Christmas

Today was a rather good day. And no, I'm not going to start by talking about why my subject line is about Christmas. Some of you hate that word and would rather not hear about it...

Tough.

I caught up some with Whitney, and found an excellent website. More rediscovered and found the greatness that I had missed earlier. But for some reason, today was just good. Though technically "today" was two hours ago...

So now the part about Christmas? I got on to BudK's website and that's like the best thing that's ever happened to me. Ok, ok, not really, but holy cow. Where were they months ago? So needless to say I'm going to be doing a bit more "constructive" (more like destructive) splurging probably. But it's really not that big of a deal, because it turns out like the most expensive thing that I'm looking at seriously is like $80. And right now I'm just excited. I'm not very good at shoping when I don't want to be. When I find something that I've always wanted for about 1/4 the price or cheaper... Yeah, that's the thing for me. And the quality, wow.

So that's why the title is as it is. I'm not bringing it up because I expect something, I'm bringing it up because in several months time (if that long) I will be giving myself an early Christmas present, ha. Last year was a computer, apparently, so why shouldn't this year be weaponry?

Indeed.

But I must say that I have a minor soap box to get onto, because I shouldn't be up right now. But for those of you that don't read fark:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_2

I hope that link works. It did for me. Anyways, it's a link about how the Supreme Court decided that towns can seize your house for "imminent domain". Essentially if it is going to be a benefit to the public, they can take your house. I have a million things wrong with that. Which stems from my hating that even though you "own" your house or land, the government really owns it.

Yeah, so apparently the case stems from something in Conneticut (it's early, so don't quote me) in a case about a house being siezed so that they can build up like a hotel and an office complex. I don't know about everyone else, but I totally disagree with that. I don't even see how that could be considered. That's complete shit. And I way, waaay, don't agree with it. Like totally. (Heh). The justification for the company (city) was that they could take it under the existing laws anyways because the buildings would provide jobs and otherwise boost the local economy.

Great. So build the damn thing somewhere else. I totally hate to say it, but I'm definately for arguing that big business played a role in this one. I'm not saying that they ran out and paid off the supreme court (otherwise it would have been a landslide), but you're telling me now that I have to give up MY HOUSE, for which I own, for which I will intend my generations to live (we're talking about in the future with my own place) that I have to give that up because the locals will have a bit of an economy boost?

I'm all for the local man. I'm even for sacrifice for the greater good and a whole long list of other selfless and altruistic acts. But you can totally go fark yourself on that one. No way. Not happening. You can try to purchase the home from me, but there's plenty of land out there for you. Build the thing somewhere else. As I understand it, from before all this Supreme Court nonesense, they have to reimburse you anyways. But still, that's complete crap. As much as I think Wal-Mart is neato and everything, why should a city be able to tell you to tear down your home so that they can put one up? There has to be some way to stop this one.

I don't know what it takes, but this one definately needs to be stopped. I don't like it at all. Plain to see that much.