The Farmerian Response, plus Two For Three Ain't Bad
I called the land of Kickapoo this evening to relay the news that I'd finished Draft One of The City Beyond Play. Talking for Phil Farmer can be so difficult at times that his speech slows almost to slurring, but this was the most excited I'd heard him in the year since Mom and I last visited there. He can only talk for a few minutes at a time and didn't really want to talk about anything else for this particular conversation. He also sounded eager to see the chapters I'd written, and even if it's a little bit at a time he may be able to eventually read them all.
He was more optimistic than me that his agent would be interested in TCBP. As with most of my political news, I find myself hoping once again that I'm wrong, or at least being too pessimistic.
So to sully this entry with political news: The House is considering a bipartisan resolution calling for a pullout of American troops in Iraq by the end of 2006. If you want to read it, go to Thomas, the Library of Congress' legislative website, punch in HJ Res 55, and select "Enter Bill Number". The full title is "Requiring the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, and for other purposes".
I haven't listened to the conservative talk show hosts in awhile, but I'm curious now if they're having to bend over backwards to contradict themselves again. During the late 1990's many of them, with Rush Limbaugh leading the charge, raked Bill Clinton across the coals for condemning private land in order to add said land to national parks. Over and over again Rush and others beat it into our heads that Clinton had no respect for personal property rights.
Now I'm wondering what they're saying about the recent Supreme Court decision that cities can condemn privately-owned property for private business development. This actually isn't anything new--localities do it hundreds of times every year. What's new is the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the city / developer by a 5-4 margin.
If the Talking Heads try to tell you this is different than Clinton's condemnations because it supports business, though, don't listen to them. I also heard at least Rush condemn the condemnations in the late 90's when it turned out most of them were happening in the "liberal" New England states, particularly New York and New Jersey. (This case came from Connecticut.)
I put forward a motion that we condemn the houses of those five Supreme Court justices and demolish them to build five new Popeye's Chicken-n-Biscuits. You can never have enough Popeye's, I say. Anyone want to second?
He was more optimistic than me that his agent would be interested in TCBP. As with most of my political news, I find myself hoping once again that I'm wrong, or at least being too pessimistic.
So to sully this entry with political news: The House is considering a bipartisan resolution calling for a pullout of American troops in Iraq by the end of 2006. If you want to read it, go to Thomas, the Library of Congress' legislative website, punch in HJ Res 55, and select "Enter Bill Number". The full title is "Requiring the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, and for other purposes".
I haven't listened to the conservative talk show hosts in awhile, but I'm curious now if they're having to bend over backwards to contradict themselves again. During the late 1990's many of them, with Rush Limbaugh leading the charge, raked Bill Clinton across the coals for condemning private land in order to add said land to national parks. Over and over again Rush and others beat it into our heads that Clinton had no respect for personal property rights.
Now I'm wondering what they're saying about the recent Supreme Court decision that cities can condemn privately-owned property for private business development. This actually isn't anything new--localities do it hundreds of times every year. What's new is the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the city / developer by a 5-4 margin.
If the Talking Heads try to tell you this is different than Clinton's condemnations because it supports business, though, don't listen to them. I also heard at least Rush condemn the condemnations in the late 90's when it turned out most of them were happening in the "liberal" New England states, particularly New York and New Jersey. (This case came from Connecticut.)
I put forward a motion that we condemn the houses of those five Supreme Court justices and demolish them to build five new Popeye's Chicken-n-Biscuits. You can never have enough Popeye's, I say. Anyone want to second?