Is there a double standard on Persistent Vegetative State?
What?
I certainly understand why this wasn't posted to "Humor."
Speaking as a long-time Chicagoan who moved to the East, I'm always amazed and disgusted about development in Illinois. Developers there seem happy to bulldoze every tree so they have an absolutely flat field to work on, then, when they are done, they plant a few miserable, spindly little baby trees that provide no shade, and moreover are usually of a species that never will get tall. While in the East, developers at least try to protect every tree, knowing that trees are worth a premium to home buyers. I've never been able to understand the blindness of Midwestern developers on this point--why they're so bulldozer-happy.
Oh, yeah, now I remember: you can sell old trees for a lot of money. That's the explanation. But considering that large old trees hold topsoil and provide cooling, you'd think that city fathers wouldn't permit them to be bulldozed. Development can go on while preserving trees.
OK, I'm braced. I'm ready. All the Freepers who think the world ought to be entirely blacktopped with not a tree left standing, you can come take your best shot. Call me an enviromentalist whacko if you like.