Monthly Archive for October, 2006

One of the things I love about Google is that it can open some pretty amazing windows into a broad cross section of humanity. I’m trying to work on a paper for my Distributed Cognition class, and I tossed “this is what I wanted for myself” into my Google search box. This is what comes back:

Tomorrow, I will go out in Tel Aviv for a few drinks to mark the day, with new friends. In October I will go to London, then back to Brooklyn – and then? Back to Israel? Some other trip? Or a return to puttering? Regardless, this is what I wanted for myself; I think this is the life I’d choose if you gave me a list of lives and a number 2 pencil. After tomorrow, I will keep up my drift, living in 3-month blocks, staying smoke, until I find something, or someone, of such magnetic pull that I cannot be pulled away, something that condenses my disparate atoms into a cloud, so that I can rain back to the pavement.

This is the best blog I have read thus far and the most beautiful description of what a wife should mean to someone. This is what I saw from my own parents growing up. This is what I wanted for myself but did not get. This is what I get so pissed off and angry trying to explain to a partner who is older than me and from the South to boot!!

I was actually quite surprised by how quiet I was about being cut – I definitely was trying to keep it a secret from my “normal” friends. For the first time with my mods I was worried about how other people would see me. I was worried they would think I was maladjusted or unstable. The thought of my friends saying “He’s a freak!” was quite disconcerting. However, I thought I must go through with this. This is what I want for myself, after all I am just being me!

I joined the military because I believe in my country and wanted to serve. When I think of an American solider, I see discipline and honor. This is what I wanted for myself. I also thought that by joining the military, I would “cure” myself of feelings that society said weren’t natural.

I remember the frustration with myself during those earlier years. I would start counting my calories and exercising. My weight would fall. I would sometimes reach my goal weight and sometimes not, but it didn’t matter either way, because my weight would climb right back up after I grew tired of the diet. Today I am not tired, because I am not on a diet. Today my lifestyle sustains my weight at my target weight, without straining or paining me. For years this is what I wanted for myself. I just never thought I would have it.

when i needed you the most…you turned your back. when i called you, you didnt answer. now that Im losin my mind no one seems to care. you laugh and say aw shes crazy. no one knows what i know or feels how i feel. what if things were different. when i think of when i was little i try to remember if this is what i wanted for myself. regardless this is what i got and my decisions affect me and only me. ive lost everything that i have known. i have lost my friends and apparently my family. i have thought about my real mom a lot lately. i was asked “what would your mom think of you?” my answer to this is i honestly think my mom would be DAMN proud of me. i am surviving. mentally not so good to only be 18 but hey ill live. i often wonder why me? no one has an answer. then i realize that it was all me and my choices that got me where i am. i wish people would let me learn on my own and not judge me for the choices that i make. i mean everyone was a teenager once….did they not mess up? i dont do drugs, and im not pregnant…what more could you ask for? i have a job makin damn good money…so….

Some controversy has been happening out here in California about a proposed law called “Prop 90″. Some people think it’s pretty evil, and that it’s going to “make it virtually impossible for our state and local governments to do their job of protecting the wildlife” (as a colleague of mine suggests).

I went and did some research on this, and I think Prop 90 is actually a good thing.

First of all, Prop 90 is a response to actions in this and other states where state governmetns took private citizens’ homes and businesses away from them and sold it to other private citizens. This was apparently justified because the redevelopment was deemed to serve some “public use”. Some pretty slummy neighborhoods were seized and then sold to developers. I personally think that’s a violation of the property rights given to us by the U.S. constitution, but our current Supreme Court disagrees.

Prop 90 provides much stronger language on this matter. It explicitly prohibits the transfer of property “in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party”. I think most people agree this is a good thing.

The controversial part of the law is that it also strengthens the language regarding how the state has to compensate citizens for “damage” to their property caused by legislation. The people fighting Prop 90 are worried that people will claim that legislation has “damaged” them in some pretty bogus ways. Here’s the scenario:

In theory, if Prop 90 is passed, people who own wetlands and want to build on them will apply to do so, the state will deny them a permit, and then they’ll file for compensation under Prop 90. They’ll get some compensation, this will drain the state’s coffers, and make legislators more hesitant to protect wetlands.

Here’s the thing:

1) It doesn’t apply to old laws. So, if land is already zoned as wetlands, owners get nothing.

2) If the government rezones your property as wetlands, they only have to pay “fair market value” which is “the highest price the property would bring on the open market”. They don’t have to pay for the value of what you might build there, just the value of the land, and only its value on the open market.

Honestly, this seems fair to me. If I have some land that I’m allowed to build on, and the government changes the law so that I am no longer allowed, it would be nice to get back what I paid for the property, when I thought I could build there.

I think it’s a fair way to protect people affected by shifting legislation. And I think it is a WONDERFUL affirmation of emminent domain laws, which are not nearly as strong as most of us would like.

It seems possible that this will start a mini market of real estate speculation, wherein investors seek out land that they think is “improperly zoned” with no intention of building on it, just to incite an eminent domain action so that they can claim compensation. However, the compensation they’ll get will be roughly what they paid for it, so there’s not much incentive there for speculation.

In the end, what this amounts to is that instead of weighing an individual’s interests against the public good, the government will have to weigh the cost of compensating an individual against the public good. I don’t see a fundamental problem with that. It sounds MORE fair, not less.

Here’s the proposition itself, which is only two pages long, and some arguments for and against, neither of which are particularly balanced.