Listening to Alaska

There's been a lot of talk about opening up part of the romanticized wilderness in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - or ANWR, as it's dubbed - for natural resource drilling. As often happens, we've heard a lot of talk from those who think they know what's best for the nation, as well as for the state of Alaska. Environmentalists, lobbyists and everyday citizens alike in the lower 48 states have spouted off commentary concerning the issue, the polled majority saying it's bad news due to the potential environmental threat. In fact, a recent Gallup poll says that the biggest reason U.S. citizens oppose Bush's new energy plan is that they feel it is "not environmentally friendly/oppose drilling in Alaska." Of course, Washington, which has historically taken special interest in Alaska for security, economic and environmental reasons, has its hand in the pot, as well. And ultimately, it was these national politicians who had the final word: let the drilling commence, they say.

There are a lot of views on the issue floating around out there, but it seems one group's voice has not been heard nearly enough. Really, how many of us have paid attention to the opinions coming from the 49th state itself?

Why is it that most of those screaming to protect the "pristine" character of ANWR have never set foot on the barren tundra of ANWR's Coastal Plain and probably never will? And why do these Armchair Self-righteous Social Engineers (ASSEs) have more influence on the Artic drilling issue than those whom it impacts the most, Alaskans themselves?

The answer is simple; the ASSEs scream the loudest. It is time both Alaskans and conservatives nationwide, step up the campaign for responsible drilling in ANWR! Alaskans have the right to develop their natural resources with a possessive eye to preserving it's natural breathtaking beauty and grandeur. The rest of us have a right to lobby for less dependence on foreign oil.

Both native and non-native Alaskans have an innate reverence for Alaska and a pioneer's soul; they endure Alaska's long harsh dark winters because they cherish this magnificent land. Furthermore, they are fully aware of the fact that their second largest industry, which has already been adversely affected by the economic aftermath of 9/11, is tourism (the first is oil). Therefore, they are the last people who would want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot!

Why is it that most of those screaming to protect the "pristine" character of ANWR have never set foot on the barren tundra of ANWR's Coastal Plain and probably never will?

Because they do not really give a damn about this piece of tundra or the people who live here.

To some, their addiction to political gamesmanship causes them, in some demented fashion, to rationalize their meddling in the affairs of people they do not know and do not want to know.

Still others, who live in places where the natural beauty has been covered by concrete and obscured by dirty air, actually believe that their failure to care for the natural aspects of their land does not disqualify them from dictating how other people should do so.

Those who a comfortable living a lie do not search for truth.

I came from back east originally, but alaska is where I choose to call home. Living here has changed me in many ways, as we still have wilderness and true nature without pavement all over. You can't help becoming a bit greener when you can walk out your back door and go hundreds of miles without crossing a dirt road.

Guess I don't feel as threatened by roadless areas as long as some economic development is permitted. You can have both without wall to wall pavement and cities you know. The down side is without roads there is little economic development, jobs, and what many people see the ability to achieve the American dream.

Thats why there are so many social problems in nativeland, no jobs, place can't support itself without sam's club food and massive fed spending. Still most natives choose their lifestyle (which is pretty tough) over roads. Had one once tell me that development and progress were not the same concepts. Ya know most natives would accept logging, mineral extraction, ect as long as its accomplished in a manner respectful to the land. They will tell you real quick that we are the caretakers. America doesn't have a good record when it comes to the environment.

The slope is an example where development can occur in an environmentally friendly manner. The natives that live there accept it with open arms.

Believe me, you people living back east have more problems with your groundwater and pollution than anywheres on the slope.

I got fat eatin the great kuparek home cookin too off and on over the years, and have seen all the environmental overkill that has prevented problems up on the slope. Prime example how it can be done right.

Bottom line is that prostitute politicians and enviro-wackos working the system don't decide when oil flows, BIG OIL DOES.

I have seen a lot of Alaskans write that if they support drilling, that should be the deciding vote, because it is their state and their oil.

So tell me, do you all believe the same equation applies for Nevada, where the majority of citizens do not want the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository built?

Since there would be jobs created and only a small amount of environmental damage, would you like to have the nuclear waste repository in Alaska instead? (Presumably it is a moot point because of transportation).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.