Eminent domain, imminent doom
I don't want to say much on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Kelo v. New London that essentially gives the government the right to confiscate privately-owned land and use it for its own purposes, under the guise of the public good. Knowing little about the decision beyond what I've read in the papers and seen on TV, [which may have been distorted by liberal media (suppressed laughter)], I doubt I have much to contribute.
What irritates me is how the Justices voted, and what it means for the modern definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". In an editorial yesterday, conservative columnist George Will (who, while often insightful, should still stick with baseball) writes about how the Court's ruling represents a triumph for liberals everywhere.
I would really suggest Will meet and actually talk to some liberals sometime. Because the most liberal people I know, among them Jeff and Ben, are appalled by the decision. I, a social radical and economic moderate, agree with them.
This is an interesting turn of events: I never thought I would agree with Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist on anything. And then, first pro-medical marijuana and now anti-eminent domain, and suddenly I'm about to call them liberal, while Will maintains that their actions are conservative. Whose definition is the right one? Classically, these votes would be conservative in nature, but in the modern sense of the word, the conservative vote would be against medical marijuana (boo personal privacy) and in favor of eminent domain (yay corporations). As the great Homer Simpson once emoted, "I'm living in a cuckoo clock!"
And yes, the title of this post is over-dramatized. I just like the play on words.
Song lyric of the day:
"What's this you say? You feel a right to remain?
Then stay and I will bury you
What's that you say? Your father's spirit still lives in this place?
Well, I will silence you"
- Dave Matthews Band, Don't Drink the Water
What irritates me is how the Justices voted, and what it means for the modern definitions of "liberal" and "conservative". In an editorial yesterday, conservative columnist George Will (who, while often insightful, should still stick with baseball) writes about how the Court's ruling represents a triumph for liberals everywhere.
I would really suggest Will meet and actually talk to some liberals sometime. Because the most liberal people I know, among them Jeff and Ben, are appalled by the decision. I, a social radical and economic moderate, agree with them.
This is an interesting turn of events: I never thought I would agree with Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist on anything. And then, first pro-medical marijuana and now anti-eminent domain, and suddenly I'm about to call them liberal, while Will maintains that their actions are conservative. Whose definition is the right one? Classically, these votes would be conservative in nature, but in the modern sense of the word, the conservative vote would be against medical marijuana (boo personal privacy) and in favor of eminent domain (yay corporations). As the great Homer Simpson once emoted, "I'm living in a cuckoo clock!"
And yes, the title of this post is over-dramatized. I just like the play on words.
Song lyric of the day:
"What's this you say? You feel a right to remain?
Then stay and I will bury you
What's that you say? Your father's spirit still lives in this place?
Well, I will silence you"
- Dave Matthews Band, Don't Drink the Water
2 Comments:
Being liberal and conservative is contrary in meaning.They have comparison but can be related depending on how a person define it.
Just to differentiate the two.
Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual freedom.On the other hand,Conservatism is a political attitude and philosophy that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically ,thus emphasizing stability and continuity.
Post a Comment
<< Home