Boy, am I livid right now. How
dare those upper crust never-worried-about-money-a-day-in-their-life SCOTUS fuckers side with the state over my individual property rights. And the liberal justices, no less!
Yes, I know. Many of you are going on and on about how this ruling was a NeoCon plot, and it's actually good for us that the desires of the state trump those of the citizen. Blah blah blitty blah, and oh yeah, FUCK YOU. If you think this ruling is so damn grand, then sign over your home to the state. Go ahead, I fucking dare you. Put up or shut up, as they say. It's for the common good.
As
Odum has pointed out, this is not a good fucking ruling for citizens, except the corporate ones. But what all you thoughtful, intelligent types seem to be missing here is the fucked up morality that you're using to justify this shit.
From one rather eloquent, if misguided, commenter to Odum's diary:
I understand that government has a place in American life, as the defender of the public interest.
But, I have to ask, at what point does the drive to do what is in the public interest become just flat out wrong? Because that's exactly what we have here - a decision being championed for all that is populist and environmentally friendly that is, at it's core, fucking WRONG.
What you types are saying is that it is A-Okay to sell out the individual when it benefits the community.
It's okay to sell out the elderly, and the poor, and the single-parent families, and the blacks and latinos who live the less attractive, run down urban areas because that's all they can fucking afford so that the city can build an office tower or a minimall or a half dozen eateries to be called Restaurant Row. All because those tax revenues can be channeled into social programs to help the eldery, poor, single parents, blacks and latinos?
It's a good thing, because after you make them fucking homeless you'll need the extra revenue. But hey, there will be plenty of McJobs to round out the local economy, right? Well, don't I feel so much better now.
Oh, and in case I didn't mention it, fuck you.
The reason this ruling is not good and pure, even in a reverse reasoning sort of way, is that it seeks to create a positive from an overwhelming negative. How can you, in good conscience, put somebody out of their home and then console yourself with the fact that endangered frogs are still protected?
To forcibly uproot another human being from their home is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's wrong when Israel does it to the Palestinians, and it's wrong when we do it here. And the tax revenues are just blood money, and you just sold out your neighbor (and possibly even yourselves) for your greater good.
There comes a point in social justice when the outcome does not justify the means. We've reached it.