Slashdot Mirror
Officials Sue Couple Who Removed Their Lawn
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that Orange County officials are locked in a legal battle with a couple accused of violating city ordinances for replacing the grass on their lawn with wood chips and drought-tolerant plants, reducing their water usage from 299,221 gallons in 2007 to 58,348 gallons in 2009. The dispute began two years ago, when Quan and Angelina Ha tore out the grass in their front yard. In drought-plagued Southern California, the couple said, the lush grass had been soaking up tens of thousands of gallons of water — and hundreds of dollars — each year. 'We've got a newborn, so we want to start worrying about her future,' said Quan Ha, an information technology manager for Kelley Blue Book. But city officials told the Has they were violating several city laws that require that 40% of residential yards to be landscaped predominantly with live plants. Last summer, the couple tried to appease the city by building a fence around the yard and planting drought-tolerant greenery — lavender, rosemary, horsetail, and pittosporum, among others. But according to the city, their landscaping still did not comply with city standards. At the end of January, the Has received a letter saying they had been charged with a misdemeanor violation and must appear in court. The couple could face a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine for their grass-free, eco-friendly landscaping scheme. 'It's just funny that we pay our taxes to the city and the city is now prosecuting us with our own money,' says Quan Ha."
As long as it's not presenting a danger to neighbors, they should be able to do whatever the hell they want with it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
... the law requires 40% live ground cover, so they should be given a citation.
They think that law is unjust, so they are doing their duty by not following it.
The correct outcome is for the law to be changed.
Limited powers not no powers. Somalia is a great example of what happens when the state is so far weakened that even property rights/life are not protected. At the opposite end of the scale, you might see something like North Korea which is not much of an improvement over what Somalia has. The idea is not to go to either extreme and maintain a reasonably rational government is large enough to cover the basics but not so big that people start to be strangled by it.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
They get to vote on how much the private property fiction applies in their community.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
hush, don't force reality on him. He thinks he's going to be one of the warlords as opposed to the plebes
Je ne parle pas francais.
Yeah, tell that to Rosa Parks.
"...but not so big that people start to be strangled by it."
They always make new laws, and rarely get rid of old laws. The strangulation is inevitable.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
The US is so far down the track towards autocracy that warning about the dangers of too weak a government is like warning a man who is dying from dehydration in the desert of the dangers of drowning if he's not careful when approaching an oasis.
I hate printers.
using that logic you could justify defiance of any civic ordinance. Also historically comparing yourself to Rosa Parks never looks good, it usually leads to being mocked rather quickly.
I live in a planned estate, fairly upmarket in appearance. Most of the houses have "arid landscape" themed gardens, and all plants are selected for low water requirements.
I can attest that, if done well, drought resistant garden design can look very, very nice. It's also far easier and cheaper to maintain, as weeds don't grow as readily. Our garden is made up with the hardiest plants from central Australia, thus we can literally starve weeds to death while the rest of the plants carry on fine. Having big, lush, high water gardens means that hardy weeds infest it easily and you're left fighting a losing battle.
I hate printers.
As a Radio Amateur, I continue to marvel at the range of awful looking things that one IS permitted to mount on one's roof or erect in one's back garden.
(I always thought that the fed's at the FCC had jurisdiction, at least in the case of a Radio Ham's tower issue. T or F...? Anyone know for sure?)
Anyway, the obvious difference between erecting a large tower & not buying water (which - when I come to think of this thread's details - may be the "real" reason that
the couple are being taken to task, despite their decision to do a Right Thing here) is:
A tower could fall over.
In the tower case, one could conceivably go round to all neighbors within a reasonable (eg, falling) radius of the intended tower base & get everybody to sign a "I think it's just great & wouldn't complain; I've checked with this guy's engineer (who has also inspected the work, which was done by licensed builders), all is in order, & - therefore - I support this guy's tower plans. Yada... yada..." ...and - before the tower-rise - get pre-construction approval for the project.
--
One could possibly have a similar thing here; eg, go to officials, lay out the situation (cost of water, need to redirect that $$$ to college fund for baby, etc.) & request an exemption.
THEN the story might have been:
"Officials force parents of newborn to spend money needed for baby's upbringing to buy water for their front lawn."
Now, THAT would have outraged your neighbors to come & support you.
At this stage, some of those will say, "Well, the law is the law." And, then, they'll go watch TV... :-/
But as a homeowner, it's what keeps the property value going.
Sure about that?
Lots of fancy places have forest. You can't even see the house from the street. You could hide almost anything: a large boat, a helicopter, a moat, a guard house, a private lake, a tour bus...
Lawn is for shitty places where developers crap out houses onto postage stamp sized lots. You get psychotic homeowner associations and chipboard walls. Lawn says "mass production" like nothing else.
Forest looks damn lovely.
Lawns are an abomination (at least if you don't have enough rainfall to support one), and Southern California is a hellhole.
Funny how the right wing love to talk about leftists being for overbearing government that controls everything you do, but it's the conservative strongholds that have laws like that.
The US is so far down the track towards autocracy that warning about the dangers of too weak a government is like warning a man who is dying from dehydration in the desert of the dangers of drowning if he's not careful when approaching an oasis.
From an outsider's perspective I would diagnose the problem somewhat differently. It's paradoxical, the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system, consumer protection etc), yet on the other hand there are numerous examples of regulation like this.
But I don't think the problem is with the actual regulation. To me there seems a dangerous lack of discretion on the part of administrators, as to when laws ought, and more importantly, ought not to be applied.
It is as if the mere fact that something breaches an ordinance justifies taking action against that breach, or the mere fact that a crime has been committed means that someone ought to be charged. Or perhaps it is only that failures of discretion, such as in the present case, which are newsworthy.
It is a Constitutional Federal Republic. The difference is important. For many reasons, it was designed so it is not a simple case of majority rule, where people just vote on everything and whatever gets the most votes goes. While there are strong Democratic traditions, it was designed specifically so that there isn't a tyranny of the majority (at least hopefully not). The idea being that just because you have one more vote, doesn't mean you get to impose your will on everyone else regardless.
This applies to all sorts of things. A good extremely specific example is the Constitution itself. It cannot be amended by a majority vote of congress, nor of a majority vote by the citizens. It has to be a 66% vote in congress and then ratified by 75% of the states. There are extremely specific provisions preventing a simple majority vote of any kind from changing it, the higher requirements are spelled out.
Now more generally the Constitution (and other laws) protect various rights from mob rule. Property rights would be one of those. 51% of your neighbors can't simply vote that your house should be bulldozed and turned in to a park. Even 100% of your neighbors can't vote to make that happen. Your rights to your property supersede what the majority happens to want.
That doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want. Various HOA rules are completely legal and enforceable, and this might be one of them, but it might now.
As a practical matter if this goes to court it could well be struck down since the city may not have a right to force water usage. One argument is that potable water is a somewhat scarce resource and cities themselves don't control it (water rights are at a higher level). Thus a court could find that the city has no right to tell people they must use extra water, as that can cause harm to surrounding cities.
From the article at least one neighbour didn't mind.
Heck he even helped them:
Soon after the city complained about the yard, the Has placed wood chips on top of the dirt, with help from neighbor Dennis Cleek.
"It's their yard, it's not overgrown with weeds, it's not an eyesore," said Cleek, whose own yard boasts fruit trees. "We should be able to have our yards look the way we want them to."
And from the pic, it looks ok to me. As for wood-chips being a fire hazard, it's no big deal, before they start burning in a dangerous way due to some external cause, those wooden houses will probably be on fire first...
Perhaps I'm not understanding something here, but why should your neighbor care about your home's value? Of course, in the case of a shared resource like a water pipe, it's a different matter but if it's my house and I want to fill my front yard with grey paint, why should anyone object. The whole "it's not aesthetic" argument is similar to the Taliban preventing women from wearing jeans because they don't like to see it. So where does it stop?
consolidation of the powers of various warlords
No, warlords do not share or consolidate power. It's not the African way.
This will probably be interpreted as a flame, but it isn't meant to be one. The _reason_ these kinds of city ordinances exist is because people wanted them - and they wanted them because they help protect property values.
No matter how noble or righteous you might think ripping up your lawn and replacing it with wood chips is, it is still violating the ordinance.
If I lived next door I frankly wouldn't give a crap how Eco-friendly the sea of wood chips next door was - if it looked like crap and it was next to my house I would be pissed off. I'm all for creative ways to help the environment and save money - but not if it means violating ordinances that exist for very good reason.
Doing things like this is frankly makes you look like a child acting out... "The environment is more important than these stupid rules and there are just too many people that don't care about the environment so I will defy them in a effort to get the rules changed. So there!"
Yes, in the grand scheme of things the environment is more important. So what does that have to do exactly with this particular ordinance? Nothing, zip. The point is if you actually wanted to change the ordinance the way to go about it is to convince your neighbors its a good idea and go to the city council. Its done ALL THE TIME all over the country. Good luck with that in this particular case - people LIKE grass.
- sigs are stupid
You don't own your land ever. Stop paying your (rent) property taxes to the government and you will find out how much that land is yours.
There's more than one kind of conservative. There's the pro-government conservatives like the kind you may find in orange county, who really only oppose social spending, and there's the anti-government conservatives who live out in the country so they can avoid government as much as possible. The majority of conservatives are the second kind, but it's a slim majority and the first kind have better appeal with independent voters, so you really only see the first kind in office.
There is no such thing as a reasonable request when someone is trying to force someone to make their own property appear the way YOU want it to. No, not even "no broken windows" or even "no purple 10-foot lawn gnomes".
Don't give me that filthy lie about how "wah, they lowered my precious property values!" can provide even the most remote excuse. You don't have a right to high property values. Period. And you know it.
You, and anyone else who is less than 100% against the city on this issue, are violently anti-freedom and cannot possibly die painfully enough or soon enough.
Discretion? By the very nature of the law it should be applied all of the time indiscriminately, anything else is corruption.
"property rights"? What property rights? I don't see any in the USA. When you pay property tax, it isn't yours anymore. You rent it.
And by trying to dictate that he have a conventional lawn, his neighbors (through the government) ignore that they are devaluing his property for his own use as well. The difference is he actually paid for his property and so has bought the moral right to maintain it in a way that makes sense for him. He appears to not be unsympathetic and has demonstrated a willingness to find a compromise. It seems that he is not the one being unreasonable.
The next time L.A. cries about water allocations, this should be trotted right out and they should be told to suck it up.
then any law which, when enforced, would have insane consequences (like this) must be abolished.
Let's try and tot up what would survive...
FGD 135
Plant Yucca. Nothing but big giant pointy nasty sharp Yucca plants. Bonus points for a Cactus or two. No water required and that 40% requirement will be a cinch to meet.
"You [...] are violently anti-freedom and cannot possibly die painfully enough or soon enough."
I don't think you know what the word violently means.
You don't have a right to high property values, and they don't have a right to have flaming crosses on their lawns 24/7. That right is exactly as made up as the right to high property values. It turns out that the neighbourhood was set up with strings attached, and either you accepted those strings by moving in there (and thus have nobody to blame but yourself), or this came up after the fact and you didn't agree to it, in which case you probably do have some recourse to complain.
And actually, with broken windows, that actually is known to increase crime in the area. I *do* have the right to security of person.
By the way, I'm DEFINITELY against the city on this issue. But you can take it too far. It seems that a lot of people maintain a childish notion of what legal property rights are and won't let go of it in the face of overwhelming countervailing evidence. Note that I'm sure a good argument could be made that property rights should be different, I'm just complaining about what is.
in many of these suburbs backyard clotheslines have been banned as well. some people reading this will think I'm making it up. Others reading it will think that everywhere has these laws.
apparently the "logic" goes that only poor people don't use electric dryers in the desert, and that perceived perception lowers the property values for the neighbors.
live free or die? hell no! these chains have resale value.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Discretion? By the very nature of the law it should be applied all of the time indiscriminately, anything else is corruption.
So the choice is between corruption and mindless stupidity? When a law clearly has harmful consequences, you should revise the law, not cling to it against all common sense.
Enforcing laws does require discretion and common sense. I think your attitude is exactly what's wrong here.
In the end, rules are meant to be broken. As long as you do it openly and for well-specified reasons, there's nothing wrong with it. (Then again, I'm Dutch, and we're famous for structurally and intentionally not enforcing our own laws. Pot is technically illegal here. Governments just decided not to enforce those laws in the case of pot.)
the idea behind water rights is to stop upstream farmers daming up rivers and bankrupting their neighbours, people collecting the water that's fallen on residental roofs shouldn't be the target.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
You'd be amazed how much water people pour on their lawns in OC (where I currently live). It spills out onto the street in great floods when the sprinklers are going in some places - and they run them *every night*. Of course, we're in a desert here, so it makes sense if one must have a lawn - most of it evaporates in the daytime.
Therefore, the GP's assertion that no one in this area should have a lawn - why this isn't obvious to more people who live here, I don't know. Perhaps this case - if properly publicized - will get people to realize that. But who are we kidding? Most people in OC couldn't care less about anything, except their appearance to others - and a lush lawn is a big part of that, apparently.
Political discussion in USA is hampered by the fact that instead of discussing if a certain change is good or bad, frequently it's discussed if it'd be "socialist" or "communist", with the implied understanding that if yes, then it's nessecarily bad.
Which fails to be true offcourse. Communist dictatorships where abhorrent in many ways. It doesn't follow that any policy they might have supported, is automatically bad. This sort of black-white thinking is seriously broken. "If my enemies do that, I'll do the oposite, just because."
Universal access to education is a good example. Because what you say is true; while the people to benefit FIRST are the poor people who get a good education they wouldn't otherwise get, the rest of society benefits second, because with that education, the people will WORK, and pay TAXES, and in general contribute more than they otherwise would.
It's not hard to show that education-levels correlate positively with just about every positive thing you can think of, from low teenage-pregnancies, low crimerate, good health, low unemployment, etc etc etc. USA is not alone in accepting a large dirt-poor uneducated underclass. But it's not a clever thing to do. Even if you're in the upper quartile, it'd be beneficial to you to do something about it, your quality of life would improve, unless you LIKE high crime-rate in your society.
It's more than that. "Property Values" are practically political magic. The moment people start thinking of themselves as having a right to property value rather than to property merely, they inevitably come to see control of their neighbors' behavior as their prerogative(since, empirically, it is obvious enough that your neighbor can modify your property value according to their behavior). If you believe in your right to property value, any sort of (visible) social deviance is a form of theft and crime. This is how people who ostensibly believe in property rights can end up living in places with absurdly tyrannical HOAs, and even participating in the tyranny themselves.
Then, of course, you get the pricks who just hate nonconformity without any financial basis whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that they are just evil; but they become convenient allies to the first group, when it comes to keeping sacred property values high.
That is so wrong for many reasons. Discretion in applying the law may result in corruption, but it is necessary for justice, and is built into the system.
Discretion is applied at all levels - from the policeman giving you a warning (you went through a red light in an empty intersection after a full stop but you are rushing to the hospital), to the prosecutor (yes, you bounced a check (a felony) but it was an accident and you made good on it right away), to the jury (I will not convict the white man for marrying a black woman no matter what the law says), to the judge (case dismissed or probation for a man who murdered his wife- they were both 90 and she had painful cancer and he failed when trying to commit suicide).
The no discretion, Zero Tolerance (zero intelligence) application often results in injustice.
I suspect that you mean that, despite it being my business, too bad. That's fine -- that's your opinion. That doesn't change the reality that many things that could happen on your property impact my quality of life.
American (and, I suspect, Western) law has a long history of recognizing the impact we have on each other with respect to property. It's not just zoning laws, which limit everything from the shape of the building to where it's located on the property to what uses are permitted on the property and inside the building. Building codes require your building to meet standards with respect to safety, energy, accessibility, etc. Environmental laws prohibit certain dumping and other activities on your property, as do agricultural laws. Other laws prevent you from prohibiting for-profit companies (aka utilities) from seizing parts of your land above or below ground for their benefit. Still other laws can force you to sell your land to the government without your consent. Naturally, you're not free to do certain things to other animals, humans included, just because it's on your property -- even with their human adult sober consent. Heck, in most places you're not even allowed to be naked on your property if visible from the street.
Your property is not a sovereign land -- it's part of a larger community and jurisdiction.
Here's the thing: if you don't like the law, lobby to get it changed. Changing local law isn't hard. You've got to learn about the law, learn why somebodies thought it was a good idea in the first place, and then rally for support for the change. It takes work, but it isn't hard.
You can either throw your rant on slashdot, even though your extreme property rights viewpoint doesn't mesh with the vast majority of property owners or citizens in the western world, or you can find a specific law that you think is unjust and go out and get popular support for changing it. Me: I'm doing the latter, as I'm interested in reducing the minimum parking lot requirements in my town (eliminating the requirements aren't going to happen anytime soon, so I'll work on making things better even if the end result still isn't as perfect as I'd like).
P.S. Your "beef" is that the public doesn't vote on every law directly? Are you kidding? Welcome, welcome to American government at all levels, for the past 200+ years. Hint: politicians like being elected. If you want the law changed, make it clear to them that voters want the law changed. If the politicians don't change the law, change the politicians. That may be hard on a national level, but it's wonderfully easy on a local level.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
In the end, rules are meant to be broken.
Rules aren't created for the sole purpose of being destroyed (like crash test dummies or firearms targets). Rules are meant to be followed. Breaking them sometimes makes sense if the rules are written poorly. Creating laws with an intent to enforce them randomly invites corruption on the part of the state (they can supress one class of people or specific people), and invites disregard for law and society in citizens. Observe U.S. traffic patterns for an example: driving 10-15 miles per hour over the speed limit is common, even in 15/20/30mph zones.
Absolutely correct. Another thing to remember is that they would be trapping the water so that they could USE it. The water will end up as run off regardless.
From an outsider's perspective I would diagnose the problem somewhat differently. It's paradoxical, the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system, consumer protection etc), yet on the other hand there are numerous examples of regulation like this.
On this particular issue, I think it's worth mentioning that regulation doesn't inherently do certain things. For example, US banks were required to make a certain amount of loans based on ethnicity (I don't know much about it except it's generally not considered a significant contributor to the recent banking collapse). They're also required to report all money transfers near or over $10,000. These regulations don't help make banking a sounder industry.
Your words imply that one needs merely to add regulation. I'm just pointing out that one can add regulation generously and not improve (perhaps even make the problem worse!) the situation.
Consumer protection seems quite adequate in the US. Sure, maybe idiots aren't sufficiently protected from the consequences of their actions, but you'd improve that by regulating the idiots not the producers.
But I don't think the problem is with the actual regulation. To me there seems a dangerous lack of discretion on the part of administrators, as to when laws ought, and more importantly, ought not to be applied.
I see a lot of discussion on the "need" for discretion. But as another replier notes, administrators should not have discretion. There is a saying here, "the US is a nation of laws not men" (see here for the orginal use). The meaning is that laws should be consistently and fairly applied else it is an avenue for tyranny. The discretion to apply law means that law enforcement can be selectively applied to political opponents, people who refuse to pay bribes/extortion, or other undesirables. Certain parties have to keep their activities scrupulously clean while others can be far more lax in their observance of law. This is the result of discretion and why it is considered an avenue for corruption.
It is as if the mere fact that something breaches an ordinance justifies taking action against that breach, or the mere fact that a crime has been committed means that someone ought to be charged. Or perhaps it is only that failures of discretion, such as in the present case, which are newsworthy.
Yes. That is exactly how it should be. It doesn't make sense to leave enforcement of an ordinance or criminal code up to the discretion of some agency or official with their own interests.
That's a long, well thought out reply for not reading the article.
They don't have a dead, ugly lawn. They removed the lawn and added plants that don't need a lot of water. You know, the kind of stuff that naturally belongs in California. The city IS coming after them for not making it a lush, green, expensive and environmentally negative artificial oasis.
Yes, and in the case of speed limits I would argue that the rules themselves are broken and in need of being fixed to match real world driving patterns. If enforcing a law requires that a majority of the citizens be prosecuted, then something is wrong with the law itself.
All those evil bankers were motivated by a quick payoff that was enabled by not owning the loans anymore.
Racist nonsense really has nothing to do with it.
The financial crisis was caused by bankers being insulated from the consequences of their actions.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
what a contrived story - you have a couple valid points but your property tax amount is ludicrously above any real property tax.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
How is it selfish if I don't pay taxes, at least not federal income tax? I had 0 in withholding from my taxes last year, and each of the last 4 years actually, and got 2200+ back in tax credits.
I don't think that wealthy people getting to keep most of what they earn is in any way a bad thing. Are they going to live it up? Hell yeah, but every item they spend the money on is an opportunity for somebody else to make a living. And the more we allow the haves to keep and spend, better off we are.
I, as a person that makes a modest income, would rather cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance (my 'safety net' according to the government), or make them optional with the right to buy those as insurance just like any other insurance. If I got to keep all of that income, I would easily be able to provide all of those same services for myself, and so could every other American. If people would recognize their need to build their own safety net, people would be less willing to overspend to get the biggest house they can imagine, waste money on cars they can't afford, get cheaper cell phones, and the government would have no need to provide for people what they can provide for themselves.
Look at it this way, the government gets a dollar for every dollar that passes through your hands, either as income/payroll taxes before it gets to you, or as property, sales or taxes on the profit of the people you pay for goods and services. Almost all of that is essentially waste as far as increasing the lifestyle of our fellow citizens. And the prices we pay for the services the government provides, let me tell you, there is a very low turnover for government jobs, and what that tells me is we give individuals who work for the government salaries that are too high.
As for the drug war and other laws that restrict the rights of Americans, I'm afraid that you are right. I would love to see us legalize many of the things that we outlaw that have resulted in people going to jail. Doing so would free us from having to maintain our current prison system in it's current state, and let us get back to living our lives of freedom.
There are less than 10 deaths a year in the US from snake bites; frankly that seems a little hysterical to me. You're probably more likely to die in some kind of freak lawnmower accident.
If I move into a subdivision and I agree to the HOA rules. I would expect everyone else who agreed to them to abide by them as well. If you don't agree to the rules, don't move in. Or if you've already moved in and you change your mind about agreeing with the rules move out. That's common courtesy to your neighbors which I think the U.S. is losing rapdily.
When you pay property tax, it isn't yours anymore. You rent it.
Ridiculous. Somebody has to pay for the services that maintain your rights as a property owner -- things like police, fire, courts, etc. Property ownership does not exist in a vacuum, and somebody has to pay for those most basic social services. Thus, property tax.
Your argument is as ludicrous as suggesting that you don't own your car because you have to pay to put gas in it.
-- Old Man Kensey
What on earth makes you think it would be about YOU getting money from the oil? Are you in power? Do you have the authority to trump up excuses and start wars? Didn't think so.
The United States didn't go to war, people in the United States government sent the United States to war, those people profited to the tune of billions from the economic implications of the Iraq war.
You as a citizen of the United States didn't get any oil, you weren't supposed to. You were supposed to pay more for oil because of the instability in the large oil producing regions of the world. Of course the oil you paid a higher price for didn't come from said unstable regions so it simply garnered a higher profit.
People who benefited from the Iraq war include soldiers (lots of soldier/mercenary pay and spoils), U.S. contractors (we used Iraqi oil to pay U.S. contractors rather than Iraqi's to rebuild Iraq) and their employees, Defense contractors and their employees, and anybody who has a stake in oil produced anywhere other than Iraq.
Biggest losers? Iraq of course, european nations that had previously been purchasing oil from Iraq like France, and the people of the United States who aren't in one of the previously mentioned groups.
I can't speak for the federal/state government issues because I'm ignorant about that. But is it left-wing to like the federal government? Here in Europe the commies hate the European Union's guts.
Redistributing the wealth of people with less than you is typical behaviour of the rich, right or left. They all want to escape taxes but they loooove juicy government contracts to make their companies richer. That's why the less government unregulated free-market bullshit will never succeed. Everybody wants to suck mama-State's big tits. The rich advocate less social spending because they want more for their own pockets. Of course this is not sustainable.
About healthcare, it is a right in all developed countries (and many 3rd world) except the USA, it works better than the system you have and it costs a lot less. So I don't see your point, here.
About the nutjob thing, I agree that many American right-wing politicians and pundits sound like dangerous psychopaths to me. When I was working in the USA I used to watch Fox News to have a few laughs in the end of the day. We have a few really bad newspapers and TVs here, but I could never imagine that something like that was actually possible.
Anyway, are the Hollywood millionaires and the Silicon Valley executives so keen on all these things? Are you sure? They live in hundred-million-dollar mansions. Why would they give a fuck?
I fought against this stuff and design for three years, on the other side as a city councillor. You'd think I'd have an easy time, being their boss and all, but when the other six councillors don't have a problem with it you don't get much movement. I did get council to tell planning to go fuck themselves when they wanted to purpose a bylaw against RVs in the front yard. I proposed an amendment to remove a requirement to build a porch on new development, because who the hell is the city to tell someone they have to have a porch. It got voted against, then planning turned around two months later to get that requirement removed because the construction industry reminded them a porch as defined in our bylaws is very, very specific (ie. traditional enclosed porch you'd find on a farmhouse or something) and it was unfair to force them to build them (no shit).
You know things are fucked when the 21 year-old is fighting against the 60 year-olds for the right to do whatever you want with your property as long as it's not a safety hazard.
the coalition and the northern sector were filled Islamists with al Quada ties. Funny you didn't mention that.
Yes he/she did. The Independent references that angle extensively. The references also happen to mention the relative stability Somalia enjoyed under Islamic rule just before the 2006 invasion - something that you seem to selectively ignore to support your point... whatever your point is by the way - it is not clear. You seem to be saying that Somalia is better off for being invaded. I am sorry, you haven't convince me. Every reference from Amnesty down to the GP's post all point to pretty convincing evidence that Somalia is now a "catastrophe" zone, genocide you name it - because of the US backed invasion. Even the US admitted as much (From the GP's reference):
In a rare moment of candour earlier last year, the US special envoy to Somalia, John Yates, admitted to fellow diplomats that their strategy had failed. "We set the agenda and then we lost control," he said. One diplomat present at the meeting said the US was finally beginning to realise that the insurgents were winning.
If you know they are all lying, your point would be better supported if you referenced something a little more authoritative than just yourself.