I heard about this story from Rush while I was driving to work, and I thought I'd share it with you in case it doesn't get picked up anywhere else. Apparently, Georgica Pond, one of the most expensive and exclusive areas in East Hampton, New York, has been overflowing with water due to record rainfall this season and flooding the basements and septic tanks of the many rich liberals who live nearby.
Unfortunately for the normally-environmentally-conscious residents -- like Steven Spielberg and Martha Stewart -- there are some protected birds that live on the narrow strip of sand that separates the pond from the Atlantic Ocean, and it would be illegal for the town to drain the pond, regardless of the damage that's being done to the mansions on the shore. However, despite the environmental regulations, and despite the potentially immeasurable harm that could have been caused to the Piping Plovers, a few nights ago someone had the audacity to cut a channel into the sandbar and allow the water from the pond to drain.
"I'm furious that someone would have the audacity to take it on their own to open up an outlet," said East Hampton Supervisor Jay Schneiderman.I have a sneaking suspicion that either the McCaffreys' basement and septic tank weren't flooding, or they know exactly who was involved in the caper. It's interesting to note that when all that needs to be sacrificed to save some spotted owls are some blue-collar jobs and some lumber there's one set of rules, but as soon as basements start flooding in the Hamptons, well, those Piping Plovers are screwed.Board of Trustees Clerk James McCaffrey said he and his wife, Nancy, who live near Georgica Pond, got up around 5 a.m. Tuesday after smelling something rotten. It was the newly exposed pond bottom. "She came back and said, 'The pond is out,'" he said. "I said, 'you have to be kidding.'"
McCaffrey called town environmental officials, who called East Hampton Village police. They called the state Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
"Whatever way they did it, I don't know," McCaffrey said. "I don't think any machinery was brought onto the beach. I think it was a task force of a number of men or a number of women. I don't know which."
Update:
I should have posted this earlier, since it's far more local: Malibu beach-access fight pits cash against hoi polloi. By law in California, there is no such thing as a private beach. Nevertheless, rich liberals like David Geffen and Barbara Streisand do their best to deny access to the common folk. They're all about property rights when it's their property.
I thought those rich liberals all had pricey video security systems to keep the riff-raff away. I wonder if any of those systems caught the perps in the act, not that anyone would ever be able to see those tapes, if they still exist.
This type of thing is why I generally despise liberals. They're hypocritical and inconsistent. I don't mind if someone is just plain wrong, but the arrogant sense of entitlement pisses me off.
Sort of like Diane Feinstein and Rosie O'Donnell's bodyguards packing guns.
Oh, but I forget, laws are only there to regulate us, the unenlightened plebians.
Maybe this is a bit out of date (not sure what the etiquette is on posting to older articles in a blog), but don't conservatives ever display the kind of hypocrisy you keep reporting on?
Well, people can still see new comments on old articles by clicking on the most recent comments link from the front page. And I tend to notice comments from the blog control panel; it's not like there's normally a flood of comments :)
Conservatives probably do, but it's my (biased) impression that it's not as frequent. Rightists in America tend to favor new laws and rules less than leftists do, so there's inherently less danger.
The implied assumption is that more laws = more danger. I'll agree with that. However it ignores the fact that not all laws are equivalently dangerous. One group may be in favor of fewer laws that are individually more dangerous, while the other is in favor of more laws that are individually less dangerous. Throw in the appropriate constants and you end up with a tie (insofar as such things are quantifiable).
Tangentially, I find it odd that people think that political views can be accurately summed up in a label like "liberal" or "conservative." (Nevermind that the traditional left-right spectrum is completely unrelated to reality.) I've read a lot of things here which sound like the beliefs of those who are traditionally called "conservatives," but then I've also seen you write things that are traditionally the beliefs of "liberals." Considering the derision with which you refer to liberals and leftists (love thy neighbor?), I assume you consider yourself a conservative... but there are so many issues that I doubt if there is another self-described "conservative" out there who would agree with everything you do. What good is the label?
I meant that favoring more laws == more danger of hypocrisy, really.
Well, that's why I try to use the term "leftist" rather than "liberal", since American liberals aren't really all that liberal at all. I'm really a classic liberal, and conservative in the sense that I'd like to conserve our country's liberal heritage.
I'm largely libertarian, although most libertarians are pro-choice; I believe that unborn babies are actually human lives, and so it's consistent with libertarianism to want to protect them. I also think there may be many hidden costs to broadly legalizing drugs, although I agree that there is a strong civil liberties case to be made in favor of such a move, despite the potential costs.
Well, regardless of the term you use, I'd be wary of tarring a group so vast with the same brush. On a given issue, there's certain to be someone who'd agree with you, but because of their other beliefs, you'd call a "leftist." I dunno, I guess I'm saying, don't overgeneralize. :) That said, I still think our common political labels are too often used as insults. Each "side" insists that it's always right, and rarely, if ever, admits to having been wrong about something. Pride seems to be the chief virtue in American politics, and I keep thinking, isn't pride a deadly sin?
I believe that unborn babies are also human lives, but the difference between us is that you believe that anything defined as "human life" is (apparently) always deserving of protection. Except, I know that's not the case, due to your post about Hussein's sons, and how happy you were that they died. So apparently not all human life is equivalently sacred to you. (Which is fine as a belief; it's not all equivalently valuable to me, either.) I guess I'm wondering what it is that protects fetuses, but not Husseins.
Fetuses don't send their thugs to grab teenage girls off the street so they can rape them. Or feed people into shredding machines.