The pileup involved a total of 20 vehicles, including 18 cars a dump truck and a commuter bus. Sixteen ambulances were called in to assist and helping victims.People routinely fly past me going down the hill on 44W towards this intersection.
At least 14 injuries have been confirmed. At least three people were transported to Hospital via Lifestar helicopter and are in serious condition.
Police say it appears a dump truck heading west on Route 44 collided with a commuter bus near the intersection of Route 10. The collision between the bus and truck apparently started a chain reaction and ignited a fire that engulfed several vehicles, including the truck.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Monday, July 25, 2005
Beyond your NRA conservative/libertarian/anti-ATF opinions, have you seen any good analysis of the Kelo vs New London verdict? I still don't get it.To which I responded:
You'd be hard pressed to find a better analysis of what the decision means than you'll find simply reading the dissents published along with the majority opinion. Supreme court Justices & their clerks are pretty amazing writers & analysts, a fact often hidden by the arcane nature of their subject matter.
Page for whole Kelo opinion.
Specifically Justice O'Conner's dissent:
Notably (and famously):“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean… . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (emphasis deleted).and Justice Thomas' often quoted dissent:
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Accordingly I respectfully dissent.
...It encourages “those citizens with dis-proportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms” to victimize the weak.Something has gone seriously awry with this Court’s interpretation of the Constitution. Though citizens are safe from the government in their homes, the homes themselves are not.
The “public purpose” test applied by Berman and Midkiff also cannot be applied in principled manner. “When we depart from the natural import of the term ‘public use,’ and substitute for the simple idea of a public possession and occupation, that of public utility, public interest, common benefit, general advantage or convenience … we are afloat without any certain principle to guide us.” Bloodgood v. Mohawk & Hudson R. Co., 18 Wend. 9, 60—61 (NY 1837) (opinion of Tracy, Sen.). Once one permits takings for public purposes in addition to public uses, no coherent principle limits what could constitute a valid public use—at least, none beyond Justice O’Connor’s (entirely proper) appeal to the text of the Constitution itself. See ante, at 1—2, 8—13 (dissenting opinion). I share the Court’s skepticism about a public use standard that requires courts to second-guess the policy wisdom of public works projects. Ante, at 16—19. The “public purpose” standard this Court has adopted, however, demands the use of such judgment, for the Court concedes that the Public Use Clause would forbid a purely private taking. Ante, at 7—8. It is difficult to imagine how a court could find that a taking was purely private except by determining that the taking did not, in fact, rationally advance the public interest. Cf. ante, at 9—10 (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (noting the complicated inquiry the Court’s test requires). The Court is therefore wrong to criticize the “actual use” test as “difficult to administer.” Ante, at 8. It is far easier to analyze whether the government owns or the public has a legal right to use the taken property than to ask whether the taking has a “purely private purpose”—unless the Court means to eliminate public use scrutiny of takings entirely. Ante, at 7—8, 16—17. Obliterating a provision of the Constitution, of course, guarantees that it will not be misapplied.
The big deal about Kelo being two-fold (the first part of which is from earlier decisions).
1) Government can delegate its takings power to non-representative bodies, and;
2) Land no longer need be taken for public use only. It can now be taken from one private owner, to be given to another private owner, so long as the taking (and giving) serve some nebulous "public purpose."
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
This silliness is going on in my town.
The range, Metacon, is one of the few, if not only, ranges in CT that allow full-auto fire.
The group suing, the Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society (Yup, they chose an acronym that spells out SAPS), was formed by 6 homeowners for the sole purpose of bringing this suit.
One funny thing about this suit, other than the fact that the judge allowed the suit to stand even though the plaintiff organization didn't even exist when the suit was filed, is that the CT state police firing range is just down the street from Metacon gun club.
I wonder if SAPS will sue the state police as well?
[More history on this challenge to Metacon can be found here.]
Saturday, July 16, 2005
The black dot represents where the shower head comes out of the wall, the pattern being folded to cover threee walls.
Friday, July 15, 2005
While searching Gallinas Creek with Beam for an hour and a half, Jake Turner, 19, said he found "huge" tracks in the mud and orange and black fur stuck in a fence that crosses the creek.Absolutely any other story that referenced an SKS would have called it a compact assault rifle, most likely of the bullet spraying, baby killing kind.
Despite Beam's story — and other unusual events reported in recent months by neighbors — some remain skeptical that the beast is anything more than a rural legend.
"We have no substantiated reports of loose tigers whatsoever," said David Soward, chief deputy at the Atascosa County Sheriff's Department. "Everything I've heard is like fourth- and fifth-hand information. And none of this has come directly to the Sheriff's Office."
As for Beam, he no longer goes anywhere on his property without a loaded, long-barreled SKS rifle perched on the front seat of his pickup, and his wife has stopped venturing beyond the back lawn.