Thursday, June 23, 2005

If You're Dying Of Exposure, THEN It's OK To Talk To Strangers

This is something that should be added to all of those lessons that are given to children. Of course I'm sure that by now you've heard about the eleven year old boy in Utah that got lost and was eventually rescued the other day. Have we really come to the point that we are drilling into kids so hard that strangers are not to be trusted, that kids will now nearly die, rather than be rescued by a stranger?

OK, I have to throw my lot in with the conservatives on this issue (perish the thought). It looks like municipalities can now do anything they please with your homes at any time, not just for reasons of "blight" or public works or whatever. Those reasons are already laden with conflicts, but I understand that sometimes they are warranted. Now they can just do anything at any time as far as I can tell. Sure, you get fair market value or whatever, but what the heck? Where does one have to move in order to ensure that they won't be forced to move again? Montana?

Oh, and by the way Hector, I was pleased to hear of your recent ebarfulation. I'm glad that you finally got a chance to ebarfulate. Now that you have ebarfulated, you will probably get more traffic. Ebarfulating is a wonderful way to start anew. The new definition that I have created is the act of making a major change or clean-up of electronic data.

6 comments:

Hector Vex said...

That's a good sub-definition. "I ebarfulated the data onto a new server."

Tom McMahon said...

The father of a friend of mine was on the battleship Oklahoma at Pearl Harbor. When the bombing started he went topside to see what was happening, saw the bombing, then realized he didn't have his white sailor hat on and went down to his bunk to get it. Then he went back topside and jumped off the ship before it capsized. Rules are rules!

Two Dogs said...

Are you saying that the members of SCOTUS that voted for legalized stealing of property are Liberal judges? Damn, I am beginning to believe that you might be "moderate".

Just remember the rules of being a moderate.

Erik Grow said...

Well in this particular case, even O'Connor and Kennedy, the two judges considered as "could go either way", split on the ruling. I keep telling you I'm a moderate Democrat, but I'm still very much a Democrat. Maybe you almost believe me now.

Actually though, this is more of a case of the people of CT needing to get upset enough about this to change the law. The Supreme Court just said the law was constitutional. It's not like they're obligated to keep it. It's hard to figure out where the battle lines should be drawn. States rights conservatives might like the ruling, but property rights conservatives of course won't. Liberals won't like that the big developers come out the big winners, since the environment is likely to suffer a bit. It all defies the usual battle lines a bit.

Erik Grow said...

Wow Tom, yeah that's the definition of rigidity! That's crazy! I guess in the military though, there are certain things that are simply drilled into you like that. Rules are rules. Hehheh.

Devo said...

It's funny... I was living in (near) New London when this case was being born. That town is in serious need of revitalization, and even though the affected houses aren't threatened immediately by "blight", their continued existence in the state that they were in when I saw 'em will certainly do nothing to help the town out of a pretty serious slump. As much as I disagree with the ruling (I too can be moderate sometimes!) I also am disappointed in the owners of these properties for not seeing a larger picture. Although, I know how difficult it is to zoom out when your very existence is at stake.

Also, the supreme court did leave it to the individual states to decide whether this type of action is sanctioned, and that at least is a good thing. Numerous states, I've heard, have already taken their own steps to insure that this type of thing won't happen on THEIR turf. Hopefully.