Future Cities

I apologise for the delay in new posting, but alas I have been busy. Recent developments in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and the Lebanon have been positively encouraging. Hopefully the Ukranian trend towards peaceful democratic reforms continues in all of these countries. If so, we'd have a lot less to worry about.
That said, there still is plenty in the future to fret about, and the design of future cities will obviously reflect these concerns. These cities will utilise emerging technologies to increase their security and also quality-of-life. Even though decentralisation will occur, cities will remain in existence. Despite their reduced indespensibility in future, they will still harbor both a sufficiently-sized population and strategic resources which merit their protection I developed a concept some time ago that might apply to future cities- a city as a "strategic zone".
The most obvious difference will be the active defensive measures. As the threat of direct attack increases, cities will likely have to emplace some sort of localised defence: national-level defence networks are inherently slow to respond to fast-changing situations. As such measures become less costly, they can be distributed about the nation by the national government on a cost-effect basis. There are several proposals to mount high-powered RADAR (no, I'm not yelling, it's an acronym) on un-manned balloons. These could be used for defence and civic (i.e. weather forecasting) purposes. Emplaced missile launchers are already a reality in Washington, and not foreign to our defence history. Most US cities were guarded at one time by Nike Missile Batteries designed to shoot down Russian bombers. Modern missiles could easily be emplaced similarly for a fraction of the cost. In addition, the Air Force could use newly-retired F-15s or F-16s for better ANG defence, localised at airports and near potential air targets.
As for ground security, advanced scanners coupled with computer systems could be used to scan for explosives and other nasty surprises. Vehicles would be identified by RFID, and they would be tracked as they traveled in the city. If there were a suspicious vehicle, a team of specially trained policemen would take it down.
As for the police, there would probably be two broad divisions. The first would be beat cops- neighbourhood regulars who know the people of their district. This form of policing has been found to be rather effective, and has been resurgent in the last few years. The second division would be the familiar "response" police, except they would probably be a mite less neighbourly- they would be equipped and trained as "tactical" officers that respond to dangerous situations. This is also the new fashion- car police are already carrying service carbines (usually some permutation of an AR-15) and wearing more military uniforms.
Of course, security won't be the only difference. Given current political trends, cities will probably end up being a sort of welfare state-within-a-state. The cities probably won't end up like the Scandanavian "Social Democracies", but a higher percentage of income will be taxed, and more services will be offered. One positive upshot of this is becoming reality in Philadelphia, where wireless internet might end up being a public utility supported by tax dollars. This seems to jibe with the political interests of city-dwellers well, and it might keep them from trying to impose their vision on the rural folk.
Regarding buildings, there seems to be no end in sight of the tyranny of unremarkable post-modernist trash. The "cutting edge" seems to get uglier with each year, though in some cities there has been a pleasing resurgence of Art Deco or at least minimalism. That said, the physical future cities will probably look much like modern ones, with lots of glass and steel.
Stay tuned for future transportation, war-fare, and politics

...for it is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives

Now, I will get down to business. Lately I've been examining some trends and I'm forming some pictures of life in the future. Sadly, I am no Criswell, and I cannot venture an 87% accuracy rating in my predictions. However, this is purely for fun and to provoke comment. So use the damned comment box already!
The internet is obviously the number one agent of change in modern society. As a result of its connective power, people no longer require proximity to conduct business. This serves an enabler to man's desire to own land. Man is naturally driven to a degree of independence- suburbs were so successful because they allowed people to live in their own houses, but also were in proximity to cities, which allowed easy access to jobs.
Because business can easily be conducted over networks, costly physical properties will become less and less important. Business will more likely consist of free-agent individuals joining up with others to accomplish an enterprise. This enterprise will work on attaining a particular goal. As better opportunities emerge, members will leave and others join, making an ad-hoc group. The true core of the business will be the entrepreneur. Though shipping, warehousing, and other types of physical business will still be dominated by large corporations, smaller groups with a specific focus will be able to out-perform larger groupings that have large overhead costs due to their extensive size. These ad-hoc businesses have little or no physical property, and as a result have fewer costs.
This contributes to decentralisation of housing. Because there's no "office" to work in, people can live where they please, so long as they have an internet connection. They will remain connected to their comrades, but they will not be saddled with commutes and other associated inconveniences.
Another contributing factor to decentralisation is security concerns. Mega-cities make very tempting targets for those who wish to induce terror, be they state or non-state actors. A large concentration of people living in one area means that less effort is required to wipe them out. A single 20-kiloton nuclear weapon detonated in downtown Manhattan may kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. The same weapon detonated in, say, rural Nevada may kill dozens at the most. Thus, a large mass of people is always a tempting target.
People don't like to be targets. Continued security threats, and realities of twenty-first century ideological warfare (asymmetric attacks on urban centers with "WMDs"), along with miserable social conditions in cities and high prices, will lead to an exodus from urban centers. This will make the gruesome task of terror more difficult. People will feel more secure living spread out.
This is especially true in the present war against Islamist ideology. There is really no way to stop the Islamists, and there will be more attacks against urban centers, which in Islamist ideology signify the sinks of corruption of the western system.
The WoT may very well be a multi-generational war, and the upshot of any multi-generational war is a change in life-style. The benefits of decentralised living now far out-weigh the costs, and the result is increased security and resistance to terror, along with an improvement in quality of life.
Stay tuned for more commentary on future cities, transportation, culture, and war-fare.

We are all interested in the future...

There's been a great deal of speculation around the blogosphere regarding the future prospects of the War on Terror. Debate especially rages in regards to the causes of the phenomenon of Terrorism, and its cures.
There are a number of theories, but there are essentially two major ones. The first is the Blair-ite theory. It's an extension of his "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" mantra. Terrorism is a result of socio-economic conditions- poverty and lack of education. The cure is a comprehensive programme of aid, along with select military intervention. They believe that, once given a taste of the End of History, the Sixth Century hold-outs would "drop out and tune in" willy-nilly.
This was the prevalent theory during the 1990s. It is no coincidence that terrorism changed fundamentally during this time: it moved from a phenomena primarily being concerned with temporary political objectives. An example of this would be PFLP-style hijackings that demanded the release of prisoners, or targeted bombings as part of a campaign against an organisation.
It seems most of the aid money disappeared, and little made it to the populations in question. Perhaps we'll never know exactly what happened to it, but the progressive exploits of the King of Swaziland might provide a clue.
The other theory, which seems to be slightly more realistic. This states that terrorism is an ideology, much like Communism, Fascism (sort of- fascism is a "lite" ideology) &c. People, regardless of socio-economic burdens and the like will flock to terrorists because they like their ideology. Thus, aid packages will do little to prevent terrorist recruitment, because as long as fanatical Islamists exist, they will continue to utilise militaristic and less-than-legal methods to bring their fight against an ideology they view as a direct threat.
The implications of this theory are much more profound. Instead of draining a few bucks from the GNP and firing an occasional cruise missile and thus keep the problem under control, we're faced with exterminating an ideology that will continue to utilise the tools of decentralised warfare against western civilisation.
Because ideologies spread across borders, there's no easy way to hit back, especially with decentralisation provided by secure electronic communications. This means that conventional military power is not sufficient. In addition, it will require years and years to confront the damage done. In the meantime, with the capability that these forces have attained, the amount of damage that they can inflict is large.
As a result of these and other factors, large changes are necessary in the fabric of western society. Methinks that it might be time to spell out some possible future world-views based on some current trends to-morrow.

My One True Love

I expected to post a range report this weekend, but sadly the range in question decided to start charging a $100-per-year membership fees. However, now is a good time to introduce my readership to my special lady, who has kept me in good company for the last two semesters. Here she is:
Click Here!
It's a Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk. 1 rifle, manufactured in Birmingham, England in 1942. The above rifle is not her specifically, but it is a good representation of what she looks like. Mine has a darker, redder stock that's a bit more worn, and is currently undergoing an overhaul.
What sort of overhaul? We're re-blueing it, re-finishing the stock, and improving the action. It's fun.
You were expecting a girlfriend? Ha!
Semi-regular posting has been light because of System Shock 2. Given the current geo-strategic situation, that represents a significant failure on my part, which I shall seek to rectify. Perhaps to-morrow I might rectify this with a post concerning some crazy projections of mine on the future of western civilisation in a variety of eventualities.
You were expecting a personal life? Ha!

Just dropped in...

My blogging has been on the light side as of late, but such things are to be expected out of one as lazy as I. In addition, the geo-strategic scene (which is my "bag", as the enemies would say) has been a bit rich, and I've been unable to add much meaningful to the debate.
So, instead of the usual doom-laden article about massive wars or my usual spleen venting at the perfidious EU, I'm actually going to explain something about myself. Amazing, yes, but necessary I think.
Part of my "WASP-ness gone wild" (as one of my friends put it) involves respect for the virtues of silence. Though I am known to get overly verbose at some times, at others I say nothing. If I'm not saying anything, it's because I don't have anything terribly meaningful to say. This un-nerves some, as it is the custom of many in this time to speak unendingly of unimportant trifles, in which consist the meat of any contemporary conversation.
Honestly, there are aspects to life about which there is no real meat for conversation, and bringing them up is really rather silly. To be rather blunt, nobody cares about the dull minutiae about your life. My life consists mostly of dull minutiae, reading, and inappropriate conversation. Though the latter may supply some amusing anecdotes to supply in conversations else-where, the other two do not, unless I am given an opportunity to rip on something I intensely dislike, wherein my reading comes into play.
I do have a rather large store of interesting experiences in my life, but they belong to a realm of conversation that does not come up very often. Most people in day-to-day life do not ask of me questions such as "Have you ever been bothered by a loud fundamentalist Christian revival late at night in the Amazon rain-forest?", or the classic "Do you have an inordinate interest in classic World War II firearms like I do?" Consequently, bringing amusing episodes of my life into conversation usually stretches the premise of the conversation to the limit. It also intends to dominate the conversation, as there are not too many others with similar anecdotes. This means that it becomes a lecture, not a conversation, and lectures are below conversation on the "fun" scale. They also incite jealousy in regards to my ability to participate in these unusual experiences. Thus, it's in the interest of all concerned that I stay a low-key player.
Others, who dislike the sweet sound of silence, are gripped by an un-reasoned compulsion to speak. However, most of them lead lives little more interesting than mine. This leads to the difficulty-how can they keep their hand in conversation compensate for the lack of interesting doings in their life in a number of ways.
The first is to lie their heads off, also known as the "Napoleon Dynamite" method. These folk create a fantasy world over which they stand astride, endowed with powers and fortune that borders on the mystical. Whether learning illegal ninja moves banned by the government, dating models, or buying 20mm firearms, those who practice this technique strain the credulity and good-will of their listeners. They can never tell a believable lie, and as they get away with more and more, their lies get more and more unbelievable.
The second way is to artificially cause more excitement in one's life. In my experience, this involves competitions to see who can cause the most damage to their bodies. Competitions in regards to the amount of liqueur one is able to consume are a favourite, and the "winner" has the good fortune to regale all assembled with his very own miniature dolorious passion, where he suffered for his own sins, errrrr, stupidity by repeatedly vomiting over everyone else's stuff and leaving a lovely smell which hangs around like a poor relative. Others engage in various high-risk behaviours and brag about how fortunate they've been to avoid the sharp end of justice. This, in case any-one is curious, is the source of my endless fascination with the misfortunes of those who choose to (metaphorically) play in traffic and then get smashed by a bus.
The third method is to tell the cold, unvarnished truth. This is the worst of the three. Though honesty is a virtue, listening to a rant about how one was a spy trained by the CIA to study "subversive groups" in one's high school has an inherent humour value which cannot be matched by long-winded accounts of the difficulties of doing laundry on a certain day of the week. Nobody cares, and no one ever will.
On that note, I shall depart. There it is- a glimpse into the mind of the "weird one". Disturbing, isn't it?
I shall return with semi-regular posting whenever the feeling strikes me. Perhaps, if I've nothing to do, I might even list my specific grievances with Popery so that it might be the subject of debate. Then again, given that conversion efforts on my behalf are currently using "force persuade +20," I don't think the idea of "serious discussion" goes well with it.

Regarding Deterrence and North Korea

I recently had a productive conversation with my illustrious colleague Dr. Fujiyama regarding the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula. The conversation eventually came to the question of a hypothetical North Korean nuclear strike against a major US ally- Japan. Japan is a likely target (aside from, obviously, South Korea),especially given that the NorKors decided to show off their new missile system by firing it over the Japanese Islands. The missile in question, the Taepo-dong 1, has been supplemented by a more advanced Taepo-dong 2. For more information, see this informative article at the BBC. In addition, fighting Japanese occupation during the Second World War figures largely in the national myth of Kim Il-Sung, father of current(?) leader Kim Jong-Il.
For those of you who are behind on your history, after the Second World War, Japan had to adopt a new constitution which forbade it from possessing offensive military capability. The US guaranteed Japan's safety by international treaty, and took over the offensive portions of Japan's Defence needs.
In short, this means that if Japan is attacked, it's up to the US to immediately retaliate. There are two options, and both of them are bad.
The first option is to comply with our treaty obligations and send some nukes North Korea's way. Obviously, such a strike would be limited in nature, concentrating on military installations and strategic targets. That being said, such targets are often near population centres, and fall-out would cause much injury for years to come.
Of course, there's always the problems that the incoming warheads could trigger alarms in Russia and China, who might think that a general war had broken out and decide that the US is attacking them. The ballistic trajectory of a US-based ICBM is hard to determine after the initial burn, which is the likely point of detection. Someone might decide it's not worth waiting for the targeting figures to come in, and an apocalyptic conflagration might result.
Alternatively, the US may decide to hold back on the nukes and go instead for a conventional war designed to topple the NorKor regime and reunite it with the South. This sounds like a lovely solution, as it does not add to the list of nuclear victims. Sadly, it has some very serious problems.
If the US does not act to defend Japan, or retaliate on its behalf, the US has betrayed its commitments to the Japanese. This means that the Japanese will seek to develop their own offensive capability, and will probably go nuclear as well. This means that there will be a direct nuclear confrontation over the Sea of Japan. In addition, any smidgen of the US-Japan alliance would be lost by this failure on the USA's part.
In addition, by not retaliating to nuclear aggression, the United States would effectively make its entire nuclear arsenal useless. Nuclear deterrence is based on the idea that fear of nuclear retaliation keeps people on the other side from "pushing the button." If the US demonstrated that it lacked the will or ability to retaliate to a nuclear strike, the cornerstone of deterrence is lost. This would lead to a massive destabilisation in the world order.
Even if this doesn't happen, occupations by the US do tend to be rather benign. Though human rights activists might disagree, the fact is that a western occupation and reconstruction would make North Korea far better than it is at present. The net effect is that the North Koreans would be,in effect, rewarded for using nuclear weapons.
To expand on the last point, and deter wild maniacs screaming about the Iraq occupation being an example of eeeeevil western imperialism and racism, and how no situation could possibly be worse, I direct them to this article which tells a few of the harrowing tales of survivors from the world's last Stalinist state. Other tales can easily be found using google.
All speculation aside, a nuclear strike by North Korea against any of its likely targets would have two effects even in the best-case scenarios. The first is that a lot of people will die. A nuclear strike is an unthinkable option in the minds of the civilised world. Use of a nuclear weapon will serve as a catalyst for more instability. When the unbelievable becomes believable, the old order can't stand and instability results.
Another problem that will result from an attack on an "Asian Tiger", especially one as densely populated and productive as South Korea or Japan, is economic. Given the losses of population and the devastation of economically critical urban centres, the impact on the world economy would be terrible. South Korea and Japan are responsible for a lot of high-technology production and also represent large markets. Given the interconnected nature of the global market, these problems would be felt world-wide. In addition to this, the sense of fear and panic instilled by the attacks would harm economic growth as well. The economic fallout could result in a world-wide depression.
There's an excellent geo-strategic discussion on this subject going on over at the always-informative Belmont Club.
Now it's off to Literature...

Revision and Projection

I was advised that I neglected to note the differences between a conventional reactor layout and the new Chinese "Pebble Bed" design. The chief difference is that the radioactive material in a conventional reactor is stored in a rod design, allowing critical mass and easy removal of said rods from the reactor when the fuel becomes spent. The new Chinese design encases radioactive fuel in "pebbles" of graphite, which contain most of the radioactive emissions from the fuel. The pellet is thin enough to allow both neutrons and heat to escape. The neutrons continue the fission reaction by splitting Uranium-235 in other fuel pellets. The heat transferred to the coolant, which is usually Helium, and then creates steam which is used to power a turbine, which in turn powers the generator. If there is a coolant problem, or the reaction gets out of control, the heat expands the graphite, lessening the density of fissile material and thus it lacks critical mass, meaning the reaction cannot continue. This means the reactor is self-moderating. US water-cooled reactors are also self-moderating, but a coolant loss is still catastrophic, whereas it is not for the Chinese system. In addition, the graphite surrounding each fuel bit is sufficient to keep out most radiation, meaning that fuel handling is safer than its US counterpart.
Continuing in the nuclear vein, it seems Pyongyang has finally admitted what everyone already knows and officially stated that they have a nuclear arsenal. They have apparently privately admitted before that they had the Bomb, but it seems it's official now. Furthermore, they've withdrawn from the six-party talks aimed at getting them to drop their nuclear programme.
Of course, the US's solution is more "diplomatic isolation" from the "rest of the world". Of course, North Korea is already the most isolated country on the face of the earth, so one wonders exactly what this is supposed to accomplish. The short answer is "absolutely nothing", and as a result now three out of three of the world's potential hot-spots have nuclear overtones (Straits of Taiwan, Kashmir in India, and now the Koreas).
All of this might have been stopped almost ten years ago. Instead, Jimmah Carter rushed over to Pyongyang, and he and Madeline Albright decided that the North Koreans were a force to be trusted. Therefore, they were left to their own devices, and we used the very effective "honours system" to ensure that Kim Jong Il didn't start up fissile material enrichment again, which he did anyway, while the west twiddled its thumbs.
A nuclear North Korea was a staple of the "nightmare scenarios" of geostrategic studies in the mid-90s. Now it's a reality. A nuclear-armed Iran is on the way as well, it seems. Soon, we'll have a fourth nuclear tension point- Iran-Israel or Iran-Iraq, maybe both.
The odd thing is that these nations are not blamed for their conduct. Instead, they are treated like spoiled children who have taken hold of daddy's shotgun- they are offered toys, candy, and anything else they want to let it go. Whenever they want more, they start rattling the shotgun again.
I've said many times that we're going to pay for our lack of commitment to a secure world in the mid to late 90s. It seems this is the case. Perhaps we should all take a cue from the Emperor in Return of the Jedi, who warns us those with a lack of vision will pay a price.
Excuse me while I dig my fallout shelter and replace the batteries in my radiation detector...
More on this later

More idiocy

The fine folks over at EU Referendum have posted a story about the advanced pebble bed nuclear reactor being developed by the Chinese. This reactor, in short, is the cleanest, safest, and most independent power source ever invented. It is impossible for it to melt down. A loss of coolant casues the reactor to scram itself automatically. There is no radioactive waste because the radioactive elements are sealed in "pebbles" which are made of graphite and contain all the radiation except for heat, which is used to power the reactor.
Even though this reactor was largely developed in Germany and the US, none have been constructed here. The only working reactor is in China. This is a test bed: a second reactor that will provide civilian power is planned. Because of this, China can reach energy independence before the US, and will be in a better strategic position than any of the major democracies, who depend mostly on non-democracies like middle eastern states or Chavez' Venezuela for fuel. The result of this is that China will have a span of greater freedom of action than any of the western democracies that might oppose it.
Of course, one might ask why a system like the pebble bed reactor is not being developed in the US. The answer, of course, is environmentalism. At first, this seems counter-intuitive, as this new power system is the most environmentally friendly power source of any yet developed. However, environmentalists have demonstrated a dogmatic hatred of all forms of nuclear power, and have vowed to block any attempts to construct new nuclear power plants in the US and Europe. This means no pebble bed reactors for us due to political pressure.
Why does environmentalism hate all things nuclear, even nuclear powered space probes like Cassini? It's simple- environmentalism is a reactionary superstition that uses some scientific evidence to draw radical and sensational solutions. Perhaps it's descended from the idealistic Lockean idea of a state of nature, where man wandered about freely, with no cares or rules with which to constrain him. Environmentalists view industrial society as inherently evil, and view its destruction as a sort of return from Babylon to the Promised Land. They believe that this would be like putting the apple of industrialisation back on the tree and returning to the Garden. They also believe that industrial society and ecology are polar opposites, and that they cannot coexist successfully. In short, environmentalism is merely a superstitious cult which fudges its first principles and makes vastly incorrect computations regarding human nature (i.e. that people would be satisfied to live like any other animal) and ecology(a perfect and unchanging thing).
This superstition has already cost the EU dearly- many life-improving medicines, better crops, and other improvements have been banned because of uncertain "environmental effects". Other solutions, like burning rubbish for power, have also been rejected due to the dogmatic opposition of environmentalists towards any technology-based solution to problems.
Now their idiotic superstition is costing the US and other large democracies in the form of this nuclear reactor. While the Chinese will enjoy nearly unlimited power that is clean and safe, we'll still be stuck with oil and coal based power, both of which require strategic resources that exist in other countries. That means energy dependence, and great cost to us.
The next decade or so will determine the pecking order of the twentieth century. Already, we're seeing China rise at an unprecedented rate. Will the future be dominated by a league of democracies- the so-called "core" nations like the US, India, Australia, and Japan? Or will China be the uni-polar power of the new century? Though China is a totalitarian system, this affords them the good fortune of being able to ignore the ignorant and baseless protests of a few nut-jobs and progress towards the future, while the democracies must take account of this superstition and work around it. It will be interesting to see who wins out.

Notes on a Monday

No complaints about this Monday- le clase de francaise is cancelled. That means I only have the enjoyable American Congress and Philosophy of Science courses this afternoon. Previously, I succeeded in giving my Literature instructor what-for during one of her harangues about how civil liberties are under threat "like never before". Perhaps she forgets the alien and sedition acts of 1799, the martial law during the civil war (where one could be executed for being "un-American"), and the speech restrictions during the First World War that resulted in a ten-year sentence in federal prison. One might examine the fate of the detestable socialist Eugene V. Debs for an example of real war-time speech restriction.
This brings me to my primary point. Over-blown political rhetoric is epidemic in to-day's political climate, especially amongst the political left. All kinds of wild charges which even a cursory examination of history would dis-prove are brandished in the manner of weapons. Happily, their attacks can easily be blunted with a simple history lesson. However, there are many who are less educated that take this rhetoric to be the absolute truth. That's why it's important to return to the idea of school as an institution which passed on society's knowledge, rather than the post-modern Edward Said model of deconstructivist education leading to activism: meaning, of course, political indoctrination. A society of ill-educated activists is not a pleasant one to live in, as contemporary experience demonstrates.
On an unrelated note, I encourage all men to sign the white ribbon pledge to stamp out domestic violence. A true man with virtue (virtus) never engages in domestic violence. Nothing positive is demonstrated by abusing someone who is unable to fight back properly. Proper manliness is demonstrated by restraint, respect, and virtue. Those interested in manly virtues can find a good list here.

On Justice

A while back, a friend of mine asked me why I was religious, despite my contemporary education and reading. After some careful thought on how to explain a matter of faith using the means of reason, I settled on the matter of justice.
It is easily demonstrated that man desires justice. The most cursory look at human nature shows that man has a thirst for justice, and man often seeks redress of past wrongs far beyond the point of what would seem to be rational. However, man does not always get his justice in this world, and so part of the attraction of religion is the presence of a Supreme Adjudicator Who rewards good and punishes evil in a final matter.
Upon further meditation, and a few showings of Oliver Stone's post-modern classic JFK, I've learned that one has to seek out justice on his own in the world. Though there is is a measure of divine justice that exists in the physical world, one can't bet the bank that it will right the wrongs which daily occur. Society cannot exist in a condition wherein justice is delayed until after the death of all concerned. Thus, we must artificially impose justice to the best degree we can, using our reason and moral principles.
It then comes naturally that man creates institutions to provide justice, which often function effectively. Sadly, man is imperfect, and he often creates institutional barriers which prevent full justice from being carried out; one example is the abolition of the death penalty in contemporary society. Every single major society has, throughout history, reserved the right of capital punishment against the most heinous criminals. However, modern humanitarian impulses have banished this form of justice from many of the world's states, and as a result society's justice is often meted out by criminals! For example, those guilty of the hideous crime of child molesting are often given light sentences by society's institutions; however, when they enter the prison they rarely survive for long. The other inmates take it upon themselves, at great personal risk, to inflict the appropriate punishment for the heinous crimes committed.
Another block to society is represented by politeness. For example, I live in a "quad" which has, of course, three dorm rooms with two residents each plus a lounge. Inside this quad dwell my compadres- the Churchill Society, Wheeling. Also, there are a pair of atheletes we were stuck with at the beginning of the year.
Contrary to fears, they behaved themselves for the first semester and we ended up with a satisfactory working relationship. Sadly, they have taken our silence on the subject of their personal eccentricities as a license to go for broke. They have started holding regular parties, calling in all manner of people at all hours of the day. They also take "team showers" in our shower stalls, which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't let the showers sit on for hours on end to "steam up" the place. Naturally, this leads to mildew damage and a sopping wet bathroom, in addition to uncertainty as to when we might use our own showers.
These habits are certainly annoying, but they would be tolerable. However, the others have commenced on a second set of habits which are not tolerable. The first is blasting that terrible excuse for music they listen to loudly. The second is far more serious- the use of illegal drugs. Now, using illegal drugs is a federal charge. Furthermore, it has side affects, and quite frankly the after-effects of their use waft through the quad like a perfumed breeze, spread by the shared ventilation system.
Now they've decided to do same-room sign-up for next year. The irony is that they "enjoy the quiet" of our quad, the very quiet that they've done so much to disrupt with their asinine and juvenile behaviour. Because of the problems in living conditions that this would represent, a part of our group is seeking lodging in a different dorm. Others cannot follow them. The short story is that our quad, with its excellent dynamics, is going to be broken up because of a couple of louts who aren't even party to them.
This goes back to my point about seeking out, rather than waiting for, justice. It's unconscionable that these louts will continue to reap rewards from a living situation which they have broken up with their juvenile antics. Henceforth, if I smell anything that comes close to marijuana, or hear any wippets being used, or see the remains of a pipe emptied in my toilet, certain people are going to be arrested. That would be fine justice.