: last-modified: Sun, 11 Jan 2026 13:45:11 GMT cache-control: no-cache, no-store, max-age=0, must-revalidate pragma: no-cache expires: Mon, 01 Jan 1990 00:00:00 GMT date: Sun, 25 Jan 2026 05:27:36 GMT cross-origin-opener-policy: same-origin content-security-policy: script-src 'report-sample' 'nonce-DMehz5A_Zin5aKp85UljMw' 'unsafe-inline';object-src 'none';base-uri 'self';report-uri /_/RaichuFeedServer/cspreport;worker-src 'self' content-security-policy: script-src 'unsafe-inline' 'unsafe-eval' blob: data: 'self' https://apis.google.com https://ssl.gstatic.com https://www.google.com https://www.googletagmanager.com https://www.gstatic.com https://www.google-analytics.com;report-uri /_/RaichuFeedServer/cspreport/allowlist content-security-policy: require-trusted-types-for 'script';report-uri /_/RaichuFeedServer/cspreport accept-ch: Sec-CH-UA-Arch, Sec-CH-UA-Bitness, Sec-CH-UA-Full-Version, Sec-CH-UA-Full-Version-List, Sec-CH-UA-Model, Sec-CH-UA-WoW64, Sec-CH-UA-Form-Factors, Sec-CH-UA-Platform, Sec-CH-UA-Platform-Version permissions-policy: ch-ua-arch=*, ch-ua-bitness=*, ch-ua-full-version=*, ch-ua-full-version-list=*, ch-ua-model=*, ch-ua-wow64=*, ch-ua-form-factors=*, ch-ua-platform=*, ch-ua-platform-version=* reporting-endpoints: default="/_/RaichuFeedServer/web-reports?context=eJzj4tDikmII0JBiEOLmOHH52mk2gRkXt7sqWSblF8YnlqZk5usWlCblZBZnpBYV6wIFdYsSM5MzSnXTUlNTilOLylKL4o0MjMwMDI2M9AxM4gsMAFM6Gzo" content-encoding: gzip server: ESF x-xss-protection: 0 x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN x-content-type-options: nosniff alt-svc: h3=":443"; ma=2592000,h3-29=":443"; ma=2592000 tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-95710402024-09-02T04:40:10.670-04:00Blog SpectrumWatch here to see some of the best minds on the net to render issues to their component parts.The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.comBlogger106125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1148752232940101442006-05-27T13:43:00.000-04:002006-05-27T13:50:32.970-04:00To the Causal ObserverBy strict count you seem to have made it. But!!!! I just can't count the two sentence post as significant enough. While I am definitely a fan of pithiness that is taking it to an extreme. CaohaoimA Most Stubborn Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02978723236267616077noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1123175306173228732005-08-04T12:40:00.000-04:002005-08-04T13:08:26.186-04:00Gay MarriageIn short, I am against the legal sanctioning of gay marriage. I'll get right to the point. I am against gay marriage for two basic reasons. First, allowing gay marriage destroys marriage's special place in our society. In my opinion, the ideal family includes a loving mother and father raising children. By opening up the definition of marriage to include anything other than one man and one woman flies in the face of (an estimated) 99.999% of the tradition of marriage in our Western, Jeudo/Christian culture. Second, allowing gay marriage opens the floodgates to all sorts of other 'marital arrangements' including polygamy and incest. After all, if we cannot 'discriminate' based on the gender of two people wishing to enter into 'matrimony' then why can we exclude a man and three women, four women and two men or even brother and sister? For those of you who think this argument is ridiculous I implore you to read <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/comment/franck200508040812.asp">Matthew Franck's piece at NRO</a>. Many people will counter by asserting that is not 'fair' to homosexuals that they are not allowed to enter into a legal contract to express their love, gain the tax benefits, etc. To those people I say, sorry. I am honestly sorry that you find the situation unfair. If there were some way to compromise, I would be happy to consider it. I do not think, however, that there is an acceptable compromise simply because any compromise leads inevitably not to a slippery slope but rather directly to the proverbial cliff. Anyone who supports gay marriage has no standing to oppose any other 'marital arrangement' someone might propose. That is a road I will not willingly travel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1122875745383007842005-08-01T01:55:00.000-04:002005-08-01T01:55:45.386-04:00Topic of the week: Gay marriageTopic: I support/am against same sex marriage because...The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1122400088318187852005-07-26T13:15:00.000-04:002005-07-26T13:48:08.333-04:00To Whom Does The Constitution Apply?The protections guaranteed and Rights recognized by the Constitution and its amendments apply to everyone who has entered into the contract that is the Constitution. There are two groups who have done so: 1) Natural born citizens and 2) Naturalized citizens. The commenter to the <a href="https://blogspectrum.blogspot.com/2005/07/question-of-who.html">original post</a> suggests that the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment indicates that the entire Constitution applies to everyone in the country whether they are here legally or not. Let's take a quick look to see if that stands up. Here's Section 1 of the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html">14 amendment</a>: <blockquote>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</blockquote>What I get from this is, first, that states cannot make or enforce laws that infringe upon "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". To me, that sounds like the amendment is directing that states will not abridge my free speech just because that particular right is not recognized in my state's constitution. Second, no state is allowed to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That, obviously, means that even illegal immigrants are guaranteed a fair trial before being jailed or deported. Finally, no state is allowed to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That does not, however imply that the rights recognized, or the privileges granted, to individuals in the Constitution apply to non-citizens/illegal immigrants. And, of course, you don't get to pick and choose which laws you'd like applied to an illegal immigrant (or anyone else for that matter). So laws regarding illegal immigration still count. While this may sound cold hearted and just plain mean I think it is important for two reasons. First, to say that the Constitution applies fully to anyone who happens to be standing on American soil leads to all sorts of problems. Are POWs guaranteed due process if brought to the US? The answer is, and must be, and emphatic 'no'. How about invading enemy soldiers? Or perhaps just a bunch of thugs in some 3rd world hell hole that manage to breech the physical defenses of an American embassy? Second, if one applies to the rights recognized and protections granted in the Constitution to those who enter the country illegally, then what is the incentive for following our laws in the first place. It's the same old (yet valid) argument that by not punishing those who break laws you are actively encouraging others to break more laws. The Constitution is a contract that one enters into by right of birth (unfair, maybe...but that's just the way it is) or by choice via legal immigration (a difficult process surely, but again...too bad, that's just the way it is). Anyone who chooses to enter our country while choosing to not enter into the contract as proscribed by law is not worthy of its protections.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1122402368130155992005-07-26T12:10:00.000-04:002005-07-26T14:26:08.143-04:00MeatyWho is protected by the US Constitution? It is a difficult question to answer because it isn’t quite spelled out in the text, yet it isn’t quite open to interpretation. As <a href="https://www.blogger.com/%E2%80%9Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/5834459%E2%80%9D">Elliot Essam</a> noted in his comment to the Question of the Week, the 14th Amendment provides that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That seems pretty straight forward, but the obvious test is obviously staring us all in the face (though we’ve gotten pretty good at ignoring it). That test would be the detainees at GITMO. Those detainees, while on US soil, aren’t in any particular state. From a moral stand point that distinction is a pretty thin dodge, but as much as we might prefer otherwise, the law means what it says, not what it ought to mean. Indeed, the provisions of the 14th Amendment regarding human rights are actually encompassed by the 9th Amendment. The fact that the 14th had to be enshrined in our highest law is , in essence, proof that a law must say what it means to be effective. A further example would be the “Schiavo Special” cooked up for the famed Florida case. Based on the law, as written, in conjunction with the words of that law’s framers, the Federal courts correctly ruled that they could choose not to intervene, in spite of the obvious (after the fact) truth that the law was meant to compel the court to do so. Why bring up the morass of the Shiavo Incident? Because that particular case provides a useful distinction. One of the primary deciding factors used by the federal court was the “intent” of the law’s framers. Not their actual intent, per se, but the intent they admitted to in the official record, i.e. the words the spoke on the floor of the Congress. IANAL, but I do play one on TV*. Keep that in mind as up examine the following. While it can be debated that the equal protection clause is a limit to the states, and not binding on the Federal government, there’s no need to look at the intent of those framers to answer our question. The first 10 Amendments were specifically binding upon the federal government and the same concepts that are enshrined in the clause are distributed through the Bill of rights. The 14th Amendment, among other things, overturned interpretational precedent that had been constructed in an attempt to preserve the Union against the specter of civil war. In the Bill of Rights, only the 5th through the 8th can be unambiguously stated to apply to any person in the jurisdiction of the United States. The other enumerated rights are specific to “the people” or the States. Since the Preamble has been supported as defining law, one can reasonably suggest that ‘the people” are defined by the phrase, “We the People of the United States…” This seems to imply that the full protection of the U.S. Constitution need only be applied to citizens of the United States. However, that test alone would be weak basis for argument. One would be forced to turn to the “official record” seeking the words of the framers, in order to divine their intent. Lacking a legal team to pour through the wealth of information left to us by the founders, I turn to the document that ranks beside the Constitution in the heart and minds of many Americans. In the Declaration of Independence many of the Constitution’s framers signed off on the simple statement, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…” The Preamble, and the Bill of Rights both echo the sentiments of that simple statement, that opening justification for rebellion. It would be difficult to argue that this statement did not provide insight into the intent of the framers. The key phrases being “all men” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” What does this mean for our detainees at GITMO? Nothing, really. Amendment V provides for and exception for capital or otherwise infamous crimes during time of War. Futher, those detainees aren’t necessarily being held for criminal justice reason. They are Enemy combatants and thus can be treated, in some ways, like POWs. Certainly POWs can be held for the duration of a conflict. Of course they aren’t POWs, They are illegal and irregular forces. Historically, the prescription for such was execution. For the other obvious segment of non-citizens, illegal aliens, the Constitution does appear to extend the full legal protection of the law. That does not mean they are entitled to the services of the state, only that they enjoy the same protections under US law as a citizen. The 14th Amendment does provide that level of protection to non-citizen in the jurisdiction of the several states. From that standpoint, the Constitution does belong to everyone. * I don't really play a Laywer on TV.Ironsidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484134819466072699noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1122293709990139132005-07-25T08:15:00.000-04:002005-07-25T08:15:09.996-04:00A question of whoThis weeks question of the week brought to you by Morgen. Who does the US Constitution, and all its rights belong to? Everybody in the US or just to citizens and legal residents?The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1122003561424583352005-07-21T23:35:00.000-04:002005-07-21T23:39:21.440-04:00Content Restrictions<div style="text-align: justify;">Restrictions on content of entertainment clearly violates the first amendment. Advisories do not violate this. And I have no legal, or philosophical argument against them, save maybe the belief that people might actually put some effort into finding out on their own what they have in their hands before they buy it and whine later. It's after all pretty simple. No one has to buy any given book, movie, music video, or song. No one is required to watch any TV, movie or stages. You can't be hauled out and forced to listen to a particular radio station. Deal with it folks, other people have different views and tastes, but don't worry, one day you'll die and won't have to worry about it. </div>The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1121981283692374322005-07-21T17:26:00.000-04:002005-07-21T17:28:03.700-04:00Plame Name GameI had, honestly, meant to tackle last week's question, but I found myself rather short on free time. Additionally, I had found myself with no clear opinion on what to say about the whole mess. Obviously Rove did something he shouldn't have. Whether he should stay or go would (in a perfect world) depend on his motive, and on his knowledge of the situation. One of the points of contention being batted about is whether Rove identified Ms. Plame by name. Examination of the relevant statute suggests that point is irrelevant. It is a criminal offense for an official with access to classified information to provide ANY data that leads to the identification of a covert operative. Rove, in identifying Ambasador Wilson's wife as some one "who works for the CIA on WMD", Rove provided more than enough information for anyone to find out who Plame really was, as <a href="https://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/15/BUG0UDO7R31.DTL">this report demonstrates</a>. Rove's story neatly circumvents that problem, however. The White House Advisor claims that he didn't come by Plame's identity via priveleged info, but from yet another reporter. It is an American ideal that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, so we'll assume that Rove's story is true (lacking evidence to the contrary). That still doesn't satify the question of intent. If, as Wilson suggests, Rove was acting in retribution it is obvious he should be asked to step down. Not because retribution is an ignoble motive, but due to the consequences of his actions. Rove was used as a point of confirmation about Plame's identity which makes him an unwitting accessory to a crime. On the other hand, Rove may have had a ligitamate interest in demonstrating that Wilson was lying about the circumstances surround his fact finding mission to Niger. All of that hinges on events occuring in a perfect world. The world is far from perfect. Rove has friends in the higest places. It is likely that we'll never know exactly what happened and how he was involved, so it's unliked--baring seriously damaging evidence, that Rove would ever face criminal charges. Rove is an icon of everything the opposition finds wrong with the present administration, so it is unlikely that he'd ever get a fair and honest hearing in the court of public opinion. In the end, that court is the only one likely to matter. So long as Karl Rove remains no more a liability to the administration than he already is there's no reason for him to be removed from his post. Firing him, or accepting his resignation, would be a sign of weakness.Ironsidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484134819466072699noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1121978857128102042005-07-21T16:45:00.000-04:002005-07-21T16:47:37.140-04:00Pissing into the WindContent restrictions are, at best, of dubious value. This is not an opinion formed due to a desire to protect my "freedom" to make copies of the stuff I buy. In a certain sense I believe I have that freedom, but I rarely make those copies. From a practical standpoint it is a non-issue, for me. The value of DRM and content control depends on whether or not they actually protect the profits of the content providers. I don't think these technologies do that. What they do is dissuade the casual copier. They keep the average American from easily running off a duplicate of a movie or album for his or her friends, in the way that the cassette tape had during its heyday. The true pirates are only mildly hindered by this stuff. Protections can be bypassed, encryptions can be broken, and the "hackers" of the world are itching for the chance to do so. One DRM's original proponents, Microsoft, has been <a href="https://inhome.rediff.com/money/2005/jun/21ms.htm">beaten in an arena it claimed it was unbeatable</a>. If a researcher can do it, a team of motivated hackers can copy the feat. Efforts to beat those hackers can only result in an arms race, funded (of course) by cost increases passed on to the honest consumer. Why all this trouble? Largely to fight the age old menace of second and third world pirates selling the content to second and thrived world customers who can't afford the real deal, or the increased costs associated with the DRM war. Of course, they don't pay those costs, the American consumer does. There is, reasonably, the specter of mass digital file sharing. Certainly a valid danger, but not (I think) a pressing one. Americans have, time and again, proven that they will pay for something convenient even if a little work would get them the same thing free. The growth of piracy in the first world is partly (dare I say 'largely') a result of overpriced entertainment. And of course, DRM is annoying for some. It can cause certain issues. Even a leading proponent of DRM has had <a href="https://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg/archives/002837.html">a</a> <a href="https://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg/archives/008784.html">few</a> <a href="https://weblogs.jupiterresearch.com/analysts/gartenberg/archives/008870.html">problems</a>.Ironsidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484134819466072699noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1121864264351690842005-07-20T08:47:00.000-04:002005-07-20T08:57:44.356-04:00Entertainment Laws/RestrictionsCall me a Libertarian, but I think there should be no (zero, zilch) restrictions on the content of video games, movies, books, TV or any other form of entertainment. I'm not opposed to the rating system to give people a relatively standard heads up on what they might be getting into, but to actually restrict what can or cannot be presented as entertainment is totally outside the power of the government. Who is responsible for protecting The ChildrenTM? Parents. Any questions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1121690965687548482005-07-18T08:48:00.000-04:002005-07-18T08:49:25.693-04:00Question of the WeekAnd the Question of the week: Are content restrictions on entertainment such as video games, music, and movies helpful, or do they simply create more legislation, restrictions on freedom and glorify what ever they are trying to restrict by making it taboo?The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1121362754891076982005-07-14T13:30:00.000-04:002005-07-14T13:39:14.896-04:00More Rove-ian KnightsShould Rove stay or go? Its actually pretty easy to answer: It depends. <div style="text-align: justify;">It looks pretty clearly as if he did leak this information, and intentionally so from the scattered info I've read, to the news. Why he did so is of course open for debate, but that it was done is not in question at all. If he did do so, he needs to be removed swiftly from office. His 'alleged' leak is dangerous, and destructive to US intelligence gathering ability. While I could go on, and on, and on about the potential risk to the life of Plame and her family, that is almost secondary, and has been done before by others with bigger axes to grind. Outing an operative, for whatever reason, is clearly criminal. It risks the life of someone every bit as expensively trained as one of our frontline troops, and every bit as vitally needed to protect American lives. </div> <div style="text-align: justify;">If on the other hand he's not actually guilty, and this is simply another "Rathergate", let the man get back to pulling Pinocchio's strings. </div>The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1121131542674499282005-07-11T21:24:00.000-04:002005-07-11T21:25:42.680-04:00Topic: Should he stay or should he goSince i managed to forget a topic, I'll steal Ryan's. Should Rove stay or go?The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1121125665894762192005-07-11T19:45:00.000-04:002005-07-11T19:47:45.903-04:00Karl Rove: Whats Your ThoughtsI know this isn't a topic for this week, but with the recent chatter about the role Rove played in the leaked cover of a CIA agent. This was a letter I received through the JohnKerry.com newsletter written by Kerry himself: Dear Ryan, Less than two weeks ago, you signed a petition joining members of the johnkerry.com community in calling for Karl Rove to be fired for his deliberate attempt to, once again, use the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to divide America. Now Karl Rove is embroiled in another controversy concerning the leaked identity of a covert CIA agent, which Bush Administration senior officials said was done to punish her husband, a man who had the courage to tell the truth about manipulated intelligence in Iraq. Karl Rove is the President's top advisor in the White House and what he has admitted doing has deep and troubling consequences for our national security. Just today the President spoke at Quantico praising our soldiers and the employees of the FBI, CIA, and DEA for their work rooting out terrorism. He told them, "Your work is difficult. It is dangerous. I want you to know how much your country appreciates you, and so do I." But at the same time the President was saying these words, it was becoming clear that his top advisor was involved in exposing a CIA agent in the name of politics by telling reporters about her work - making her already dangerous job that much more dangerous. In order to do what the President called on us to do today - "continue to take the fight to the enemy" - the White House and Karl Rove must stop taking it to their so-called political enemies here at home. It's perfectly clear that Rove - the person at the center of the slash and burn, smear and divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush Administration - has to go. <a href="https://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php">https://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php</a> The problem is that, instead of protecting the American people from real threats to our security, this Administration spends its time protecting Karl Rove. That's not leadership. They're doing their best to brush off this new Rove controversy as just another political story, but this time they are having a harder time getting away with it. That's why, if we raise our voices now, we can really make a difference. Please ask all your friends to sign our "Fire Rove" petition today: <a href="https://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php">https://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php</a> Despite carefully worded denials, it is now apparent that Karl Rove discussed the identity of an undercover CIA agent with a reporter. His clear aim was to discredit that agent's husband who had dared to challenge the Administration in the buildup to the war. There appears to be no limit to the lengths to which Rove - and this Administration - will go. But, there is a limit to the patience of the American people - and we have reached it. President Bush has a choice to make: Spend the months ahead focused on protecting Karl Rove's job security or spend them focused on protecting America's national security. We are asking the President and the White House to do what they promised. When the scandal first broke, here's what the President's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said: "If anyone in this Administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this Administration." (9/29/03, White House press briefing). Now we will find out if the Administration is good to its word. Call on President Bush to keep his word and fire Rove now: <a href="https://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php">https://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php</a> It's as simple as this: We need President Bush and his White House staff to focus on finally taking action necessary to avoid a quagmire in Iraq. The American people can't afford to wait while the White House spends its time and energy defending a top presidential aide's dangerous political shenanigans. What the President does in the days ahead will speak volumes. He'll either make good on his promise to hold accountable those who shared the identity of a secret soldier in the war on terror - or he'll prove that promise hollow. We now know that Karl Rove "was involved" in a breach of national security. Decency - and the interests of the American people - demand an end to Karl Rove's days in the White House. It's time for you to demand it as well. <a href="https://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php">https://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php</a> I urge you to take action right now. Sincerely, John Kerry I was interested to see if any of you agree or disagree with this?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1120780746987516292005-07-07T19:45:00.000-04:002005-07-07T19:59:06.996-04:00The Death Penalty<div style="text-align: justify;">What crimes are horrific enough to warrant the death penalty? </div> <ul> <li>Rape.</li> <li>Serial molestation of children.</li> <li>Murder (1st degree) </li> <li>Treason.</li> </ul> <div style="text-align: justify;"> Those four in my opinion are non negotiable. The penalty should be applied to the convicted only in the event of DNA or other hard evidence that is very difficult to tamper with. Other crimes may warrant the death penalty, but I'm not going to push for them. I do also think that executions should be public, hanging, firing squads or quick methods of beheading like a guillotine or axe. </div>The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1120520825302826582005-07-04T19:44:00.000-04:002005-07-04T19:47:05.313-04:00Question of the week.There are so many sides to this issue I'm hoping we'll get a great discussion this week. When, if ever, should the death penalty be applied? For example should it be applied in cases of rape? Armed robbery? First degree murder? Inventing a reality show?The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1120371251867863692005-07-03T02:07:00.000-04:002005-07-03T02:14:11.886-04:00Eminent Domain<div style="text-align: justify;">The question of 'when' is not a simple one. How does one define 'public good'? Is getting rid of a single family home on four acres of land 'good' if one putting up a strip mall, how about a hospital? For me, I'm not really comfortable with any use of eminent domain. Using it to line the pockets of a developer for a project that is not a public works undertaking is wrong. For a municipally owned hospital, for a utility facility, public school, city infrastructure such as police or fire department, those are acceptable, if regrettable, but those things do actually benefit more than just the person building them, and the person whose palms the builder crosses with some silver. </div>The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1120161999412088172005-06-30T15:44:00.000-04:002005-06-30T16:36:01.030-04:00Eminent DomainI'll keep my response brief, mostly because I've pretty much exhausted my blogging energy when it comes to this topic (a partial list of my posts on this topic can be found at the bottom of <a href="https://mudandphud.blogspot.com/2005/06/what-goes-around.html">this post</a>). The 5th amendment's closing clause <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html">states</a>: nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Over the past few days worth of reading every conceivable article on this topic I have learned (second hand) that over the past few decades various courts in this country have tended to interpret "public use" pretty broadly. However, I still think that the Kelo decision crosses a line and is extremely significant if for no other reason than it gives the official stamp of approval from the nation's highest court for local governments to take whatever land they want from anyone, anywhere, anytime. If you don't believe that, just wait. Of course, all this can be avoided quite easily. How, you ask? Pass laws against the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another. You know, sort of like a Republic is freaking <a href="https://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Trends&loid=8.0.182225190&par=0">supposed to act</a> (as opposed to our current system where <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/">law</a> is made by unelected egotistical smucks in black robes). So, to answer the question, I think that eminent domain should be used very infrequently and only after passing some sort of universal test that has been passed into law by a state's legislature. Among the requirements for invoking eminent domain to seize an individual's property should be: 1) The seized land must be used for the "public good" in the sense that either a) the public will have physical access to it (e.g., public school (if they're not done away with first =)), highway, police station, etc.) or b) will serve a pubic service that is not compatible with physical public access such as a jail. 2) The seized land must not be used such a way that any private entity gains any profit aside from actual construction. 3) Land can only be seized after some painfully onerous process of consensus is undertaken by the appropriate governing body (I'm thinking something analogous to a super majority in Congress). 4) "Just compensation" is defined as the highest value of the property over the past decade. Value would be defined as either tax assessment or actual selling price, whichever is higher. Additionally, a surcharge of 20% would be added to the "just compensation" to cover moving costs and emotional issues involved with losing one's property. I'll leave it at 4 for now, but only because I'm tired and I don't feel like coming up with any more requirements. Now, you might be thinking that it sounds like I'm trying to render impotent the very intention the closing clause of the 5th amendment. Maybe I am. Regardless, whom would you rather be impotent, the government...or you? --- And I thought I was being tough. Check out <a href="https://nomayo.mu.nu/archives/098978.php">this exercise</a> in the open-source writing an amendment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1119835429832555412005-06-27T10:52:00.000-04:002005-06-26T21:23:49.836-04:00This weeks questionThis weeks question is on eminent domain, that supreme court case, and acceptable uses of emminent domain.The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1119708507501231982005-06-25T10:01:00.000-04:002005-06-25T10:08:27.596-04:00It incidents like this<div style="text-align: justify;">It's incidents like this that make the carpet bombing of the entire middle east, even the so called "moderate" nations seem so attractive, even to me. I'm while not a Wiccan I do find their creed of "Do what thou will so long as it shall harm no other." to be a very reasonable, and attainable goal. People who run about killing their daughters, their adult daughters, for shaming the family name by either refusing to marry, or 'worse' marrying outside their faith, disgust me to the point where I'm glad I don't have to worry about wishing ill, or encouraging ill of people like <a href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1512272,00.html">this</a>. </div> <div style="text-align: justify;"> <blockquote>Maher Shakirat summoned three of his sisters to discuss a family uproar after one of them, Rudaina, was thrown out by her husband for an alleged affair. Maher listened to Rudaina's denials, and her sisters' pleas that they were not covering up the affair. Then he forced the three women to drink bleach before strangling Rudaina, who was eight months pregnant. The other sisters tried to flee but Maher caught and strangled Amani, 20. The third, Leila, escaped but was badly injured by the bleach.</blockquote> </div> I'm pretty sure I can come up with a few pithy phrases to accurately describe these type of people, but it would do my blood pressure no good.The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1119619878620671192005-06-24T09:25:00.000-04:002005-06-24T09:31:19.460-04:00UN Sec Council<div style="text-align: justify;">I'm unastonished to find a good bit of the Spectrum in agreement with <a href="https://iwt.blogspot.com/2004/10/as-ive-said.html">me</a>. What I did find surprising is that apparently some of the nice Congress Critters <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/18/un.reform/">agree</a> as well. We do need to either break the UN down to the bedrock and rebuild it, or simply leave it. Unfortunately, neither of those things is going to happen anytime soon. We do pay in dues twenty-two percent of the UN's general budget, which is by far a larger share than any other nation. Sadly, the Security Council is simply to important to ignore, after the vaccination and educational suborganizations of the UN, it maybe the only part worth paying attention to. So who do I pick for the role? Japan has to be considered a strong favorite. However much it would antagonize China, they do make vast contributions to the UN, and are stable country with a much better human rights history than places like Mexico, Iran, China or Zimbabwe. India doesn't appear to do much outside their borders and I don't see that changing. Brazil is another possibility, but again, they don't do much and don't have an economic pot to piss in. What I'd like to see is a seat with veto powers that rotated between a few nations, specifically: Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Israel, and perhaps one or two others every 18 months. I really hold very little respect for most of the UN's activities, but this is one of the slots we can't ignore. </div>The COhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481854464028539501noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1119583775822306812005-06-23T23:22:00.000-04:002005-06-23T23:29:35.836-04:00A mild correctionOh dear gentle beings, While I agree in almost every particular with what has been written. Which is why I have not posted my own post calling for the demolition of the UN building through the use of the newly found expansion of emminent domain. I'm sure somone in the private sector would be willing to put a shopping mall in Manhattan. I however must rebuke you in not doing some very very basic research. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council">China</a> is a PERMANENT member of the Security council. Your most truly, CaohaoimA Most Stubborn Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02978723236267616077noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1119539667801414702005-06-23T10:26:00.000-04:002005-06-23T11:14:27.826-04:00S.O.S. - D.D.Who, if anyone, deserves a seat on the UN Security Council? I think I have a better question. What does it matter? The United Nations has become increasingly irrelevant. At the end of the Cold War, the common anti-UN fear was of the dreaded One World Government. Now the complaint is simple graft and corruption, not unlike a local coucilman stealing money from the municiple coffers. Wherever there is a large and powerful organization there is ambition and greed. Representative systems are meant to function on the balance of competing "enlightened" self-interest. The representaive are supposed to act in the interests of the districts, states/provinces or nations they stand for. As with most such assemblies today, the members of the UN self-interest is neighter enlightened or national in character. What purpose would it serve to add another chair to the council? This body only holds a nation to its treaty obligations if there's no monetary draw back for the ambassadors in the chairs. What good would it do to expand the circle of permanent members? Yet another potential veto? Could we make this body less effective? Perhaps one could assume the question meant "Which nation would make the Security Council more effective, if it were added?" Then my counter question becomes "More effective for whom?" More effective for America? I can't think of anyone who isn't generally against American interests, one of the major reasons the US tends to walk apart from the UN. If such a member could be found and such a balance shift made, how would it be different from the state of things now? American unilateralism with the UN seal of approval? I aknowledge the possibility that I'm not giving the UN enough credit. It could be better, or more threatening than I think. It might have the potential to become something imortant in the future. I realize that the UN has more impact beyond the borders of my country. In the end, I just don't care. There are enough fires to worry over at home. I can't spare much thought for the UN. In the spirit of the original question, however, I will name my number one choice for a spot on the SC. The Principality of Liechtenstein. Why? Why not?Ironsidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16484134819466072699noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1119375647812683472005-06-21T13:35:00.000-04:002005-06-21T13:40:47.820-04:00UN Security CouncilI will make this short because I dont want to bog down everyone in facts and rhetoric. I think a case could be made for China, Japan, and India to all join the security council, alot of people hold inhibitions about these countries, mainly China, but I think the time has come when we need to recognize that over a third of the worlds population...almost a half!!!...is in these three countries...we need to recognize that and acknowledge their need for participation in events that directly affect them. The Chinese human rights record needs a great deal of improvement, numerous problems exist not limited to religious persecution by the government, agressively inforced 1 child rule (forcing abortions), and stranglehold on the media. One could also question Russia and their media but that is another story. Once these problems are addressed then China can take the next step towards participation on a larger platform.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9571040.post-1119374077294371322005-06-21T13:00:00.000-04:002005-06-21T13:14:37.306-04:00UN Security CouncilWhat can I say, bring on the cheerios. In all honesty, I think that the current members of the UN Security Council should be removed and replaced by Zimbabwe, Sudan, Cuba and North Korea. No, I am not being facetious. I am, however, willing to consider any proposal that leads to the destruction (real or defacto) of the UN as a global organization. My reasoning is simple. First, I do not think that UN serves any useful purpose. Even the best-case scenario involves a country surrendering some of its sovereignty. Nations can talk to each other without the red tape (and endless debates and resolutions) of the UN. Second, the UN's current structure is incompatible with peace, let alone simple morals. There is literally no mechanism for the UN to differentiate between free countries and those ruled by dictators. Any organization lacking this ability is incapable of correct action (and inaction), as the UN has shown time and again, and so is not worth time, money or even the occasional drifting thought. Since the UN is worse than useless, it should be disbanded (I do not believe that a sufficiently radical overhaul is a realistic possibility). Short of an actual dissolution of the UN, I would settle for its defacto destruction by making its flaws so painfully obvious that no one would take them seriously...hence, my selections for the new Security Council.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0

Original Source | Taken Source