In “Chinatown” Conflict Resolution, the Dust Clears

This:

> In 1997, Los Angeles signed an agreement with the basin to clean up the air pollution—a move that opened up a dispute about the degree to which the lake bed was responsible for the dust.

Seems to just dangle at the end of the article. Seems very out of place, especially since the resolution of the conflict happened after the 2013 election. Why are they bringing up 1997 and then ending the article?

What is with the sentence fragments and jittery tone in that article? It's really hard to read.

It sounds like "deny deny deny" is the proven conflict technique that wins out in the end.

Here's what I learned from this study of "conflict resolution."

After you use corruption to completely steamroll a small community so that it is permanently and seriously damaged, causing health problems for generations, you can then wait 100 years for people to get tired of fighting you, and for the artificially desertified area to gradually depopulate. Then you can draw down on whatever compensation you might have offered before, by complaining that it is too expensive - as long as you are the 800 pound gorilla, so that you can dictate terms to whatever remains of the community after 100 years of dust bowl.

All that's required is for the victims to develop a "new mentality" and "start listening" to the 800 pound gorilla. De-escalating an unjust aggression (contingent on victims accepting a raw deal because they can't get any better) now qualifies as an "impressive victory" and "proven conflict-resolution techniques." Great job, 800 pound gorilla!