Posted 21:09 by Grote 0 comments

30 Years ago yesterday

On April 25th, 1976, Rick Monday was plying center field for the Chicago Cubs in Dodger Stadium. He heard the crowd begin to roar when nothing was happening so he looked around. It happens that some guy and his son (who was only 11!) were trying to burn the American flag. Monday, being a former Marine Reservist did the only thing that came naturally to him. He raced over a stole the flag away (before it got lit) and gave it to the Dodgers pitcher, while police arrested the man and his son.


You can listen to Dodger's announcer Vin Scully's call of the happenings here (the link is near the top of the page).

Posted 20:46 by Grote 1 comments

Usually I agree with George Will

I said usually. but not this time. In his latest commentary he goes after Norwood, Ohio (a suburb of Cincinnati). He plays to the heartstrings, citing this poor old couple who didn't want to sell to developers. Poor couple, they were thrown out of their home by the big bad government. Except he leaves out more than a few things. 1) He doesn't present a second side of the story. He just uses Norwood to illustrate why eminent domain and how it's used in it's current form is evil. 2) He doesn't provide ANY facts to the contrary, did he see what the neighborhood was like before houses were razed. (I saw it a lot, it was rundown, falling apart and some houses were even vacated). 3) He doesn't mention that owners were offered well more than the worth of their property. 4)That the vast majority, with a few execptions, sold at the drop of a hat to the developer and the residents who sold forced the city's hand so they could collect and move on. 5) The city *WAS* bankrupt. There was no end in sight, the new buildings and what not were a welcome genesis for the city. 6) There is no liscened nursing home within walking distance of said house in Norwood that I know of. 7)The city forced no one to sell until the end. 8) Sidewalks are the property owners responsiblity not city's. 9)The developers offered to a) pay more than the property is worth to the Gambles b)send them on a cruise, at the developers' cost and c)pay for the Gambles' moving expenses but the Institute for social justice nixed the idea wanting to further the media story. Also, it should be mentioned that the Institute for Social Justice is a PAC centered in Washington, D.C. 10)The ISJ has made the Gambles' available for interviews at every opportunity. At this time, in the interest of full disclosure, I should offer up that I'm related to one of the council members. Which why I know more than George Will.

But it's a commentary, he doesn't need to provide an alternate point of view, he just needs to rile people up and cause trouble like a good backpage of a NATIONAL news magazine commentator should. I'm not saying that the Supreme Court did was entirely right. Eminent domain is HUGE gray area. It can't be ruled upon with a big paintbrush. You have to take it by a case to case basis. In Dayton (my town) the city used eminent domain on Brown Street to take out the chop shops and the crack houses to build affordable housing for low-income families and restaurants for the campus and local business people. Business is booming and the city was correct to call it the genesis project.

He makes passing mention of the New London, CT Supreme Court case in his column. He compares it to Dred Scot v. Sanford and Roe v. Wade. What you didn't want to bring out the race card with Plessy v. Ferguson, Will? I'll be the first to admit what New London, CT did was down right wrong, but I guess he couldn't find a elderly couple to use to advance his cause. So, he went to the next town that used eminent domain. Unfortunately, he didn't check his facts first, and I predict he'll end up with egg on his face. Then again facts might not matter to reporters in this day and age anymore.