perplexed
Here is something I’ve never been able to understand. How can someone love plants and nature and gardening while at the same time supporting public policies that are harmful to the environment?
I’ve wondered about this many times but last night I wondered again, after listening to a fellow gardener who had been a guest at the Bush ranch gushing about the president’s interest in nature and his expressed desire to know the name of every plant. I’ve heard before about the special environmental features of his house and the native plants in his garden. Perhaps some of that can be attributed to trendiness, but still it’s a good trend and there are plenty of others who have not adopted it.
I’ve never met Mr. Bush and I have no idea how much of his interest is genuine, but I’ve met lots of other people with the same apparent conflict. People with lovely gardens (which they work in themselves) and an apparent interest in nature, but who support drilling and logging in national parks and see environmental regulations as just an enfringement on property rights or an obstruction to more profits.
If you enjoy something wouldn’t you be opposed to forces that would destroy it? I know I am not good in seeing things from another’s point of view, but I just can’t see how his interest can run very deep.
September 26th, 2003 @ 12:36 am
Hitler loved architecture and opera (especially Wagner). Makes you wonder how he failed to recognize Wagner’s message of the foolishness of human greed and desire for power.
September 26th, 2003 @ 12:29 pm
I share your perplexity. It sadly disappoints me to see what conservative Christians seem to say with their actions while saying “stewardship” and “care of creation” with their lips. I simply do not understand the disconnect, and as a Christian myself, find this an unacceptable and irresponsible stance in a world God created and deemed “good”…while the NeoCons deem it mere commodity.
September 26th, 2003 @ 6:00 pm
I dont’ necessarily see the contradiction. Gardening is about reforming the world as you want to see it, not as it is.
A few people such as yourself accept reasonable limits, claim only a small part of the world and allow the rest to proceed on its libertarian and chaotic way.
(I’ll ask you a question about this. These are only my thoughts and I’m not saying plow up your garden!)
September 26th, 2003 @ 9:16 pm
Let me put it like this: I think of gardening in the same way that I think about skateboarding. It’s fine in its place. For the same reason that I support the enthusiasm of gardeners to do their thing in a limited space, so, too, do I support the creation of skateboard parks.
I’m for wisely limited recreation.
September 26th, 2003 @ 9:39 pm
Miguel: Hitler’s favorite light opera was The Merry Widow by Mehaar, who was Jewish. Contradictions abound, don’t they?
September 29th, 2003 @ 4:26 pm
I don’t see the contradiction.
I don’t think some regualtion is bad but there are a lot of people that are all or nothing.
Some logging is good if it can prevent forest fires.
Right now oil is what makes our society go and it has to be drilled somewhere.
Some regulations are an enfringment on property rights.
I think there is a middle ground but a lot of people think its all or nothing, on both sides of the debate.
October 1st, 2003 @ 6:02 pm
Many times I don’t express myself well, and this post is one of those times. Obviously we need oil and wood to provide the fuel for our economy and to build houses. I agree there is a whole spectrum of possible opinions about the proper degree of regulation and I don’t expect everyone to agree on what the right amount is.
My point is that we have a man who installs environmental features on his own house and seems to posture as a nature lover and at the same time heads an administration that has done more to dismantle environmental protection for the country than any other. To me that does seem like a contradiction, but maybe it does not seem that way to everyone.