Pseudo-political

[jackofallgeeks]

So, I had a pseudo-political article I was going to write here, but I've been feeling rather listless all day anyways, and just the thought of trying to write anything political made me feel drained.

Long and short of it all: I don't consider myself generally well-informed; most of my friends disagree with me on issues religious, moral, and political; I'm tired of people blaming the government for when random Bad Stuff happens -- if Terrorists are on the Rise because we pushed back the way we did, what's to say they wouldn't be if we hadn't; there are no easy answers -- a higher minimum wage would be better for me working at Subway, and people worse off working where they might, but it would hurt small buisnesses like the one my uncle is trying to get started; and the most disheartening thing is that something which you would expect EVERYONE to be against, the decision that the government can take your private property if they feel they have a better use for it, passed anyways -- and not as a law, mind you, but as a court decision which at least I think was over-stepping their bounds.

But anyways... Work in a few hours. Today isn't looking like a good day at all.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I can't resist responding to things like this, but I'll keep in mind that you haven't actually made your arguments.

1. Terrorism isn't exactly Random Bad Stuff. It's Bad Stuff that happens for a reason (good or bad though it may be). Some of it happens because people are pissed off at what we do (right or wrong though they may be). I'm not sure who you're referring to who thinks that terrorism is a response to us 'pushing back' - this would be a stupid argument in and of itself, considering that there was terrorism long before 9/11, Iraq, etc. I can only speak for myself, but my beef is more that (in a nutshell) we're botching our response, rather than that we responded at all. If we've learned one thing over the course of the 90s, it's that weak states breed terrorism - and instead of finishing the job properly in Afghanistan, we went off half-cocked in Iraq. Meanwhile, lots of problems have been left to fester - e.g., Israel/Palestine, North Korea, most of Africa - that I think pose a more immediate danger.

2. Yes, of course, increased overhead is bad for every business (by definition). But I've yet to see strong statistical evidence that raising the minimum wage depresses small-business creation overall (I'll bet you that subsidies and tax breaks for large businesses do more of that, but I'll admit that I'm just speculating there, too), and the current federal minimum wage just isn't really livable, especially in many urban areas. I guess if push comes to shove, I'd rather have a more sluggish economy and ensure everyone a living wage than the other way 'round, but I recognize that that's a value judgment call with which reasonable people may disagree.

3. Kelo? I'd agree - bad policy and bad law. However, it's bad law with deep roots - "public use" has been eroding since at least Holmes' ruling (and man, I usually LOVE Holmes) in Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co (1906). I don't understand why the majority rejected O'Connor's way of distinguishing Midkiff, though (I've already ranted about all this in my own journal, so I shan't repeat it).