Every day, at some point, I like to read the comics. I'd even go so far as to say that my day isn't complete until I've read them. But I don't read the paper, so I get my comics fix from Comics.com.
I actually get a lot more comics than are offered in my local paper and only have to miss a couple of the ones that are offered in the paper. Like Cathy. Not a big loss there.
But one of the things that I've noticed is that there is a slight Liberal slant to a lot of the comics. Not a real surprise. But I'll also be the first to admit to some of them having a definite Conservative angle. B.C. immediately jumps to mind.
All of this leads me to something that's popped up in the last couple of weeks. After the Supreme Court ruled that it was Constitutional for local governments to take your property away as long as they were going to get more taxes, several comics have had plots revolving around that issue. But they all are coming from the point that it's the BIG BUSINESSES who are the bad guys. And that they are being backed by the evil Republicans.
What they don't seem to realize is that it's the BIG GOVERNMENT that is the bad-guy here. The Liberals in the Supreme Court basically allowed a law that is against the Fifth Amendment on the basis of more taxes being de-facto good for the public. Basically saying that it is alright for the local government to force you to sell your property even if it is going to another private owner or larger business, as long as more tax revenue will probably be generated.
If this was an issue forced by Conservatives, the whole law would be that local government could not prevent someone from selling their home to a big business as long as both parties agree to the contract.
This has actually been a problem in some of the suburbs of Buffalo in recent years. A couple of the 'burbs, with images to maintain have successfully prevented some of the larger businesses, like Wal-mart, Tops, and Target from putting up new sites. Usually by not allowing them zoning approval, but sometimes by direct legal action.
And just this last week, one town passed a low banning drive-thrus at new businesses. (The McDonalds gets grand-fathered in, and can keep their's.) The only businesses that this will hurt are the proposed Starbucks and Tim Horton's. Although, some also want to use it to remove the bank drive-thru tellers as well.
Ostensibly, this was promoted as a way to "maintain the image of the town." But one of the leading proponents, on local radio, said that it was a way to reduce vehicle emissions in the town. Apparently, sitting in line idling for 5 minutes causes more greenhouse gases than finding a parking-spot, turning off the car, restarting it 10 minutes later after waiting in line inside the store, restarting the car (when most of the wear and tear is done to an engine), and then trying to back out while 2 more people are trying to get into your parking spot. Yeah, that cuts a lot of emissions.
The best part of that interview was when the host commented that if she wanted to cut down on her driving that was one thing, but did she really think that she had the right to tell others what to do, she replied, "Of course." Basically the same old I'm smarter than you, so do what I say. mentality.
Posted by GEBIV at August 1, 2005 02:36 PM | TrackBackAnd Mallard Fillmore - which would be good if it were ever funny.
Anyway, where was it ever written that a legitimate goal of government is to "maintain the image of the town."
Load o' crap, that one. Idiots.
Posted by: Harvey at August 1, 2005 03:47 PM