OT: Scientific American on sea level rise.

What has happened is that lots of people get Federal flood insurance and build big houses on beaches and sand spits, or in the case of Houston, in reservoirs.

I'm glad you asked that... I think. I knew some folks who had property on the Potomac river until the National Park Service condemned it to create t he Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park. Until then, they owne d the river bank as well as the river bottom. This was because their deeds were traceable back to the original land grant from the King of England I believe. I didn't find direct evidence of the original land grant, but I f ound a report of a law case where a Maryland company wanted to charge a fee to rafters exiting the Potomac on the Virginia side because the river had changed course and land that had been river bottom was now river bank. lol They lost and the river *is* the boundary and the extent of the land the c ompany owned was under the water.

Rick C.

I agree with all that. But in most parts of the world the law is imperfect, let alone justice.

You give some examples below, and appear to be using the "it was OK because it was 'for the greater good'" justification. That's been used by bastards of all persuasions to trample over the likes of thee and me.

I like my heated house and my food and my car and my dentist and my oscilloscopes. People in Africa and China can only wish to be so trampled.

I do too. Hot baths are one of the crowning /everyday/ achievements of modern civilisation.

But that's irrelevant, since neither of us have been trampled.

OTOH, many have: you alluded to some in your previous examples. And there are many many others, e.g. the poor bastards that pick in Amazon sheds, and have to pee in bottles because they aren't allowed toilet breaks.

Don't spout meaningless soundbites; it doesn't look good.

snipped-for-privacy@decadence.org wrote in news:q5hjf2$r6r$1 @gioia.aioe.org:

snip

contamination

polar

but

to

You're all blind.