The Grand Canyon Skywalk arguments

The case against bastardizing national treasures

You mean to tell me that someone is building a diving board, made of glass, that will protrude from the edge of the Grand Canyon's sandstone, 4,000 feet in the air, just to lure more tourists?

What's next? A casino in Yellowstone? Nude bathing at Niagara? Swings underneath the Golden Gate Bridge? Strip clubs in the Rocky Mountains?

Why stop at a diving board? Let's create an entire entertainment district: Welcome to Hogs & Heifers Grand Canyon, may I take your order please?

I'm sure the Hualapai Indians are nice people, but I side with tribal leaders who say this is a blasphemous use of ancestral land. National treasures should be preserved and protected, not pimped for strictly monetary gains.

The case for capitalizing on national treasures

Man, tree-huggers suck. Above all when they start latching onto rocks. Screaming, "Stop the bastardization of the Grand Canyon!" and "Before you debase it, you'll have to go through me!"

It would be my pleasure; the new Skywalk over the Grand Canyon is worth any number of pansy environmentalists. Not only is it going to be an inimitable experience—how else can you walk as if on thin air, some 4,000 feet over the canyon?—it's also a spectacle in engineering, a new height in man's ability to make dreams practical.

And let's not talk about desecrating national treasures, for we all know the only thing inviolable in this country is money: economy: capitalism—which means turning a profit at any and every opportunity. Tree-huggers be damned.