🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 Article 28318 (5 more) in misc.headlines:
 From: asylvain@felix.UUCP (Alvin "the Chipmunk" Sylvain)
 Subject: USENET HOMEBOY MAKES NAT'L TV (was Re: ARF TAKES ON CITY HALL)
 
 >Yo!  Saw you on CNN last night!
 
 >>                     ARF TAKES ON CITY HALL
 >>
 >>                Jack Schmidling (aka ARF) et al
 >                             vs.
 >>                    The City of Chicago
 [...]
 
 >>  The Chicago ordinance requires that weeds be cut or
 >  controlled to an average height of 10 inches.  The Due
 >  Process argument is based on the vagueness of the term
 >  "weed" and whatever can possibly be meant by "average
 >  height".
 
 >Don't think I can even pretend to give you legal advice, but I think a
 better tack may just be to have the law removed entirely.
 
 ARF says:
 
 You certainly won't get an argument from me on that but people want a law and 
 killing one today just postpones the enevitable.  Someone will come up with 
 one tomorrow.
 
 >  Suppose they _do_ come up with a nice list of scientific weed names?  Then 
 suppose you want to add some of them to your "garden?"  You can't then, can 
 you?
 
 ARF says:
 
 The issue is the definition of a weed.  "They" are not the ones who will come 
 up with the list, this is my (our) objective.  As a naturalist, my definition 
 of a weed is just about synonymous with alien.  If it is/was an endemic 
 plant, it must be proven to be noxious, dangerous or some sort of public 
 menace to be included in the "weed" list.
 
 If it is an "alien" invader or cultivar, it has no place in a natural garden 
 or wildlife habitat.
 
 Sounds just like my position on immigration doesn't it.  
 
 >Better to just drop the law.  What you do in your backyard is your
 business, not Chicago's.
 
 ARF says:
 
 I couldn't agree more but I live in the real world.
 
 arf