This from 'CAC', Los Angeles, California.
TREE SITTING? JUST LET GO ALREADY! GIVE THE BEAVERS THEIR HOME BACK!

While I am all for the preservation of the environment and our beloved ecosystem...

Tree sitting seems a ridiculous and dated method of protest.

While it may have worked in previous eras, it just doesn't fly today. With the Brazilian rainforests being lost at around 5,000 square miles a year (YES: THAT IS FIVE THOUSAND!!), silly protesters in Berkeley have sat in a grove of trees for over a year and a half! All that time, 99.99% of the world had no idea. And cared even less.

Who are they protesting anyway? "The man?" “The man” who wants to build a sports complex. Really? Shallow subterfuge, you all! Ordinary tree-huggers, sitting on the wrong trees!

Instead of sitting in a tree, how bout getting a job and helping to work toward a solution. While a sit in, or love in, or anything 'in' during the 60's might seem like a worthy way of spending your time, today it just seems lazy. With names like 'Dumpster Muffin,' it is hard to imagine anyone taking them seriously, good cause or not.

What happened to marches, or good ole fashion riots (oops). Seems to me that if they truly cared about the loss of trees they would head to a country like Brazil where the real problem lies. But then they might have to leave Berkeley and that surely would be out of the question.

[BARNS} Pretty good coffee in Brazil as well, though ....

Sound Off!

   

  • GMc ( 34 posts / 0 fights ) from Helena, Montana (United States) on 07/02 at 03:35PM PT

    I am on board with CAC. Get a job. Sitting in a tree for almost 2 years, saving those trees is not a statement of anything else other than stupidity.

    SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

  • chem ( 60 posts / 0 fights ) from Palo Alto, California (United States) on 06/30 at 04:09PM PT

    Is this about something other than earthquake concerns. Anyway, you folks should know that up here one has to work very hard to surprise or get noticed. Those fools have been in those trees for 18 months. The fire department should have hosed them out of the trees. Instead, we have judges to review and rule. Looks like every other aspect of our lives up here are just fine.

    SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

    • smidgen ( 62 posts / 1 fights ) from Los Angeles, California (United States) on 06/30 at 04:25PM PT

      Yeah, I guess it also takes law enforcement officials labeling the grove a "crime scene" so that they too can get attention. The protester poo-slinging cracks me up, actually. How do you gain support for your cause when you do that?! Come on people.

      SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

      • Harm ( 116 posts / 0 fights ) from Alexandria, Virginia (United States) on 06/30 at 05:03PM PT

        The entire affair seems to be on large pile of it, no? Please tell me how those people are allowed to trespass for a year and a half without getting thrown in jail?

        SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

        • harvard ( 29 posts / 0 fights ) from Boston, Massachusetts (United States) on 07/01 at 08:33AM PT

          It is just another display of how political correctness has permeated everything in our society. Peaceful protest is fine. In fact, very fine and necessary. It should not be allowed to supersede law. That makes a mockery of our fundamental systems. If the trees belong to somebody else, they should have been removed, poo-bags and all, day one of their trespassing. Get a permit and do their thing.

          SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

  • Backbiter ( 107 posts / 1 fights ) from West Hollywood, California (United States) on 06/30 at 03:42PM PT

    Protests need to be looked on as PR, an opportunity to gain the public's support. If no one knows about your protest, you're a "tree falling in the woods" (no pun intended). I think that's why the anti-war protests in 2003 didn't work. Instead of giving logical reasons (and there were a lot) not to go to war, they had signs that compared Bush to Hitler

    SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

    • Barns ( 834 posts / 24 fights ) from Den Of Ubiquity, California (United States) on 06/30 at 03:57PM PT

      Hmmmm.... How about extrapolating your point to Obama? Is that not tree falling in the woods?

      SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

      • Barns ( 834 posts / 24 fights ) from Den Of Ubiquity, California (United States) on 06/30 at 03:57PM PT

        Intellectually speaking.

        Is a vote for him THAT or a protest vote against Bush?

        SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

        • Backbiter ( 107 posts / 1 fights ) from West Hollywood, California (United States) on 06/30 at 04:12PM PT

          I would say a vote for Obama could be a leap of faith that he may live up to the hype on one hand, a vote against Bush on the other and the refusal to vote for a hawkish old dude on the other. Three hands, not bad.

          SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight

          • Barns ( 834 posts / 24 fights ) from Den Of Ubiquity, California (United States) on 06/30 at 04:20PM PT

            Confused. Please elaborate.

            The one thing in your post that Barns has absolute clarity in: it is not acceptable to elect a president who is a crap shoot. It is perilous to the extreme to have to "take a leap of faith" with the election of an absolutely untested and ill prepared president. One must reflect on the wisdom of electing somebody who at least knows where the bathrooms are.

            SOUND OFF ON THIS POST! Start Fight