MONDAY 9/29/03

WAL-MART IS AFTER MORE PROPERTY

When I first told you about the land grab in Alabaster, Alabama I mentioned that the stolen land was eventually going to be used for a shopping center which would be anchored by a Wal-Mart.  Many of you wrote to Wal-Mart's corporate offices complaining.  Wal-Mart responded saying that they were not behind the attempt to seize the property from the Alabaster 12, but if the developer did happen to get its hands on the property they would be more than happy to build a Wal-Mart there.

Sorry, but I'm beginning to think that Wal-Mart isn't as innocent as they would like you to believe in these spreading land grab cases. The first paragraph of a story in Friday's Denver Post reads:

"Denver officials on Thursday offered to help Wal-Mart's plan for a west-side superstore by threatening to force tenants and owners to move from the site."

So, it's happening again. This time in Denver.  Post reporter Mark Couch writes " .. the retailer also wants the city to use its power to force tenants and owners at the Alameda Square center to move if Wal-Mart cannot negotiate deals with them.

Yeah .. that's the American way, isn't it?  You locate a place for a retail store.  You try to buy the land from the owners.  Then, if the owners don't want to sell, or if they want too much money, you just go marching off to your buddies down at the local city council and get them to use their police power to just by-God take the property.  That will show those pesky property owners, won't it?

Isn't Wal-Mart supposed to be an all-American business, a shining example of what happens when hard work is applied to the great American free enterprise system?  Tell me, please ... just where in the great free enterprise handbook do you find that section about using the government to force people to leave their homes and business so that your can build a Wal-Mart?  Somehow that's just not the way I thought it was taught in business school.

I might be wrong here, but I don't think so.  I even went on-line over the weekend to look at the course offerings of some business schools.  I guess my Internet search skills are just a bit rusty, because for the life of me I couldn't find a course entitled "Using the police power of government to steal the best business location."

Well -- they're teaching this somewhere.  After all, the directs of Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper's office of economic development says that "We're doing this because it's the right thing to do."  This is America in 2003.  A spokesman for the mayor of a major American city says that using the police power of government to seize property from its rightful owner and then turning that property over to Wal-Mart for a superstore is "the right thing to do."  Like hell.  Under just what concept of private property and property rights is this the "right thing to do?"

I'm thrilled to learn that others are taking note of this epidemic of eminent domain abuse.  CBS's 60 Minutes had a feature on the subject last night.  I understand 60 Minutes featured a case about a homeowner near Cleveland.  In this cast the government wants to take the  house so a developer can build some fancy condos.  You can get many more condos on a plot of ground than you can single-family homes.  This, of course, means more tax money.  To legitimize the theft of this property the city has designated the targeted homes as "blighted."  Evidently in this Cleveland suburb "blighted" is defined as not having a 2-car attached garage and enough bathrooms.  In understand that under that definition even the mayor's home is blighted.  Ditto for quite a few city council members.

60 Minutes even managed to include a reference to The New York Times' use of eminent domain to seize an entire Manhattan city block for a new headquarters building, thus kicking many long-time business owners out of their property.  Quite a stunt for the "newspaper of record," don't you think?

You may think that this is not your fight ... it's just not worth your precious attention.  If you love freedom, this is your problem.  This movement to abuse eminent domain rights purely for the purpose of increasing tax revenues is a grave threat to economic liberty in this country.  There is no economic liberty without property rights.  What good is your right to work in order to enhance your wealth if the government can simply seize your wealth when the opportunity for political gain presents itself?  Yes, I know, the government has to pay you for your property; but not your price, it's a price determined by government agents.  Good luck.

RUSSERT OBSESSES

Last night I watched a tape of yesterday's Meet the Press telecast.  Tim Russert had Condoleezza Rice on the air, Bush's National Security Advisor.  Russert gets about 45 minutes of actual air time during one of these programs ... the other minutes go to pay the bills.  For the first one-quarter of the broadcast Russert hammered Rice on Bush's now infamous 16 words in his State of the Union Address.  You remember the words ... Bush said that British intelligence had learned that Saddam had tried to buy some uranium from Africa.  That statement is factually correct.  British intelligence had, in fact, made just such an assessment.

In 1991 our security analysts felt that Saddam would have a workable nuclear weapon by the end of the decade, if, that is, something wasn't done to stop him.  It was also know for a certainty that Saddam had previously purchased uranium from Niger.  In 1998 Saddam Hussein kicked the inspectors out of Iraq.  From 1998 until 2002, a period of four years, there were no inspections in Iraq.  Saddam had a free reign to act.  During this period America was attacked.  Other attacks had been planned but were averted, one by an alert female Philippine policewoman who became suspicious when told of some firecrackers that had gone off in a Manila apartment.

So ... here's your scenario.  You're the president, and here is the information you have:

1. America is under attack.  Islamic terrorists are actively trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can.
2. There was and is evidence that Saddam Hussein was supporting Islamic terrorists.  Saddam himself was making a big show of writing checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
3. You know that Saddam Hussein had both chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
4. You know that Saddam had already killed thousands of Iranians and Kurds with his chemical weapons.
5. You know that Saddam had begun one nuclear program, using uranium from Africa.  That program was slowed when Israeli fighter jets destroyed his nuclear facility in 1986.
6. Saddam had ignored 12 years of United Nations resolutions calling for him to destroy all of the equipment and materials connected with his chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, and to present evidence to the UN that he had done so.
7. In 1998 Saddam ended all inspections in Iraq.  During the very time that terrorist attacks against the United States were reaching a new peak, and during this time you have no way of figuring out what Saddam is up to within his own borders.
8. You know that Saddam hates the United States and has a particular hatred for your father, the first President Bush.
9. You firmly believe that if Saddam managed to develop a nuclear device, he could, in all probability, make that device available to a terrorist organization.
10. You also know that our security efforts at our borders and ports would be completely ineffective in detecting and stopping a nuclear device from entering this country.

So, what do you do?  With that information can you really afford to sit back and just watch Saddam?  Can Saddam be watched that closely?  Could Saddam be watched closely enough to insure that he would not place either chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in the hands of any terrorist group?  This man, Saddam Hussein, was absolutely refusing to abide by any of the 17 UN resolutions.  The burden of proof had been on Saddam.  Prove that you have destroyed your weapons.  Show us how you did it.  Show us where you did it.  Give us the documentation.  Show us that those weapons and those weapons systems are gone and we'll  leave you alone.  But Saddam refused.

You're the president here, and you have two possible screw-ups you can commit.  You can attack Saddam and then fail to find those weapons of mass destruction.  Or, you can give Saddam more time and then try to explain to the American people why a nuclear device was detonated in the center of Chicago, or why thousands were killed when a poison gas was spread throughout the New York Subway system. 

Which mistake do you want?  Which screw-up do you want to explain to the American people?  Do you really want to try to explain to the American people that after Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998 that you thought he went on and did just exactly what the UN had demanded of him, and then didn't tell anybody?

Sometimes there are no really good choices.  Sometimes you have to chose between two options on the basis of which one would lead to the worst consequences, not necessarily the best result.  True leaders can make those decisions.  Demagogues cannot.

DOES THIS MAKE ME A BAD PERSON

When I went out to my car in the parking garage this morning I noticed another car parked nearby with its parking lights burning.  I had no idea who's car it was, but I knew what they had done the night before.

That car probably came into the garage at just about dusk.  Driving home that driver had turned on his parking lights instead of his headlights when it started to get dark.  When he got home he left the car without turning off the parking lights.  There goes the old battery.

Now if he had turned his headlights on they would have gone off automatically after he left the car.  Not so with the parking lights.

Now, for the "does this make me a bad person" part.  I smiled at the thought of this person having to jump start a car.  Here is someone who doesn't recognize the difference between "headlights" and "parking lights."  Here is someone who thinks that those little orange lights are actually labeled "Not quite dark enough for headlights lights."

Oh well .. just one of my pet driving peeves.  Add this to BMW drivers with that extra set of headlights they're so proud of, people who put their emergency flashers on when they drive in the rain, and drivers who wouldn't know a turn signal from a dildo.

WHAT IS GRAY DAVIS GOING TO DO?

Gray Davis has a habit of getting really vicious and nasty during the last few days of a tough campaign.  He likes to level spurious charges at opponents at the very last minute, leaving precious little time for the object of his smears to respond. 

Well, here we are in the final days of the California recall election.  Polls are showing that Gray Davis is going to be booted, and that Arnold is going to take his place.  The election is next Tuesday.  Gray Davis' desperation could make for a very interesting week indeed.  Who knows, maybe he'll disclose that all of Arnold's muscles are really implants.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

The latest CNN poll sure makes it look like The Terminator is going to be the next governor of California.  Poor sap.

Cruz Bustamante, who stands a pretty good chance of being the next governor of California, really doesn't believe that there is any such thing as illegal immigration.

Ted Turner isn't optimistic about the world's future.  Turner actually says that there's a 50-50 chance that man will be extinct within 50 years.  He's actually hiding in a sandbox waiting for nuclear Armageddon.  Twenty years ago Turner said that there would be no newspapers left in ten years. In spite of this there are actually people out there who will take this man seriously.

The United Nations has just opened its general session in New York.  Here's a good overview of the post-Saddam UN.

I just know many of you spent your weekend wondering what Barbra Streisand thinks about big government.  Well, she must have read your mind, because the great and wonderful Barbra has posted an essay on big government on her website.  So, here you go: Babs pontificates on the issue of "big government."  Hint:  Barbra thinks that big government is a myth.

Well well well.  It seems that super-leftist Howard Dean is finally hitting back.  He's saying some ugly things about Democratic party insiders who are backing Wesley Clark's candidacy.  OK .. so he's upset with the party insiders.  Why didn't he name them?  The specific party insiders who brought Wesley Clark to this contest were Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Remember the Patriot Act? We were told, weren't we, that the extraordinary powers under this law were necessary to fight the war on terrorism, right?  OK, fine.  Then tell me please why this Patriot Act  is being used for so many criminal investigations in this country, like petty drug cases, that have no connection with terrorism?  Lesson:  If you give the government power .. it will use that power.  It will use 100% of that power, and more.

Now .. here's an interesting twist.  Time Magazine suggests Saddam Hussein merely "thought" that he had these weapons.  Is it possible that his own scientists were lying to him to curry his favor?  Well ... that's a thought, but were those imaginary chemical weapons that Saddam used on Iranians and Kurds?

OK ... So smokers are stupid.  Every time one of these addicts lights up in public they send a signal that they're weak, stupid or both.  It's OK to make fun of them, but trying to stop them from smoking in their cars is a bit much.  They need to see that film on the inside of their windows to remind them of what they're doing to their bodies.

Don't we all know that the media reporting from Iraq is basically one-sided?  If a media outlet dares to say anything positive about what's happening in Iraq that particular newspaper or television network is immediately branded as being "right wing."  Well, I guess that make's John Leo right wing.  Here he makes the case about the inaccurate reporting from Iraq.

Here's a question for you. Although you may have an easy time answering this question, others, particularly Democrats and liberals, find it really tough.  Where would you rather have the terrorists pursuing their battle against America?  Over there, or right here at home?

When comedians turn mean.  I guess that we're talking Al Franken here.

Why do young people stay away from the polls on election day?  Blame it on government education, especially our social studies classes.

NEALZ LINKS FOR NUZE

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
World Net Daily
NewsMax
Wall Street Journal opinions
Washington Times
Washington Post
Real Clear Politics
Media Research Center
The Drudge Report
The Associated Press
SF Gate