> Now, since we live real close to the Atlantic I have to also worry 
> about 
> getting replaced by a resort. 
> 
> ][< 
> 
> *Can anybody here explain the Supremes' reasoning behind this 
> decision? I gotta believe it makes sense somehow, but just can't see 
> it. In the other hand, there are the seemingly contradictory Ten 
> Commandments decisions, so who knows?* 
 
The only explanation that made sense to me was something about how 
building a big-ass hotel/resort complex provides economic development 
which is a public resource. Phizer had something to do w/ it at New 
London, CT where this got started in the legal system -- and will Groton 
lose the sub contracts or not? Either that or it has Haliburton or 
Custer's Battles or your favorite Saudi Prince writ all over it. But I 
am reminded of reading something by Koestler re: France in WW2 and a 
remote village that figured they needed to build another better village 
on the main road in a nearby valley because life was not good enough to 
them... so they spent all of their money and hocked their futures and 
then all of it got blown to shit. 
 
][< 
 
-- 
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the 
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: 
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>