. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Yes, trees. Dave Rhoads (Rhoades, according to the Daily Cal) and Gabe Weiner write in support of tree-killing. Matthew Taylor writes in support of student-killing. His organization is called "Free Speech Free Trees Student Coalition," apparently.
Is nature sacred? Who has the right to declare it as such?
Me! Keep that question in mind for the rest of the letter.
For me, these questions are at the heart of the Oak Grove conflict. Thousands of people love the trees and see the grove as sacred.
Do those thousands have the right?
How would you react if the university planned to bulldoze your place of reverence to build a training facility? Would you believe that your holy site was the only place that could accommodate the building? If your sacred place were located on public land, would you concede to the stewards of that land the right to destroy it?
Counterquestion: How many of these protesters actually stopped by to revere the trees before these plans came up?
As a Jew, I prefer the Oak Grove to a synagogue.
Dare I note that this may be related to the availability of synagogues elsewhere?
Let's not pretend that student athletes and oaks advocates are in fundamental opposition. Numerous athletes, including football players, love the oaks. Some of them party at night with the tree-sitters. Some are afraid to speak out because it would risk their scholarships.
That's an amazing accusation. I'd like to see it backed up, if Taylor isn't a liar.

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 9/25/2007 01:01:00 AM #
Comments (0)
. . .
Comments: Post a Comment

. . .