new business idea. well, scammed off cbs early show this morning, which ran a story on drive-ins. so here's my idea. build a drive-in, with wireless speakers. have levels of parking. and 120 degree arc'd screens. sorta like the imax outside. and to make it even more interesting. 60's uniforms with skaters bringing out orders. sorta like the marriage of the old drive-in theatre, and the same period drive-in root beer diners.
huh? say you got a few million ya wanna spare?
Sunday, August 3, 2003
good letter in today's letters to the editor
: "Sisk's lament of judicial activism would perhaps be more persuasive if he applied it evenhandedly to the parts of the Constitution that protect conservative interests. For example, Scalia has expansively interpreted the Fifth Amendment's protection of 'property' to negate environmental controls and has created an expanded doctrine of'standing to sue,' a concept never even mentioned in the Constitution, to throw citizen groups out of court when they seek to enforce statutory rights.
So why is an 'activist' Supreme Court fine when it comes to conservative interests, but not when it acts to preserve the liberty rights of individuals?
Like it or not, the Supreme Court must give meaning to ambiguous constitutional terms, and their interpretations must come from somewhere. I, for one, would much rather that they derive this meaning from the collective conscience of the people than from the conservative viewpoint of Scalia and Sisk.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote the sodomy decision, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by President Reagan, concurred in the judgment. These two justices, hardly in the liberal camp, have recognized their duty to ensure that the Constitution provides real protection against government excess. They provide a much better model for the next appointee than Scalia, who seems intent on enforcing only the parts of the Constitution he likes in order to pursue his own agenda.
Unfortunately, President Bush has consistently named"
: "Sisk's lament of judicial activism would perhaps be more persuasive if he applied it evenhandedly to the parts of the Constitution that protect conservative interests. For example, Scalia has expansively interpreted the Fifth Amendment's protection of 'property' to negate environmental controls and has created an expanded doctrine of'standing to sue,' a concept never even mentioned in the Constitution, to throw citizen groups out of court when they seek to enforce statutory rights.
So why is an 'activist' Supreme Court fine when it comes to conservative interests, but not when it acts to preserve the liberty rights of individuals?
Like it or not, the Supreme Court must give meaning to ambiguous constitutional terms, and their interpretations must come from somewhere. I, for one, would much rather that they derive this meaning from the collective conscience of the people than from the conservative viewpoint of Scalia and Sisk.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, wrote the sodomy decision, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, appointed by President Reagan, concurred in the judgment. These two justices, hardly in the liberal camp, have recognized their duty to ensure that the Constitution provides real protection against government excess. They provide a much better model for the next appointee than Scalia, who seems intent on enforcing only the parts of the Constitution he likes in order to pursue his own agenda.
Unfortunately, President Bush has consistently named"
bingo!
: "It's always a chicken-and-egg argument whether to stimulate the supply side or the demand side. The answer varies according to the situation. Right now, the egg (jobs) should come before the chicken (more tax cuts).
How? By building things. America has a lot of work that needs doing - in some cases desperately.
By almost any assessment, the United States has a huge backlog of deferred maintenance and unmet infrastructure needs. In highways alone, it is estimated that congestion causes Americans to waste 5.7 billion gallons of fuel each year, and the cost to the economy in wasted fuel and lost productivity is nearly $68 billion.
It isn't just roads. Work is needed on airports and transit systems, drinking-water and wastewater-treatment systems, schools and hospitals, dams and harbors, telecommunications and energy-transmission networks. National parks are in deplorable condition, and there are polluted waters in every state, including 188 impaired bodies of water in Iowa.
Building essential public improvements creates jobs and sends money rippling through the economy. The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee says every $1 billion spent on federal highway and transit infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs.
The United States is spending $1 billion a week on the occupation of Iraq. If the committee's estimate is correct, a similar amount spent on highway construction alone - not to mention all the other needed public improvements - would generate enough new employment in less tha"
: "It's always a chicken-and-egg argument whether to stimulate the supply side or the demand side. The answer varies according to the situation. Right now, the egg (jobs) should come before the chicken (more tax cuts).
How? By building things. America has a lot of work that needs doing - in some cases desperately.
By almost any assessment, the United States has a huge backlog of deferred maintenance and unmet infrastructure needs. In highways alone, it is estimated that congestion causes Americans to waste 5.7 billion gallons of fuel each year, and the cost to the economy in wasted fuel and lost productivity is nearly $68 billion.
It isn't just roads. Work is needed on airports and transit systems, drinking-water and wastewater-treatment systems, schools and hospitals, dams and harbors, telecommunications and energy-transmission networks. National parks are in deplorable condition, and there are polluted waters in every state, including 188 impaired bodies of water in Iowa.
Building essential public improvements creates jobs and sends money rippling through the economy. The U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee says every $1 billion spent on federal highway and transit infrastructure creates 47,500 jobs.
The United States is spending $1 billion a week on the occupation of Iraq. If the committee's estimate is correct, a similar amount spent on highway construction alone - not to mention all the other needed public improvements - would generate enough new employment in less tha"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
