Recent comments

  • Nevada Barr’s Next Park Novel: An Unauthorized Preview   5 years 39 weeks ago

    And, Bob: I may have to re-read it again, but in Liberty Falling, didn't she also get to Governors Island National Monument?

  • Sen. Salazar Seems to be the Interior Secretary Pick For the Obama Administration   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Frank C: I agree with you on ridicule and Alinsky: ridicule is the weapon of the weak. I don't really think Alinsky was a Marxist or had any kind of belief structure, actually. It seemed to me his value as a political thinker was understanding the power of organization, rather than Movements. He had no use for Movements. Many liberals, environmentalists, and romantic right-wingers can become enthralled in Movements. Alinsky is not alone in this: on the left, right or in some more nuanced dimension inhabited by thinkers.

    Alinsky has many flaws, chiefly among them the lack of faith in (or even understanding of) altrusism. What he really was, was a labor organizer, a street-level theoritician. I think he was more preoccupied with respect for powerless individuals and in power for the underclass, more than Freedom. He would probably have hated the comparison, but I think he shared Theodore Roosevelt's belief in Countervailing Power. At the time, the moneyed class would roll right over most every body else, unless the common people could have enough structure, and disciplined supporters to stop them.

    I only bring it to your attention because I think JimB hit a nerve, in me at least. I think people who care about parks need to stop ranting, and learn to be effective. The thing I thought was useful about Alinsky in this, is his unsentimental belief in effectiveness. I think the tactics and preoccupations of the '30's do not fit in our world, but have useful lessons.

    One similarity between the 1929 and our time is the gap between rich and everybody else, and the leverage extracted by private financial interests over everybody else. Including over parks and environment. It takes a pretty silly person not to see that the threat today to freedom and a healthy future comes much more from these private financial power centers than government, except to the extent that government serves these interests, not the majority.

    As we have seen, this unbridled power even threatens the fools who exercise it. Witness the collapse of the economy, and the confused priorities and "solutions" of these financial elites. As far as Beamis' stuff is concerned, I think government can be a threat, but I think the majority needs to learn to be a force in keeping government civil, democratic and focused on a sustainable future. I find primitive freedom-loving emotionally appealing, but there is no freedom or future if there is no way to govern the greedy and powerful.

  • Bush Administration Publishes Proposed Rule For Mountain Biking in National Parks   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Mountain bikers: yeah, they can be obnoxious. Here in the Pacific Northwest, it's a transparent excuse to act like a pubescent male with esteem & identity issues. Be loud, crash, let the blood run, dry & crust (maybe smear some on the face). Revert to tribal rituals, in groups greater than two. I don't find them very likeable.

    I don't think it's that challenging to effectively address the discrepancies, though. First, bikes yield to everything else on the trail, because they are fast, have a lot of kinetic energy, sharp points & rotating metal rods, and are poorly controllable under the circumstances. Dismount and remove the machine from the path, let people & horses by, then jump back on. Second, maintain traction at all times. Since bikes don't really have the ability to peel-out, or side-slip, this problem is really about going downhill too fast and then braking into a continuous slewing skid (a surfboard on gravel). Knock it off. Get off the bike and walk it down the hill, if it isn't possible to brake within the limits of traction. (Since we know the hills where the offending behavior will occur, it is easy to make a few busts.)

    That bikes create 'user-conflicts', and therefore ought to be banned ... well, no. We have conflicts everywhere. We live with it. We make rules to control the problem. That we cannot tolerate conflicts between different sets of users of the common resource: that's facetious - of course we can.

    I do understand that in other parts of the country, mountain biking is done nicely, and that's cool. No intent here to slight those who have their act together.

    Mountain-biking could be a great asset to the outdoor & Parks venues, bring in lots of new people, for sure. We have to tone them down a few octaves, have to tolerate a few skid-marks here & there, a stray yee-ha! now & then, but most of all we just have to learn to share the outdoors with people who have a different set of attitudes. This is pretty basic stuff, isn't it?

    This may (but may not) be one of those Bush-things that Obama undoes, sooner rather than later.

  • Sen. Salazar Seems to be the Interior Secretary Pick For the Obama Administration   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Keep fightin' the good fight Frank with this statist, socialist, left-leanin' crowd of liberty hatin' government lovers.

    Trees and saguaros don't need bureaucrats to survive.

    A little sun, rain and private property works just fine.

    Long live the works of Murray Rothbard!

    Go on which yerself Frank!

  • Bush Administration Publishes Proposed Rule For Mountain Biking in National Parks   5 years 39 weeks ago

    I am 58-years old. I have visited most of the national parks in my life, where I have hiked and camped. In the last year I have taken up mountain-biking mostly for its aerobic qualities after a heart attack. What I have found is that it is a wonderful experience in itself. I am not talking about the downhill daredevil type as seen in competition, but rather the easy trail riding. I am able to enjoy the outdoors much more by riding than just walking. I cover more territory and the workout is more vigorous.

    I even do "birding" now from the back of my bicycle. Of course, I have to stop to use my binoculars, but I find that I can go on trails that may be a few miles long in only a couple of hours, and therefore enjoy the wilderness to a fuller extent than if I were walking.

    I recommend "mountain-biking" or rather "trail-riding" to almost everyone, as long as you take it easy within your own capacity. When I take vacations now, I search the internet for new bike trails to ride. I therefore supportive of the new proposal to allow mountain-biking in the national parks, and look forward to seeing and enjoying these within the parks.

    Gene

  • Bush Administration Publishes Proposed Rule For Mountain Biking in National Parks   5 years 39 weeks ago

    You’ve heard of Big Tobacco!

    You’ve heard of Big Oil!

    Now there’s the menace of Big Mountain Bike taking over our precious parks!

    But not if we take a defiant stand against this nonsense.

    We're PRUDE: Public Retirees Unanimously Denouncing Exhilaration.

    We at PRUDE want NO excitement in our parks. They are temples for worshipping nature, not places to have exhilarating experiences. If people want to be exhilarated, they may stay at home and play video games.

    PRUDE is proudly affiliated with the New Order Apostolic Congregation Cursing Every Single-Speed (NO ACCESS). The NO ACCESS creed adheres strictly to the teaching of Nolevity 4:12: "They who cast a pedal over a trail commit an abomination; the wrath of the Almighty shall be upon them; surely they shall be banished and driven into exile, yea unto generations."

    If you join PRUDE now, we’ll send you an autographed picture of our founders, Ebenezer Squint and Chloe Parboil.

    Yours Against Excessive Activity by Young Whippersnappers,

    Jasper H. Snoot, President
    Hermione (Mrs. Jarvis) Spoutworthy, Secretary

  • Bush Administration Publishes Proposed Rule For Mountain Biking in National Parks   5 years 39 weeks ago

    As usual on this website, as soon as cyclists are allowed to go ride trails in the national parks, the FUD comes fast and furious. Cyclists are just as entitled to enjoy the trails they pay for as other users. Cycling is an environmentally friendly activity that has no more impact than hiking and way less than horse riding. PEER and all the other bike haters are using all kind of fallacious arguments to oppose opening trails to bikes. The reality is that a minority of people have managed to appropriate to themselves a public good (OUR parks) and are now refusing to share it with another group, hence the FUD campaign. This has nothing to do with relaxing any kind of environmental protection and everything with selfishness.

    I dare anybody to prove me wrong.

  • Nevada Barr’s Next Park Novel: An Unauthorized Preview   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Seven out of eight ain't bad, Molly. (As they say, any landing you can walk away from is a good one.) Does this earn me pick of the litter?

  • Sen. Salazar Seems to be the Interior Secretary Pick For the Obama Administration   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Dear d-2:

    A Marxist? Really? "Alinsky's worldview was thoroughly steeped in the socialist left's collectivist, class-based doctrine of economic determinism." I have read The Communist Manifesto, have seen the failure of Marxism with the fall of the Berlin Wall, and feel no compunction to read more collectivist drivel. America was founded on individualism, not collectivism; collective "democracy" (read: the parasitic, transfer seeking economy, aka special interest politics) is what subverted our Republic. But thank you for the suggestion.

    Here's a suggestion I'm sure you'll reject with equal disdain: Murray Rothbard.

    Maybe Kurt could host a NPT book club. Shore would be interestin'. :)

    Oh, and my attacks of Salazar are not attacks on him, per se. Rather, they criticize the system of political spoils and concentrated power in unelected officials.

    UPDATE

    I have done more research on Alinsky. Love his "5th Rule": "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage." Seems the opposite of what you've advocated, d-2.

  • Gun Rules for The National Parks: Will They Really Make It Easier To Pack in the Parks?   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Kurt said:

    In [the D.C. vs Heller] ruling the [Supreme Court] said the federal government was well within its rights to regulate where concealed weapons could be carried beyond the confines of your home.

    That's not really untrue guys, but there is some rather significant & extensive nuance involved that we may want to be careful to observe.

    I have a text copy of D.C. vs Heller, and searched on the work 'conceal'. There are 14 instances, most or all of them being "concealed". Many of them occur in historical discussion, and a heavy cluster is in the Dissent-arguments. The two most-pertinent, and most-familiar uses are as follows.

    On p. 2 of the Syllabus:

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    On pp. 54-55

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
    ...
    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    The key difference between what can be found in D.C. vs Heller, and the statement that Kurt makes, is that although concealed carry can be regulated (as can other aspects of the Right), the context for regulation is quite limited and rather tightly bound to the "longstanding" qualifier.

    Specifically, I would protest that regulating bathrooms, watercraft, snowmobiles needs to show "due cause", to establish the importance & merit of the abridgement of the Right in those circumstances. That a welter of patently frivolous restrictions is supported by D.C. vs Heller: quite the opposite.

    Really, the situation with restricting & regulating the Second Amendment bears a strong (though not perfect) comparison with contexts for restricting the First Amendment (not surprisingly), i.e., Freedom of Speech, and the Press (e.g., the National Parks Traveler): it can done, and is done, but any effort to 'creatively' encumber either of these Bill of Rights Amendments will have to adhere to very firm & very high standards - and of "longstanding".

    Bluntly put, we cannot hogtie the speech of persons or groups whom we dislike, disapprove, etc, and likewise those seeking to impair the exercise of the Second Amendment with such novelties as "So, where do you think you're going to go the bathroom, buddy, Huh?" really ought to take a careful second look at their legal footing ... 'cause I think they just pulled a classic Wile E. Coyote - right off the edge of the cliff into legal thin-air. ;-)

  • Sen. Salazar Seems to be the Interior Secretary Pick For the Obama Administration   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Dear Frank C:

    reading suggestion: Saul Alinsky. Either of his 2 books. He is not a fan of "awareness" per se. He believes in organization.

    If there really is a basis to attack Salazar at this early point, and you are trying to make something happen, you need a narrative that would engage a lot of people. Usually in America, that means you usually need to be pretty pragmatic, because no time or specific activities from Salazar have been identified that could be used as a "hook" to drive a lot of people toward concerted action, or identification with an issue.

    You don't need all the public, but you need a critical mass, and you need to be focused, as JimB seems to be saying. Americans have become inured to those they perceive as attacking for the sake of attacking, and the word of these people, even if right, gets quickly dismissed. That is what I meant by "shaking your fist at the sky." As Alinsky notes you need discipline and a coherant strategy if you want to remove wool from people's eyes.

    Plus, the public at large seems to be very positive overall on Obama's behavior since the Election, and I think inclined to give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

  • Nevada Barr’s Next Park Novel: An Unauthorized Preview   5 years 39 weeks ago

    I stumbled across your article and loved it--and quite a challenge it must have been to write a review of a book as yet not written! Your forecast was close, but slightly off course. The book is now written and submitted to the publisher! It is due for release in April 2009. As a source close to Ms. Barr, I can settle the question of where the number 15 Anna Pigeon novel will take place. Anna was, indeed, tired of celibacy as well as badly in need of recreation and quality time with her husband. Contrary to popular belief it occasionally DOES take a few months between adventures for Anna to recover from having the bloody crap beat out of her. Consequently she took her hubby, Paul, on a vacation to Big Bend in Texas and THAT’S where she runs afoul of villainous bureaucracy, suffers further bodily harm and vanquishes the perps. I’m sure she will need to maneuver around several misogynists, and endure mortal combat in the process. Naturally, Paul will need to be incapacitated in some manner to allow Anna to solve the crime single-handedly, but that can be easily accomplished with a flourish over the keyboard. Anna’s fans would be disappointed with anything less.

    I don’t know where the inner demons stand these days with Anna, now that she’s happily married. Molly may be out in the cold, left and forgotten, along with Taco and Piedmont. Poor souls. At least Molly is not breed, and possibly gender, confused. I’ve had reports of both in connection to the now three-legged dog, Taco.

    Let’s see—what else? Oh! The title is a one worder. (I’m sure ‘worder’ IS a word?!) And a decade needs to be added to Anna’s age. She is now (gulp) fifty something! I hesitate to let this little figure out of the bag. As Nevada’s older, real-life sister, Molly, it doesn’t do me much good to advertise this fact.

    Thorpunious (aka Molly, Nevada Barr’s sister and website maven)

  • Gun Rules for The National Parks: Will They Really Make It Easier To Pack in the Parks?   5 years 39 weeks ago

    (I wrote this before other comments had appeared, and it is circumstance that I use some of the same examples as others. ;-)

    Yes, as pointed out in this post, some Concealed Carry Permit holders have taken weapons into Parks when it was illegal to do so. The implication that that has anything to do with the general right to be armed is on the same level as implying that because some people drive without a seatbelt, my driving privileges should be reviewed.

    Realistically, though, most of the illegal packing that has been going on for years in the Parks, has been by people who pack out of practical concerns, and not out of 2nd Amendment principles, and very often, without training or experience. I know certified tree-huggers and regular Sierra Club contributors who arm themselves ONLY in the Parks, because their instinct for survival has been triggered by bears snuffling around their tent, etc. (And, really, the fact that there are so few incidents of inappropriate gun-use in the backcountry has to point to a high level of due care by those choosing to arm themselves in spite of Park rules.)

    So, what really is the firearms problem in Parks? That CC people are two-faced by swearing fidelity to the law, then breaking it? Or is it actually a broader phenomena, that folks who are unprepared to have & use a gun, find themselves Catch-22'ed into sneaking a pistol into their backpack? In reality, I think CC'ers who compromised themselves are a minor part of the big picture, and the bulk of illegal-carry in the Parks has been and will continue to be, nice liberal eco-friendly people who can no longer square the behavior of increasingly brazen (protected, semi-sacred) carnivores with their own primal priorities. There are simply vastly more non-CC folks than CC'ers, and enough of them are sufficiently scared in the dark woods that they outweigh CC-violators as the main component of clandestine armed citizens in the Parks.

    Making clever regulations to prevent an armed person from legally going potty probably isn't a meaningful part of the ultimate resolution. This is peanut-gallery stuff. Besides, the motive for being armed is not to pack heat while shopping for trinkets, renting a paddle-boat, taking a leak, etc. This is a diversion from the substance of the issue(s), and not a compelling one. Firearms in the Parks today are primarily about carnivores, and isolation with unknown human threats. The current motives for illegal carry are about the absence of recourse to the protections of civilization, not about spooking the tourists in commerce-venues.

    That said, I must reiterate that citizens do not have to provide reasons or excuses for being armed: They have the right to be armed, and those who would prefer to abridge it are the ones who must prove their case worthy.

    Where the questions & points start to become more reasonable & relevant, is in the election of a fairly liberal & Democratic Party President, and a Democratic Party Congress. First & foremost, will Obama set as a goal to reverse the recent ruling to allow concealed carry in Parks? Although it would be an obvious thing for him to do as part of an existing policy & intent to undo as much of Pres. Bush's legacy as practical ... it could be that this is one of those items that will stay on the 'impractical' list. We will just have to wait & see on this question ... both gun-opponents and gun-supporters will have to be prepared to be disappointed, and to accept (for the time being anyway) whatever our elected Commander in Chief and Congress decide.

    Obviously, DC vs Heller was and will remain a very big deal. The historic lack of judicial interpretive guidance on the 2nd Amendment created the context for a highly charged legal & social scene. Really though, the legal drama is 'in appearance only'. The substance of the legal basis for an armed citizenry in the United States is dirt-simple & rock-solid. The 2nd Amendment stands on identical Constitutional footing with the First Amendment. There is a large, powerful, deeply committed constituency that will absolutely champion the 2nd Amendment.

    The legal & social realities of firearms will 'inform' Obama as he considers how to decide on the guns-in-Parks matter. This is a juncture at which he could definitely stick his foot in a gopher-hole, just as he is leaping forward off the starting-blocks. He knows it, no question.

    I predict that President-elect Obama will 'pass' on the guns-in-Parks dust-up, leaving it largely or entirely as-is. The new measure was crafted to stake only a modest foothold of socio-political turf, by confining itself to those with official Concealed Carry authority. That is well shy of asserting general 2nd Amendment jurisprudence (which very likely does pertain in Parks, and will eventually be asserted ... later). The antics of the peanut gallery are less meaningful, and will in due course be attended to by the courts.

    Ultimately, I think the traditional regulations of the Parks have been way too similar to those of Washington D.C.. "Draconian" is the popular term. Reading the 65 page Supreme Court decision in D.C. vs Heller, the two situations (D.C. & Parks gun-regulations) seem quite comparable. The close correspondence of the two situations makes the application of D.C. vs Heller too direct & unambiguous for informed decision-makers to try to skirt it, irrespective of their personal views and/or political obligations.

  • Gun Rules for The National Parks: Will They Really Make It Easier To Pack in the Parks?   5 years 39 weeks ago

    LH, not sure what you mean about the folks at VNP skirting existing regs prohibiting loaded firearms. Their release outlined how the landscape will look once/if the new rule takes effect next month.

    Frank, re automobiles, in theory law enforcement rangers are looking for speeders and will cite them. It's certainly easy enough to tell when one is exceeding the speed limit. It won't be so easy to tell when a CCW permit holder violates the regs.

    Jimi, I'll take your bet!

    Anonymous, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier this year on the constitutional rights regarding the 2nd Amendment. In that ruling the court said the federal government was well within its rights to regulate where concealed weapons could be carried beyond the confines of your home.

  • Gun Rules for The National Parks: Will They Really Make It Easier To Pack in the Parks?   5 years 39 weeks ago

    While I understand the intent Frank, automobile traffic is allowed and unfortunately even encouraged within the boundaries of the parks, whereas the current rules state that only unloaded firearms are currently "legal". And I would hazard a guess that by percentage, the greater majority of automobile traffic qualifies as law-abiding in contrast to the volume of visitors who make the effort to bring their weapons to "legalized" status within the parks. For that matter, the integrity of any visitor can be questioned in regards to off-trail wandering, littering, noise pollution, after hours revelry, etc. But we get the point.

    Kurt, how are the folks at VNP allowed to skirt the existing regulations that prohibit loaded firearms on NPS grounds? Don't the same rules apply across all jurisdictions of the national park service? What makes it any more acceptable (legal) to carry loaded guns there than in any other unit?

  • Gun Rules for The National Parks: Will They Really Make It Easier To Pack in the Parks?   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Does a person or a citiezen of these United States of America have a Constitutional Right to Self Defence or not? Does the same have the right to Arm oneself for Self Defence our not? Be careful People. To deny any constitutional right is a violation of US Code Title 18 Chapter 13 Section 242. Its there. Look it up.

  • Gun Rules for The National Parks: Will They Really Make It Easier To Pack in the Parks?   5 years 39 weeks ago

    You might as well get ready for it in the parks, the new administration will lead an all out assault on the second amendment sooner rather than later. I would bet money that by the end of 2009, you won't be able to legally carry a weapon on a hunting trip!

  • Gun Rules for The National Parks: Will They Really Make It Easier To Pack in the Parks?   5 years 39 weeks ago

    There are rules o' plenty being broken daily in national parks, many of which deserve far more attention than whether or not a CCW permit holder is packing heat into the john.

    Please allow me to again tweak one of your sentences, Kurt:

    But if that doesn't happen, it'll be interesting to see how many [automobile] owners actually follow the rules.

    How many automobile owners have broken park rules by exceeding the posted speed limit, either intentionally or "accidentally", in a national park? I'd gather that every last NPT reader who's stepped foot--er, uh, in this case, wheel--in a national park has broken this and other traffic rules. Yet, do we see their honesty questioned on the pages of NPT?

    Again, there are more serious rules, rules regarding "property" rights, being violated daily in parks. Petrified forest is such an example (and thank you for the recent article highlighting how some are ripping off the park and other visitors). Flower pickers, artifact hunters, and so forth have far more of an impact than imagined concealed weapons permit holders venturing into a gift shop to buy a postcard, while a 9mm rests safely under their coats.

  • Updated: Salazar Pick For Interior Secretary Labeled a Failure   5 years 39 weeks ago

    You betcha! Here's a link to a local newspaper, "The Island Free Press", which has covered all the NPS Negotioated Rulemaking Committee meetings:

    http://www.islandfreepress.org/CatBeachAccessIssues.html

    You can also find links to the first 2 meetings to be videotaped. The viewing is interesting, but long. Watch some if you've got the time. Some of the most intersting to me are on the 11/14 tape, where a UFSWS Turtle expert gave a presentation comparing beach/vehicle useage on Daytona Beach to that on Hatteras. That made for some interesting debate in the Q&A later on.

    I was lucky enough to attend the 11/14-15 meetings, and I don't think I've ever seen such a polarized and deadlocked panel. Word is some headway has been made during the 12/11-12 meetings, but for that group to reach consensus on a decision as simple as "What's for lunch" seems impossible. I smell more lawsuits, sadly...

    Crazy weather out your way and other points West! Snow in your rainforest, snow in Las Vegas, sounds to me like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has indeed reversed, as has been postulated for some time now. The recent changes in the Humboldt would seem to firm up that theory also. Stay warm and safe out there. Please do share some of those pics!

    You've missed quite a bit! Guns in the Parks has been the issue du jour of late, along with the election, etc. All good stuff from Kurt et al as usual!

    Good to have you back.

    dap

  • Sen. Salazar Seems to be the Interior Secretary Pick For the Obama Administration   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Otherwise, what is the point

    Why, revolution of course.

    To awaken people to the wool that has been pulled over their eyes.

    "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

  • Updated: Salazar Pick For Interior Secretary Labeled a Failure   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Thanks dapster! I did see a CHNSRA comment the other day as I refreshed on NPT, but have seen nothing in the news. Can you point me to a thread that will update me?

    Our Arctic outbreak dumped snow on the Olympic Peninsula last Friday, then froze it, then the winds yanked everything around (fortunately missed the powerlines..), then we got a couple days of cold sunshine. Yesterday, the front return with more moisture and we are now getting a major dump. Six inches of powder on the beaches of Juan de Fuca Strait. A foot or more upland. With a few more minutes of daylight, I'll be out with the camera ... it would a perfect photo-op, if it wasn't still snowing fairly hard!

    Tomorrow is supposed to clear off, and I'm going over to my trail-job and do some shop-work. Hope to hike out and get some snow-pics on the trail, though I won't be able to do any cutting. I'll upload some and post links.

    Yes, I've missed the good coverage on National Parks Traveler, and the quality give & take! :-)

  • Everglades Land Bill Approved, But With a Caveat   5 years 39 weeks ago

    Ansley said:

    Without some sort stability in the lines of jobs, we cannot survive ... Why could they not have taken some time to develop a plan to help us...?

    Well, I offered my 'way over-priced' objection as "First of all", but Ansley's point certainly trumps the squandering of tax-payer money. This project is squandering good people & communities, as well.

    You could say this is a bad habit that environmentalism has picked up - to pursue goals without regard to human costs. However, it's actually worse than that. Even some environmentalists themselves accede, that they view the humans and the communities and cultures, as the real problem, and that they are indeed the real intended target.

    Besides the moral decadence involved, this attitude & behavior ... bears a remarkable similarity to Pres. Bush' war in Iraq, etc, generating massive hostility and providing motivation for the recruitment & organization of opposition forces.

    That so conflicted & compromised a candidate as Sen. John McCain would do as well at the ballot box as he did, against the wildly enthusiastic support for Sen. Barrack Obama, delivers a message that environmentalism should be hearing & heeding. People didn't vote for McCain because they are comfortable with his leadership - in fact, they are not!

    People voted for McCain, in large extent as a reflection of how deeply they despise environmentalism, in large extent due to its disdain for common (esp. rural) people.

    In the end, I expect that attacking the foundations of society will boomerang on environmentalism. Hopefully, the economic crisis will intervene on behalf of the central Florida sugar-workers & communities.

  • Sen. Salazar Seems to be the Interior Secretary Pick For the Obama Administration   5 years 39 weeks ago

    DEAR FRANK C:

    The issue in politics for you, for others, I submit, is being effective. That means either creating an advantage, or winning.

    Otherwise, what is the point, other than shaking your fist at the sky or some other form of self-expression.

  • Updated: Salazar Pick For Interior Secretary Labeled a Failure   5 years 39 weeks ago

    If the radical leftist Suckling doesn't like the pick, then I guess I love it.
    The Wilderness Society and NPCA are definitely more in tune with the average, working American.

    Roger, I couldn't agree more. Just goes to show that the Radicalized Enviros can't win 'em all!

    I say let's let Mr. Salazar actually work at his post for a while before we start bashing him. Kinda like the way we should let the President Elect serve a few days before we start praising him, and renaming roads and schools. Just a bit premature in both cases, IMO.

    Ted, good to see you back in the fray, Sir! Sounds like you had some great adventures during your absence. I agree with your comment as well. Perhaps Mr. Suckling will try to sue his way around this issue?

    Have you kept abreast of the CHNSRA case? Much has transpired since we discussed it last, a mixed bag for all sides, at best.

  • Everglades Land Bill Approved, But With a Caveat   5 years 39 weeks ago

    I could not agree with you more. I am a sixth generation Floridian and have lived in Hendry county my whole life. I was at the meetings this week, and I must say I am DISGUSTED with our government. These seven board members had their strings pulled all week by our 'great' governor. They were conned into doing what they did with the promise of God knows what. Meanwhile, our community is left with the real possibility that we have lost everything we (and those past) have worked our whole lives for. Without some sort stability in the lines of jobs, we cannot survive, and the only jobs we have are the mill. So, with all this said, I agree with you, why are they in such a hurry. Why could they not have taken some time to develop a plan to help us, the people who voted them into office? And yes, the Everglades will ALWAYS survive; it is a part of nature. It has its good times and bad, but it will be there in the end, however I cannot say the same thing for my community.