28 luglio 2006

Enough is enough.

Let’s say you live in an affluent sub-division.
Let’s further say you have a neighbor who has told you he wants nothing less than you leaving “his” neighborhood.
This neighbor makes no qualms about letting all your other neighbors know this. In the past, he has:
- spray painted “Die” on your front door
- firebombed your car
- threw countless rocks through your window
- egged and TPd your house
- taken a baseball bat to you mailbox
- put salt on your front lawn

You finally give up and move to a different house, down the block. Figuring if you just ignore this neighbor and don’t respond to him, he’ll go away.
Now said neighbor decides to take your dog.
At this point, you’ve had enough, so you decide to go over to his house with some of your friends and firebomb his car, pour salt on his lawn, baseball bat his mailbox, and egg his house.
Now your subdivision committee president decides to finally speak up and tell you that your response is unwarranted.
Some of your neighbors across the street from where you used to live agree with your subdivision president. They ask “How could you do all those terrible things?!”
Now, there was one, lonely sympathetic neighbor who has watched all the abuse you’ve taken since you moved to the sub-division and stands by you.
This friendly neighbor, however, is scorned by the sub-division president.
You have tried going to the police in the past, only to be told that you complain too much and you are making too much of a big deal about these minor incidents.

So, if anyone is reading this, I ask you:

What is this neighbor to do?

6 commenti:

Anonimo ha detto...

Don't they have police in the suburbs?

Ryan ha detto...

Let's say the subdivision committee gave you the land 60 years ago, without consulting the neighbors and displacing the angry neighbor's relatives who have since been living in a tent city.

Can you still feel so smugly indignant, or is it more than a black-and-white issue?

Scott D. Feldstein ha detto...

What kind of dog are we talking about here?

still Unreal... ha detto...

Ryan –
Le’ts say when you left your home, the “displaced” neighbors have since been living in your home. Further, let’s say that these neighbors relatives never had really had homes of their own to begin with, they just chose to ‘squat.’
Yes, I still would – and do – feel “smugly indignant” as you put it.

Feldstein: (welcome)
The dog is a new addition to your family, but is so loyal it would be willing to give its life for you.

RoseIndigo ha detto...

"Let's say the subdivision committee gave you the land 60 years ago, without consulting the neighbors . . . "

Since we have a subdivision committee, that must mean that at one time people agreed to have them represent the subdivision and voted to have it so. So if the decision is made by the committee to give the land to someone (land which has been disputed for centuries by the way in which ownership is not clear in the first place), then everyone has to adhere by that decision, including the committee who ought to enforce their original ruling, by police action, if necessary. Otherwise, why have a committee?

Also, if it happened 60 years ago that is one generation ago----and what the old generation lost is not necessarily what the new generation are entitled to. If it were, the U.S. would have to give a whole lot of land back to the Indians. The people in East Germany would have to give a whole lot of land back to the people in the west who were the original owners, Australians would have to give back land to the indiginous people, so would New Zealand, and every country that ever conquered anyone would have to give land back, and just how far is that supposed to go?

Also, if the land has been greatly improved by the new owners, just what is to be given back? Just the land? What do you do with the improvements, raze them? Sell them when no one can buy them? And what about all the displaced people, most of whom were born there?

Sorry, but I don't appreciate advocation of that sort of chaos in the world, let alone have to deal with all the subsequently displaced people.

That's insane!

The world has always had disputes over territory, and eventually we all settle down and accept the situation as it is with the new paradigms----except the Muslims.

Add to that the fact that other Muslim countries could have integrated the Palistinian populations a long time ago, but did not want to, and I see no reason at all the change what the U.N. decided 60 years ago.

The one thing I do resent is that the U.N. is not enforcing its own decisions. So what the hell good are they? To me that means they can decide anything today, change their minds tomorrow, and the whole thing has no meaning whatsoever.

RoseIndigo ha detto...

Oh yes, and now add to all that the fact that the committee has attempted several times to negotiate an agreement between the two of you. All parties agreed, and then the party who wanted the land back (or their descendants) that they owned 60 years ago breaks the agreement---not once, but over and over and over again, no matter how many times you've negotiated an agreement.

Not only that, but they are screaming for your demise because they want you off the face of the earth, and say so loud and clear. The spew hatred to every new generation like the Hatfields and the McCoys.

And add to that the fact that you have already moved out of the house that the committee gave you 60 years ago and moved to another block. But the owners of 60 years ago moved into your vacated house and ruined it, and now they want the new house you have moved into also.

C'mon, get real. Israel is a LEGITIMATE COUNTRY, created by the U.N. which was an agreement of those nations at that time. To backtrack on all of that now would be even worse than what we have.

The only solution I see is to make clear to those people who owned the place 60 years ago that it is no longer theirs, by agreement of the majority of the lawfully elected committee, and that the rule will be strictly enforced----and then DO SO.