You’ve heard about it. Hell, your aging mother probably heard about it from the neighbors. The media and politicians are certainly up in arms about it. What is “it?” It’s the “hot coffee” mod for Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas of course, a hack that allows infants to view — hold yourself — polygons that look vaguely human doing things that look vaguely like sex acts. I know! It’s almost unconscionable!

Of course everyone from Oprah to Hilary Clinton is calling for investigations, rules, restrictions and heads. Parent groups are hoping for summary executions as far as I can tell. “What about the children? What if little Suzie somehow gets access to this and sees someone getting blown?!”

Hi folks. What was little Suzie doing with a Mature labeled game anyway? This isn’t like buying Spongebob Squarepants’ Underwater Adventure and unlocking a secret “SPONGEBOB SLIPPERY SLIDING SODOMY” minigame. The GTA series is all about beating and killing cops and pedestrians, banging hookers and killing them afterward and doing essentially as many virtual illegal things as you can fit in a day. But, someone figures out there’s sex in the game and people lose their skulls.

Reminds me of another incident. What a vast group of fussybodies and nitwits.

They’re certainly doing some fancy butt wiggling in the old Oval Office. After originally stating that anyone involved in the leaking of a covert intelligence officer’s identity would be fired, now we hear that the bar has been raised.

“If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.”

One can imagine the scene if someone is determined to have broken the law.

“If someone was involved in the leak, was determined to have broken the law leaking that information, and has a tattoo of Colin Firth on their right butt cheek, they’re out of here. I won’t tolerate that kind of blatant behavior.”

Luckily for Carl Rove, I think his ink is limited to that left rump roast.

An interesting use of the recently released Google Maps API is the Iraq War Casualties Map. It shows, by increments of 30, the homeplaces and details of the American casualties of the Iraq War. Pretty compelling.

President Bush just made a visit near our neck of the woods in North Carolina. To be honest, I actually approve of his current stance which is surprising. I was never supportive in commencing hostilities, but now that we’ve gone in there and turned things on their head I firmly believe that we owe it to those people to help them make things right. For that I applaud Bush for not kowtowing to demands to set timetables, or to tuck our tail between our legs and get out immediately.

You know the people I’ve lost any semblance of respect for? They’re not the ones that supported the war and still support it. They’re not the ones who never did. It’s those folks on both sides of the aisle that supported it in the beginning and now are changing their minds and pressuring for getting our troops back home. Folks, we went in there and beat the shit out of the place, completely changed the dynamic — some say for better, some for worse but regardless it’s unrecognizable from what it once was — and it’s our duty to help them get back on their feet.

Anyone within those percentage points on the daily news polls that switched from “hell yes, let’s bomb them into the stone age” to “you mean our people might die too? Let’s bolt” should be ashamed. I suppose I should have some sympathy for those of you who supported the war based on assertions that haven’t necessarily proven true but I don’t. The simple fact is, regardless of the reason we’re in there — whether you believe there were those yummy WMDs hiding somewhere, whether you believe Hussein was a bad, bad man and needed taking out, or whether you bought into the Bush mind-control ray linking Iraq and the September 11th attacks — it would be a gross injustice to leave now with that country in the state it’s in. Sorry, war is not all news clips of mighty US bombers nailing bunkers with TV-guided munitions.

Bush’s speech at Fort Bragg was a bit disconcerting. I don’t think he necessarily got the reception he was looking for from his audience of soldiers. This was no USO visit with cheering crowds and standing ovations. These people were soberly listening and listening carefully. When he talked of whether the sacrifice was worth it I really had to wonder what was going through those peoples’ heads.

I’m continually amazed at how effective it has been for him to logically and straightforwardly mention Iraq, Osama Bin Laden, and the September 11th attacks in one sentence but I suppose I shouldn’t be. It works for the majority of Americans. I’ve mentioned it before (actually a couple of times) and it still holds true so I suppose I should stop being so damned astonished when people keep up the status quo. And I can’t blame Bush for continuing to use it as a political device amidst slumping approval ratings… you use the tools that you have.

Remember that saucy Supreme Court ruling that I bitched about previously? The one that allows local governments to sell your property to someone else if they get a wild hair? Well, it’s finally being put to good use.

A developer has petitioned to start the process of acquiring some private property for the purpose of building a hotel. Sounds very similar to the case in question, does it not? The only difference is that this time the current owner is Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter. I’m practically chortling.

Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

Clements goes on to describe what amenities will be provided in the hotel.

The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”

The irony is rich. I hope to all that’s holy that it succeeds.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing local governments to seize anyone’s property for essentially any reason, even if that reason happens to be “business developer would like to build a hotel there.”

In a case with nationwide implications, the court ruled, 5 to 4, against a group of homeowners in New London, Conn., who have resisted the city’s plans to demolish their working-class homes near the Thames River to make way for an office building, riverfront hotel and other commercial activities.

The majority held that, just as government has the constitutional power of eminent domain to acquire private property to clear slums or to build roads, bridges, airports and other facilities to benefit the public, it can sometimes do so for private developers if the latters’ projects also serve a public good.

Sure, they pay lip service to “serving the public good” but who thinks this ruling isn’t a dandy way of getting “undesirables” out of the way for a nice new strip mall? It serves the public good, right? What serves the public good more, a multi-family tenement dwelling housing the poor or a commercial building housing the latest dot coms and a Starbucks?

If this doesn’t prove that this country is sliding from the “land of the free” and “government of the people, by the people and for the people” into “he who has the most money wins” I don’t know what does. What a travesty.

Updated: Actually the more I think about this the more pissed I get. You know what this really means, right? This means that that land that you “bought” is never going to be yours. Well, it wasn’t really “yours” before but now you have even less hold over it. Before this ruling it was only the government that could decide “hey, we really need an expressway here and we’re going to do it right through your neighborhood.” Now, if Walmart decides that my block would be ideal for a Superstore, they can have my land condemned and taken way from me.

The case they’re ruling on wasn’t even the typical Liberal “they’re burning down slums to build resorts” case. These were ordinary landowners on waterfront property. Their city felt that, by golly, that property is pretty valuable! Let’s develop it for the “public good!” Those of us with dreams of owning a little place on a lake somewhere when we retire can just hang it up. The bigger fish will simply “convince” the city council — and if you think these deals won’t be absolutely rife with corruption you’re likely deluding yourself — that the “public interest” would be better served with a host of retail establishments instead of those quaint summer homes.

I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that this ruling has killed the American Dream as it once existed. Welcome to Americorp.