tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post115112625836647264..comments2023-11-05T23:25:31.498+11:00Comments on Wot Is It Good 4: Sears terroristsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151285322648011932006-06-26T11:28:00.000+10:002006-06-26T11:28:00.000+10:00uranus. thanks for that. nice to see you.I'm not r...uranus. thanks for that. nice to see you.<BR/><BR/>I'm not really sure of the purpose of this EO - it looks like a PR reaction to Kelo. Section3 seems quite reasonable/standard stuff. I'm more interested in Section One - which doesnt really seem to say anything at all. the "not merely" bit is quite a worry. they seem to be saying that they can take private property for some 3rd party private benefit - so long as they can ALSO justify it on any of the other 3 grounds - which would be easy for them to do in many cases.lukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151284117094917172006-06-26T11:08:00.000+10:002006-06-26T11:08:00.000+10:00teemu - thnx. nice catch. these people really are ...teemu - thnx. nice catch. these people really are mind (and logic) bending.lukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151283855190441722006-06-26T11:04:00.000+10:002006-06-26T11:04:00.000+10:00miguel - yeah - EW connected the Sears story and t...miguel - yeah - EW connected the Sears story and the Stinger sting today http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/06/gwot_an_assessm.htmllukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151267584219425442006-06-26T06:33:00.000+10:002006-06-26T06:33:00.000+10:00(i am keith urban)(i am keith urban)lukeryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13280906371216516750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151261539714295212006-06-26T04:52:00.000+10:002006-06-26T04:52:00.000+10:00i think the comment above by Uranus is pretty damn...i think the comment above by Uranus is pretty damn interesting although it's pushing other shit out of what's left of my mind.<BR/><BR/>but i came here to say you should fess up and tell us all about nicole kidman's wedding (cause it's so obvious that's where you disappeared to). ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151164261354619212006-06-25T01:51:00.000+10:002006-06-25T01:51:00.000+10:00Hello, I'm new and am enjoying reading your blog v...Hello, I'm new and am enjoying reading your blog very much. I took this from Americablog's comments yesterday. It's a new executive order:<BR/><BR/><I>Executive Order: Protecting the Property Rights of the American People <BR/><BR/><BR/>By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to strengthen the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property, it is hereby ordered as follows: <BR/><BR/>Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken. <BR/><BR/>Sec. 2. Implementation. (a) The Attorney General shall: <BR/><BR/>(i) issue instructions to the heads of departments and agencies to implement the policy set forth in section 1 of this order; and <BR/><BR/>(ii) monitor takings by departments and agencies for compliance with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order. <BR/><BR/>(b) Heads of departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law: <BR/><BR/>(i) comply with instructions issued under subsection (a)(i); and <BR/><BR/>(ii) provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines necessary to carry out subsection (a)(ii). <BR/><BR/>Sec. 3. Specific Exclusions. Nothing in this order shall be construed to prohibit a taking of private property by the Federal Government, that otherwise complies with applicable law, for the purpose of: <BR/><BR/>(a) public ownership or exclusive use of the property by the public, such as for a public medical facility, roadway, park, forest, governmental office building, or military reservation; <BR/><BR/>(b) projects designated for public, common carrier, public transportation, or public utility use, including those for which a fee is assessed, that serve the general public and are subject to regulation by a governmental entity; <BR/><BR/>c) conveying the property to a nongovernmental entity, such as a telecommunications or transportation common carrier, that makes the property available for use by the general public as of right; <BR/><BR/>(d) preventing or mitigating a harmful use of land that constitutes a threat to public health, safety, or the environment; <BR/><BR/>(e) acquiring abandoned property; <BR/><BR/>(f) quieting title to real property; <BR/><BR/>(g) acquiring ownership or use by a public utility; <BR/><BR/>(h) facilitating the disposal or exchange of Federal property; or <BR/><BR/>(i) meeting military, law enforcement, public safety, public transportation, or public health emergencies. <BR/><BR/>Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. <BR/><BR/>(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: <BR/><BR/>(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency or the head thereof; or <BR/><BR/>(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals. <BR/><BR/>(c) This order shall be implemented in a manner consistent with Executive Order 12630 of March 15, 1988. <BR/><BR/>(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. <BR/><BR/>GEORGE W. BUSH <BR/><BR/>THE WHITE HOUSE, <BR/><BR/>June 23, 2006.</I><BR/><BR/>Correct me if I'm wrong--maybe my reading comprehension has gone south--but from Section 3 down, isn't this order facilitating the federal government's taking of private property, not protecting it? Are we to go the way of the native Americans? If so, I'll meet you all down at the public crematorium.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151152080467908162006-06-24T22:28:00.000+10:002006-06-24T22:28:00.000+10:00Chertoff about admin transparency re: tracking of ...Chertoff about admin transparency re: tracking of financial transfers in Examiner (<A HREF="http://www.examiner.com/a-158586~White_House_becoming_more_secretive_after_leaks.html" REL="nofollow">link</A>):<BR/><BR/><I>"Not only have these individual releases of classified stuff been damaging, but in the aggregate, it has led to a general impression that nothing is a secret and that causes people to ever more closely hold the information,"<BR/>...<BR/>"You actually deprive the decision makers and the president of the ability to get the full range of advice because - if the president has to worry that talking to people who have important things to say is going to result in something getting out - he's not going to have that conversation. And that's going to drive exactly the kind of insularity that the press claims they don't like."</I><BR/><BR/>See, admin is eager to be open about its actions, but it's the nosy press that's preventing them...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151148697285580512006-06-24T21:31:00.000+10:002006-06-24T21:31:00.000+10:00Luke,I don't know a heck of a lot about the whole ...Luke,<BR/>I don't know a heck of a lot about the whole "Sears terrorists" story, but I suspect if you peel it back, it's much ado about nothing. Most likely, these were 7 or 8 chuckleheads who didn't have the capability of burning down a little girl's dollhouse, much less take down a major skyscraper.<BR/><BR/>It reminds me of the "sting operation" against some guy who supposedly was trying to sell Stinger missiles to al-Qaeda. As it turned out later, the individual in question didn't even know where to obtain the offending weapons.<BR/><BR/>BTW, before my father went to work for the slime at Northrup, he worked 15 years in the Sears Tower.Miguelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15674950013243401071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1151137164001344752006-06-24T18:19:00.000+10:002006-06-24T18:19:00.000+10:00have a good tii-iiiime! :-)ps, *snigger* (i watche...have a good tii-iiiime! :-)<BR/><BR/>ps, *snigger* (i watched PF again the other night and thought of you, Mr Wolf).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com