Saturday, February 26, 2005

Eminent Domain in Connecticut

<i>Should the Supreme Court Allow Public Taking for Private Development?</i>
The Supreme Court recently heard a case on the limits of eminent domain and the rights of individuals to be safe from having their land seized and sold to another private concern.  The land is not stolen, but is appraised and "Fair Market Value" is given for the land.  In this case a town in Connecticut wanted to entice a drug manufacturer into expanding its presence and build a new facility.  As part of the enticement, the town condemned a neighborhood so that it could be knocked down and a new community could be built.  Some of the owners in the neighborhood are fighting the taking on Constitutional Ground.  The Court has yet to rule. 

Land has always been treated under law as a special type of property, and typically equal cash value is not enough. The law recognizes that people have ties to land beyond simply the dollar value. Saying that they were duly compensated at the "Fair Market Value" should not be enough when the taking is simply for a private development.

In this case, the developer could have purchased the land individually from the home owners like any other developer. If the price was high enough, I imagine they would have all sold, regardless of ties to the neighborhood. The condemnation merely saved money for the Corporate developer at the expense of citizens.

Examples such as railroads and Power lines did not typically take entire neighborhoods away. They would take a small portion or right-of-way, but the land owner kept the majority of the land. Other takings like the WTC were developments by Government Entities, even if the actual developer was not. This Connecticut case seems to be especially egregious in its scope and purpose.

I also think it is a good argument that if economic development is a good enough reason to take any land, no land is safe. Having no floor leaves us all at risk of a developer selling growth to the community at your expense. It also seems like a good way for a community to get rid of "undesirable" neighbors by gutting all the poor neighborhoods and replacing them with Home Depot.

The previous standard of blight seems to meet the competing interests of community development and private property.

Friday, February 25, 2005

Hate Crime Legislation


Hate crime enhancement makes sense for crimes like vandalism or trespassing where society does not reasonably want to have huge penalties for a kid breaking a neighbor's window with a stone on a dare, but does want to have larger penalties for that same window being broken as an act of intimidation to make a black family move out. Similarly spraying the name of your favorite rockband on your neighbor's van should be prosecuted, but spraying "kill Jews" on the same van should have a greater penalty, even though the defacement would cost the same in dollars to repair. These acts have the same dollar value but their impact are vastly different, and therefore reasonable to treat differently.

I don't think the same is true for violent crime. I think that having hate crime enhancement on murder, for example, is ridiculous, since the impact on the victim is identical. The same is true for being assaulted during a mugging or being assaulted for your race or orientation. Violent crime should have significant and serious penalties, and enhancements based on "reasons" for the violence only diminish the importance of punishing violence that does not merit enhancements.



Monday, February 21, 2005

How to Argue For Gay Marriage in Red States

"Hey, why the hell wouldn't you want to inflict marriage on those guys?"

"Gays getting married keeps them from marrying hot chicks for medical coverage."

"If a gay guy can marry his brother, it leaves his sister free for the rest of us."


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Protect Our Children!! Innoculate Our Kids Against All Possible Viruses!

I think schools have a responsibility to help prevent the spread of disease in children. Sometimes that requires that children receive innoculations. These innoculations sometimes use a weakened live virus to aid the immune system of the child against a stronger virus.

Religion is a virus. We need to innoculate children against bad virus's from wacko sects by injecting them with safe virus's from mainstream religions. This is no different from using cowpox to protect against smallpox.

By providing children with the basic building blocks of religion, their "immune system" is strengthened against being assaulted by a more lethal strain of any type. Is it a coinicidence that the unswing in violent religions marches along with the removal of religion from school? Did Jim JOnes and David Koresh exist in 1935? Kids should be taught about a loving God and tolerance, not about beheading infidels. I think early indoctrination in a religion of tolerance will make it harder for them to accept a religion of intolerance.

I say increase our childhood innoculation program and prevent the spread of virulent strains of worship. Lets get the AMA on this issue, and the WHO! Keep a weak God in school!

If You Are Not Me, I Don't Like You.

I have often wondered about the way in which we interact with other living things, while secretly not liking any of them. Well, sure, we might like to eat some of them, and some may give us pleasure, but in the end, it is all about “me.”

Do you ever think about the human relationship with potential extraterrestrial life? Whether that life was good or bad, would we not feel a special fealty or bond with our own kind. Kind of a speciesist attitude? Don’t we already display this attitude toward the other species here on Earth?

For example, in theory we like killer whales. Killer whales are few, and worthy of our interest. But if there had to be a choice between one person and a whale, we would choose the person. Even if that person was an escaped convicted child molester, we would kill the whale if it was necessary to save the person, however unworthy of saving.

So even the worthy animals are not equal to humans, let alone the ones that happen to be tasty. Even that dog you claim to love quickly becomes that "damn dog" when he makes a mess on the floor.

But beyond our speciesist attitudes, we also feel that special bond to those in our national region when comparing other humans. When visiting Europe or Asia and you happen upon someone from Canada or Mexico, don’t you feel that special bond, that Europe ort Asia is nice, but they are not like us from the New World? And really, don't these regional differences trump race or sex?

And certainly when in Canada, that bond is even stronger when you meet another American, even if you are from Seattle, and that person is from Philadelphia. You may live physically closer to the Canadians, have similar weather and interests, but the other person is an American, dammit.

But how strong is that bond with the Philadelphian? Certainly when compared to Canadians he is nice, but really, Pennsylvania is not Washington State, and we care about our State and its issues (and sports teams).

But Washington is important only until you start to delineate counties. Clearly those of us in King County are more educated and care more about the world than the hillbillies in other counties, for example. We have to carry those bozos into the 21st century kicking and screaming.

King County is cool, though, until you recognize that within King County, Bellevue is the city that I care about. The rest of King County only matters because that is where Bellevue is. But Bellevue is pretty big, and I really only care about it as the place where my kid’s school is, and neighborhood.

It is a pretty cool neighborhood, too. A lot of nice neighbors. But you know, sometimes I don’t think those neighbors pull their weight. They use loud power tools when I am sleeping or daydreaming, and often have parties and allow their friends to park in front of my house. Their houses are kept up, but not really like I would do it. Plus when it comes down to it, I would have to side with my family over the neighbors in any dispute, right?

I know that my family pulls its weight in this neighborhood.

But really that is only because of my efforts. If it was not for me we would be like the rest of those slobs. Even within the house I know I do more than my fair share. The kids especially get away with everything. Within my family, it is clear to me that I am the one who makes it all happen.

I mean, of course I love my family, and my country, but I guess I really don’t like them, because they are not me.

Thank God that my individual limbs aren’t sentient, because I am pretty sure that my right side feels like it carries the brunt of the work around here…and probably doesn't like the left very much.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Praying to Beets and Mangos

When praying to Beets and Mangos, ensure that you use a 4 inch candle lit by a stick from a young fir tree. Prayers consist of having your thumbs extended, hands joined, elbows touching, and repeating Beets and Mangos make my brain think snow...think snow...think snow...

Only 6th grade girls may belong. 7th graders pray to pineapples.

Monday, February 14, 2005

Ward Churchill and the WTC Victims/Targets

Freedom of Speech Worthy of Protection, Poor Scholarship Worthy of Dismissal, or Both?

Is Freedom of Speech Equal to Freedom from Consequences?

Ward Churchill is the Colorado professor who has been in the news lately for opining that the victims in the WTC were worthy targets deserving of death. He should not be censored and prevented from spouting his opinions, but should he keep his job and be paid to espouse them? Does it matter that his opinion is not only offensive and inflammatory, but stupid and poorly constructed? Can't an academic instution have minimal standards for scholarship including those ideas that are far outside the mainstream? If an English professor starts claiming that punctuation impairs communication, can't the University require that there be an academic basis for the opinion to retain him, or is the state stuck forever with maintaining the English Professor even though he has no reasonable basis for his opinion and is teaching students information that is false? Why would Churchill's opinions be protected from academic standards, but the hypothetical English professor not?

Churchill's main problem is that he is arguing that the victims were targeted because each was individually culpable, and not collateral damage for a valid target. This opinion is academically and factually indefensible, and therefore unworthy of protection and payment from an academic institution. Churchill's ideas fail also because his support for the attacks demands adherence to the cause to be valid, and Churchill's own statements show this is not accurate.

Can a Civilian Office Tower be A Valid Target?

You can craft an argument that the US center of gravity is our economy, the WTC is an economic target, and therefore can be a valid target in war. The ball bearing factories in WWII were similarly valid targets, though the workers individually were just making a living, and trying to feed their kids. They were collateral damage to the war effort, not evil people deserving to be targeted. Another issue is that even if it is a valid target, you must take reasonable efforts to reduce collateral damage. Attacking the WTC at night, for example, would presumably limit the number of deaths, while still causing incredible economic harm. By contrast, bombing raids in WWII during the day were more likely to hit the actual target, and therefore reduced collateral damages in the cities. Arguably you can say that the WTC hijackers were not skilled pilots and needed daylight to hit their targets, but I think the size of the WTC and lights make that argument a poor one. Al Qaeda could have had as much economic impact attacking at midnight and risked far fewer lives, so even on the reasonable collateral damage question, the attack fails.

Valid Targets, or Collateral Damage

Far from trying to defend the numbers of collateral dead, however, Churchill claims that the workers in the WTC were valid targets individually responsible for the alleged suffering in the third world. He offers no specific examples of individuals and their crimes, nor any indication that Al Qaeda targeted them as individuals. Instead, he broadly claims that as a group they were "Little Eichmanns." It is quite clear from Osama Bin Laden's own comments that it was the buildings that were targeted, not the people. The people were killed to hurt the US as a whole, not the individual victims specifically. Churchill is demonstrably wrong in this claim.

Can A Target Be Valid Without a Valid Cause

Before we can get to whether the individuals were even valid collateral, we have to determine if the WTC was a valid economic target for the islamists to attack. A valid target requires a valid war, which requires a valid cause, and I don't agree that the Islamists have a valid cause. The argument has to start there before you can discuss whether attacking our economy is a valid target. Churchill attempts to defend the complaints that he says caused the attacks, but he is again misguided and wrong in his vilification of the West, and America. But even if you assume that the Islamists have valid complaints for which to start a war, you have to also accept their solution, which is destruction of the United States and the West, and worldwide fundamentalist Islam under Sharia. I don't think that is a valid solution and I don't think that those who currently support Churchill agree that it is a valid solution either (other than Islamists themselves). More importantly, Churchill says he does not support world wide Sharia law (though apparently does support destruction of the US). Without a valid solution, you can't have a valid cause, and therefore no valid war or targets.

Churchill's Opinion Fails to Make Sense Logically, and Therefore Can Have Consequences

To support the attack, Churchill must support the whole cause. The cause can not be separated from the proposed solution. Churchill's opinion fails to meet any minimal academic standards by not reconciling this issue. Is this an opinion that the People of Colorado should have to pay for, when he is not even internally consistent, let alone consistent with the leader of the cause he supports?

I think Churchill's arguments supporting the Islamist cause are inconsistent and as poor as his direct attacks on the victims of 9/11 (since he does not support the whole solution offered by the Islamists), and further indication of his poor scholarship and reason for dismissal. This is not restriction of speech, because he is still able to speak, just not paid by the taxpayer to perform poor scholarship. Let him get a blogger site like the rest of us if he wants to prattle on.

Friday, February 04, 2005

Should we Care About Boomer Social Security?

My position is that the baby boomers kept their own income taxes down during their working lives and lived off their own Social Security surplus instead of using that money in a way that would provide income in the future. To fix this they are going to increase the taxes on our children to pay back funds that were used for general fund daily operations of the government. For example, bonds for the Hoover Dam would be a good use of surplus Social Security money. Buying B-1 bombers is not. The difference is that once the Hoover Dam was built it will be used for generations. Military hardware will continue to be needed to be replaced, used, and funded. Our kids won't have to replace the Hoover Dam, while still paying for the last one.

The issue of long term funding of SS is not new, and they had plenty of time to fix it. It is pretty much my same opinion on Medicare prescriptions, where the boomers did not give it to their parents, but want us to give it to them. The bubble has been screwing our economy for a long time.

Boomers as a group have in fact been the dominant political group involved in all decisions of the past 3 decades involving taxes. When they started investing in the stock market, they voted for policies that reduced corporate tax. As they aged and amassed wealth, they reduced taxes on the wealthy. When they started to see old age coming, they voted for a massive expansion of Medicare. I don't think it is a coincidence that those changes followed the demographics of the generation.

The point is that "the Boomer" spent his entire working career paying less income tax to the government to pay for the services delivered because the government was borrowing the money from Social Security instead. That money is due back to the system, and will be paid back by the children of boomers. So the Boomers used their Social Security trust fund to pay for the life style they enjoyed while working, and will now have their children pay for their retirement.

The money borrowed from Social Security to benefit the future and pay for things that will still be around for the children to use is reasonable and the only thing that should be done with that money, since it could not just sit there, and it is too vast an amount of money to invest in the stock market. That is not what occurred. Instead, it was borrowed to pay for day-to-day living, not unlike using credit cards to pay for groceries. When you are later paying the bill for last month's groceries on your credit card, you still need to pay for groceries today. If the SS surplus had been used properly, we would not have crumbling infrastructure in America, and either the income tax rate would have been higher, or the boomers would have less government services.

The boomers spent the majority of their retirement trust fund on "daily expenses," and now want their kids to pay it back, while the kids are still responsible for their own "daily expenses," and their own retirements.



I agree that not all individual Boomers are culpable personally, but they are as a group.

Investing Social Security in the Stock Market

I have been thinking that the stock market itself is in trouble for the same reason that Social Security is in trouble: The baby boom. As the boomers age and start taking their money out of the market rather than putting it in, demand for stocks go down and the market crashes. Putting a portion of Social Security into stocks rather than the general fund actually saves the rest of people's savings (assuming they have 401ks or stocks of any sort).

Plus, since Social Security funds go into the general fund and the government agrees that it is not a guaranteed system, doesn't it make it so some lower income people pay a higher marginal tax rate than higher income people? For example, if someone is self employed (but really anybody because whether the employer pays half for you or you pay it is still your money in my opinion) and making exactly the maximum taxable income for Social Security ($87,900), I think he pays a higher rate than someone making $250,000. Doesn't this argue for removing the cap on Social Security taxes? Wouldn't that solve the problem?

Rough Math:

Income tax schedule:

$0 to $14,300: 10% of the amount over $0
$14,300 to $58,100: $1,430.00 plus 15% of the amount over 14,300
$58,100 to $117,250: $8,000.00 plus 25% of the amount over 58,100
$117,250 to $178,650: $22,787.50 plus 28% of the amount over 117,250
$178,650 to $319,100: $39,979.50 plus 33% of the amount over 178,650
$319,100 to no limit: $86,328.00 plus 35% of the amount over 319,100

$87,900 taxable income
Income tax = 8,000 + 25%(87900-58100) < 7,450> = 15450
+ Social Security tax 12.4%(87,900) = 10899.6
15450+10899.6
= $26349.6 = Total taxes equals 30% of $87,900

Tax rate is 25% from 87,900 to 117, 250. = 7337.5 + 26349.6 = 33687.1 = 28.7 % rate on $117,250.
Tax rate is 28% from 117,250 to $178,650 = 17192 + 33697.1= 50889.1 = 28.5% rate on $178,650.
Tax Rate is 33% from 178,650 to 319,100 = 46348.5 + 50889.1 = 97237.6 = 30.5% rate on $319,100.

$250,000 23545.5+ 50889.1= 74434.6 = 29.7% of $250,000
$275,000 31795.5 + 50889.1 = 82684.6 = 30.06% of $275,000

So it appears to me that someone making up to $275,000 dollars a year is paying a lower percentage to the general fund than someone making $87,900. I don't believe in a graduated tax system, but it certainly should not be upside down.




Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Death Penalty Continued...

Some have argued that it is juries, not the government, that sentence defendants to death and  therefore Conservatives can trust the results and not think about the government aspect.

However, the jury generally only sees the evidence provided by the government. Few defendants can compete with the government financially to provide counter evidence or exculpatory evidence. Crime scenes are controlled by the police and evidence found there (or not found there) is due to the government. Government crime labs have had continuous scandals due to government experts falsifying reports or just doing sloppy work.

Elected judges and prosecutors are rewarded for convictions and death sentences (by reelection). They are not impartial.

And these are the same juries that most Conservatives think give wildly outrageous awards based on junk science to plaintiffs, and yet they trust them with someone's life?

Original Post:
Wednesday, January 19, 2005

Death Penalty and the Conservative View
My biggest problem with the death penalty is not that I care about the rights of a murderer, or whether it is a deterrent, or how much it costs. I simply do not trust our government enough to decide life and death. Just like I don't want the government to be in charge of my health care, retirement, or sexual choices, I don't want the government to choose life and death, where the inevitable mistake is one that can never be corrected.

I have never understood why those with a view of government as being inept, corrupt, and parochial would then insist that it should have the power to kill.


More on GITMO and SCOTUS

Re:  In Response to the GWOT Being New Ground Because It Will Never End…And Our Recent Wars Have Been Short

We are on new ground in that there is no sovereign with which to do a prisoner exchange, which would typically be how prisoners go home during long conflicts. Plus, even if we could make some sort of prisoner deal with Al Qaeda (such as release on condition that they no longer fight, and if captured again they would be summarily shot), would we not be legitimizing and negotiating with terrorists?

I agree that our recent skirmishes have been short, but that is a very short view of history. Certainly there have been EPWs kept for many years such as in WWII, and internationally even longer:

Earlier this month, a delegation from the International Committee of the Red Cross visited some prisoners held by the Polisario and handed out blankets and medical supplies.

Almost 200 of the Moroccans still in captivity have been held for more than 20 years, according to the ICRC.



I don't know how long we kept prisoners captured during Vietnam, but our prisoners were kept for many years (I think 10 was the longest). Even McCain was held for 5 years.

One of the problems I see with this is that these people could have been killed outright on the battlefield with essentially no recourse. If we set up a system where soldiers know that enemies they capture may be released back to the battle because there was insufficient evidence to hold them, aren't they more likely to make sure that they never get the opportunity? The system as it is now is enforceable and workable for those at the sharp end of the stick.

The thing about the Geneva Conventions is that it makes sense: It never requires anything that would hurt the strategic interests of the US. By applying a new legal standard to those captured on the battlefield we are creating something that will harm the strategic interests of the US, and we are creating a requirement that cannot be met using any reasonable standards. If the standards are such that the military can meet them, then it is an exercise in futility because the prisoners will just be kept after the military states they were on the battlefield, and if it requires evidence that would meet some level of civilian or constitutional standard, it is unworkable and harmful to those who might otherwise be captured.

SCOTUS and GITMO

Re: Recent ruling in Federal Court on Tribunals:
I think the SCOTUS is going to side with the administration that the tribunals were good enough. The Tribunals were only required because of the Geneva Conventions, not because of the Constitution. During the first Gulf War we had hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers captured as prisoners of war. Are we suggesting that each of them should have access to the courts?

I agree that the administration made a mistake by not granting EPW status to GITMO, but only as a strategic error. During war, enemy prisoners have the right to humane treatment, and no more. Giving access to the court is unworkable and violates the general deference the Courts have given the military.

The one good thing about the Courts is that it takes so long to do anything. When the Courts do review the military, at is usually well after the fact and not during an operation. Courts can rule and effect future operations by changing the law, but it is unworkable for the courts to administer current operations.

If in fact in the future we plan to give every EPW a trial, we will need Congress to fund and the Executive to build entire systems to handle the issue.

And frankly, I don't know what possible standard can be applied. Do we expect soldiers to act like policemen on the battle field, seal off the area, collect evidence, and submit a report to a prosecutor? It is unworkable, unreasonable, and has never been done by any military past or present.

We almost certainly do have non-combatants in GITMO and other prisons. We also kill non-combatants (as collateral) during the same operations. War is hell and should be avoided, but I see no way we can reasonably separate out the non-combatants from the combatants once they have been detained and removed from the battlefield.

If we decide to try any individual for crimes, then clearly the courts, evidence, and rules apply. But that is not the current situation.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

How Can the Left Denigrate Iraqi Elections?

There appears to be a movement from leftist websites that try and reduce the importance of Iraqi elections. How can "the Left" not think an election among multiple parties is important?

Maybe the problem is that there are Machievellian responses to issues that individuals have opinions on but don't care much about. For example, I don't like the Republican line on gay marriage, and I think that the right answer is that it is an issue of contract that adults can enter (whether same sex, multiple partner, or traditional), but it is not an issue that I care much about (since I want neither same sex nor multiple marriages personally). I can celebrate gains that Republicans make by demagoging this issue so that they have the power to do what I do care about, like international relations.

If, therefore, it is not an issue that matters to me, I probably don't have well developed thoughts on it, and I can have a knee jerk reaction to "my side winning" whether I agree with "my side" or not. My guess is that a lot of the denigration by the left (and mindless celebration on the right) on the elections in Iraq is from people who think of this as ancillary to their true issues.

Links
The Antagonist's Reserve Drill Payment Calculator
 
 The Antagonist's 2005 Reserve Drill Payment Calculator

What is your pay grade?


What is your minimum Time in Service?

Enter the number of drill periods.

 Bible Search
Translation :



Search For :
Powered by : Antagonism on the Web
I'm poor.
It's official.
There are 39,597,565 richer people on earth!



How rich are you? >>