Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6626)	6/29/2003 6:26:40 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Respond to of 7720

I haven't heard that story, I'll have to ask around. I don't pay a lot of attention to the Hartford paper and seldom watch the local tv news. But when I got back here 6 months ago, it was hard not to hear about two trials that were underway, both involving mayors of cities. The mayor of Waterbury was on trial for having sex with underage girls, and the mayor of Bridgeport was on trial for accepting bribes and kickbacks. That story got a lot of play because it had glitz - $1,000 dinners, flashy cars, expensive wine collections, the whole 9 yards. There is a trial going on right now involving the ex-State Treasurer. In exchange for bribes, kickbacks, and campaign contributions, he steered more than a half billion dollars to favored investment firms. This is a far higher sum than the mayor of Bridgeport was playing with. So far the media is low-keying it, as it involves high ranking and powerful people from both parties, including aides to the governor.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6626)	6/30/2003 12:02:48 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 7720

That happens a lot. Sadly, it's legal. There are cases that say that economic development is a public interest and states are allowed to use eminent domain for it. I believe that Ford or somebody built a new plant in Detroit using eminent domain to get the land they wanted. But don't recall the details.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6626)	6/30/2003 5:32:08 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7720

This is the very first news item I read this morning. Gave me a headache trying to find the logic in it. He totally contradicted himself, seems to me. <<Frist Endorses Idea of Gay Marriage Ban By WILLIAM C. MANN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate majority leader said Sunday he supported a proposed constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage in the United States. Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said the Supreme Court's decision last week on gay sex threatens to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. The court on Thursday threw out a Texas law that prohibited acts of sodomy between homosexuals in a private home, saying that such a prohibition violates the defendants' privacy rights under the Constitution. The ruling invalidated the Texas law and similar statutes in 12 other states. "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually - or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's "This Week." "And I'm thinking of - whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home - ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern." <snip> >> Like huh? Whether it is the courts or the legislature that is defining what one can or cannot do in one's home, seems to me that the impact on privacy is the same. If the courts permit me to do something in my home that Frist doesn't approve of, that increases my privacy and has absolutely zero impact on his, seems to me. Perhaps I misunderstand his words about us all wanting privacy? It looks to me like he's anti-privacy.