Thursday, June 19, 2008
The eternal conservative argument against social progressMost everybody has probably already heard that Jamie Lynn Spears had a baby girl today. So I won't do a separate post on that quite yet. Congratulations, Jamie Lynn!
Carolyn Jones and Charles Burress of the San Francisco Chronicle reported today on the latest turn in a battle between tree-huggers and the University of California-Berkeley over a new athletic center: Cal, tree-sitters both happy after judge rules 06/19/08.
I happened to be driving by a different part of the campus today and saw that the tree-sitters were perched on Piedmont Ave not far from the frat houses, for those who may know the area. It was a pretty tame scene. Several police were standing around and for some reason they seemed to have closed off a parking lot.
I knew the tree-sitters were protesting but I don't really have any strong opinion one way or the other on this particular issue. It's fairly specific to the particular campus. But I can still appreciate the creative protests on behalf of the environment.
Also in today's Chronicle is an op-ed about tree-sitters (A message to the destroyers by Doug Kaplan 06/19/08) that caught my attention mainly because it uses about the stalest conservative argument in the book: we live in the best of all possible worlds and how can you criticize any part of it? Or, we the stodgy-minded led by the greedy are the true friends of goodness, truth and health and you dirty hippie tree-huggers want to destroy it all!
I guess it's such a popular form of argument because even someone who has, say, pickled their brain in OxyContin can manage for formulate it.
Tags: conservatism, environmentalism, jamie lynn spears
| +Save/Share | |
Links to this post:
No subject for immortal verse
That we who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse."
-- Cecil Day-Lewis from Where Are The War Poets?
[Tip: Point cursor to any comment to see title of post being discussed.]
SEARCH THIS SITE
News & Media Links