Speaking of ways to pad circulation numbers, what should I find on my front stoop this morning but a copy of today's Minneapolis Star Tribune. A newspaper that I most assuredly do not subscribe to. The newspaper's usual dumping grounds (hotels, nursing homes, and schools) must have been already overflowing with surplus Stribs, so they elected to distribute the excessive waste around to individual households, much like a farmer might spread manure on his fields.
But when it comes to the Star Tribune, my particular field is quite barren and rocky and no amount of fertilizer will result in growth (or me renewing my subscription). Today's paper was just the latest reminder that I'm not missing much by not receiving my daily dose of the Strib. Other than aggravation, frustration, and exasperation, which I can well do without.
There was one surprising and quite frankly frightening discovery in the pages of the paper though. A Molly Ivins
As one who cares a whale of a lot more about personal rights than property rights, let me leap right into the fray over a Supreme Court decision on the side of the property rights advocates, many of whom I normally consider nutballs. But at least they're more in touch with reality than a majority of the Supreme Court.
The justice who nailed this one was Sandra Day O'Connor, bless her. She wrote in dissent: "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."
Hard to argue with that (other than the statement about personal versus property rights). Unless you're a conservative law talking guy.
Who would have thought that there would come a day where I'd be siding with Molly Ivins over John Hinderaker? It's a Bizzaro World after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment