The journalistic mentality, utterly concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment, defines everything in terms of non-essentials. The issue, the only issue, is: are private property rights respected or not? All else is non-essential.

I am not pro- or anti-"development". I am anti-socialist and pro-capitalist, i.e., pro-individual. Ayn Rand defined capitalism as:

"....a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."

That, and nothing less. If, therefore, a developer wants to build houses, or stores, or whatever else, on his own property, that is his right. And if an environmentalist wants to make his own property into a wilderness for fauna and flora, that is his right. If either of them go to the government to seize somebody else's property, for whatever purpose, than I'm against that. Period.

Well, I guess I'm "anti-development" too.

The temptation for corruption at the local level is rife since most people just don't pay attention to local politics. And eminent domain for "public good" is just too powerful a tool delivered to such people.

I spent my teen years, and my parents still live, in Brea, California. Some council people finally went to jail over the redevelopment scandals..not that it saved the historic part of Brea and neighborhoods of homes from the early 1900's. And as pointed out here

Moreover, the promised riches are more often than not missing. The redevelopment process lends itself to financial abuse. Greenhut explains, "Redevelopment agencies must incur debt by floating bonds. It's part of the law…. The bonds can be floated without a public vote. As a result, the small town of Brea, 36,000 population, has total redevelopment indebtedness of nearly $435 million." Once in debt, the temptation is to win the money back in yet another gamble involving abuse of someone's property rights.

Two points.

1. I don't see calling someone a Judas as being anti-semitic at all, especially since Judas sold out for money. Most Americans probably don't know what Benedict Arnold did to become a traitor, but everyone knows what Judas did. I see it as a good example, *not* in any way related to anti-semitism.
2. Look into http://www.castlecoalition.org. They are trying to use the Kelo decision to organize against eminent domain abuse.

You find that an argument against anti-semitism?

As long as I can remember greed for money has been as persistent a part of anti-semitic rhetoric as drunkeness against the Irish.

Darren, Darleen Steve, thanks!

Darren, I am implacably opposed to this perversion of eminent domain, and agree with you in theory and in logic. However, the use of "Judas" as a slur has a long, emotional, and illogical history.

Consider:

-- Judas was for centuries considered the epitome of all evil. Dante's Inferno pictured him in the worst place in Hell, being constantly chewed in Satan's mouth. (So it's pretty severe hyperbole to call someone that.)

-- Saint Jerome called the Jews "Judaic serpents of whom Judas was the model."

-- Regardless of whether it is fair or not, bigots have long invoked Judas to justify anti-Semitism:
http://psychcentral.com/psypsych/Judas_Iscariot#Judas_and_Anti-Semitism

Also, the throwing of coins at someone who is trying to conduct a public hearing, while theatrical, borders on assault, and I don't think it (or using "Judas" as an insult) are persuasive.

But I do see your point, and thanks!

Hmmm.... You raise a good point. Judas, Judea, Judaic, Judaism, Jews, Jewishness -- and the hatred of the Jews ("anti-Semitism" -- the term coined in the 1870s by a German racist Jew-hater named Wilhelm Marr -- "Semites" vs. "Aryans", the Big Lie of Hitlerism). That hatred has plagued us for a long time. Christ driving the money-changers from the Temple has also been used by Jew-haters, who identified the money-changers with the Jews.

Yet, Jesus was Himself a Jew! His Virgin Mother was Jewish, as was His father Joseph the carpenter. The Jews, particularly the Pharisees, have long been blamed for the Crucifixion, but did not the Romans have a hand in it, too? That might be taken as an act of "anti-Semitism", as the Romans crucified Him for calling Himself "King of the Jews", and later they committed a bigger act of "anti-Semitism" when they destroyed the Temple and exiled the Jews from Jerusalem, unkonwingly setting the stage for cataclysms 2000 years hence.

But, in defense of the Roman Empire, I must say that these harsh "law and order" measures were not directed against Jews as Jews but against any "uppity" barbarians who threatened Roman rule. The Roman Empire spread Classical civilization throughout the Mediterranean world, and even as far north as Gaul and Britain, which ultimately gave birth to the great Northern Western European nations of France and England.

Unfortunately, this civilization largely eluded the Germans, particularly those out in that far north-eastern corner which came to be known as Prussia. Prussia thought itself the new Rome (while at the same time identifying themselves with the Huns!), but instead turned out to be the new Carthage instead, and America is now the new Rome.

Another Rome emerged also, replacing the temporal Empire of the Caesars with the spiritual Empire of the Popes, a spiritual Empire founded, ironically, on that very King of the Jews, that King of Kings, whom the earlier Romans had nailed to the Cross.

As you say, the myth of the Christ has too often been wrongly used against the Jews, and they have cause to fear its use again in such a manner. When I first heard of Mel Gibson's movie The Passion of the Christ (the style of the title of that!), I thought it would be anti-Jewish, but then I read more on it and finally saw it, and found that it was not. In fact, I found it very good, and far better than most of the movies that are praised today. It was vilified by secularist "intellectuals" precisely because it does accurately portray the faith of millions of traditional Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, here in America, very few of whom are anti-Jewish at all and most of whom strongly support Israel.

Is it wrong that I'd enjoy seeing the private homes of all the judges involved siezed and turned into Kwiki-Marts?

No more wrong than my old revenge fantasy of putting cameras in the bedrooms of Scalia, Bork, and Santorum and arresting them for "sodomy". har! har!

"FINAL THOUGHT: Rather than rant about these things, it's probably best to stick to the bottom line: If you oppose government takings of private land for private use, you are now anti-development!

Better get used to it!"

Shan't.

I don't accept that being anti-robbers equates to being anti-development; nor that calling someone who'd sell his soul for silver a "Judas" is anti-semetic; calling someone "a rock to lean on" or "a doubting Thomas" never gets one accused of or complimented with being pro-Jewish; so phooey on that.

I may be a feeble defender of the English language, but a defender I remain. I can still wield the cold stare and the phrase "Your usage of that word makes no sense. Please define it."

Actually, I don't think calling someone who enforces Kelo a Judas is all that out of line. A bit strong, but the Kelo fans have indeed turned their back on the concept of individual freedom in favor of a few miserable dollars. It's an apt description - at least of an American citizen willing to see fellow citizens robbed by the government gun. Souter et al have turned their backs on all things American - home of their birth, Constitution they've sworn to protect.

It may not be kind, or diplomatic, or even persuasive, but it is accurate.