Posted on 03/14/2002 5:07:26 AM PST by HairOfTheDog
Looks like the Sean Hannity/Ann Coulter debate on other threads. I believe that, as a general rule, we should respond to folks in the spirit which they approach us, once you make some effort to discover the truth about this. There are rational activist liberals and leftists, and they should be approached in a reasonable way. Then you have the James Carville types, and if you have to deal with them, you should use the Coulter approach.
Of course a lot of people who have liberal ideas are not seriously political, and have just absorbed their ideas from the zeitgeist. They need to definitely be approached in a more gentle way. As far as the Hollywood types are concerned, they have absorbed a value system as warped as most college campuses. But most of them are simply trying to be agreeable with their colleagues, and some really disagree, but take a protective coloration for their own protection. The ones who have a serious radical political attitude, and are intolerant of other views should be responded to accordingly. Naturally I would never adopt a political attitude on someone's authority as an actor.
(but I wasn't talking about talking heads and activists in my post, I said we need to stop calling the soccer moms evil)
I have to say that was one of the most slanted quizes I have come across in a while, at least half of the questions had no good answers. When I completed it I got no score or anything, so whag was the point?
Soccermoms ARE evil. Football rules!
I've lived for a short time in Texas, where there is very little in the way of public lands and then here in the west, where we have quite a lot (maybe some case can certainly be made that we have too much in some places, that's for sure).
The lifestyle advantages of having access to public lands like National Forests are tremendous and there is no question in my mind that they are quite valuable as a public resource.
However, I too have "issues" with the management of these resources in some cases. I believe that the environmentalists have injected a great deal of "unwisdom" into this management in recent years. One of the drawbacks of public lands is that they become susceptible to political influence from well-funded special interests: Like the Sierra Club and other radical environmentalists. Staunching that influence is a tiring and costly fight that many don't have the time, energy or money to wage. But finding a way to acquire and maintan good management over these lands is worth it to keep these lands open to public use.
I'd like to see more use of these lands, not less, with the lands being maintained largely for recreational purposes. For one, I'd like to see ski resorts and areas -- most American ski areas are on National Forest land -- have an easier time making improvements, and even allowing more of them to expand hotel and restaurant offerings.
It was difficult in Texas to find affordable outdoor recreational activities -- whereas here, and in much of the west, it is easy to do so.
Hmmm... I wonder how many more of us would fit this one!
Hi all, home from school and research grad schools. Asked for information about my dream program...
When all else fails, manipulate the data.
BTW, my brother works for Washington State's Department of Natural Resources, and land that is designated DNR land is specifically ear-marked for multi-use: recreation, logging, etc. Their goal is to have as many different uses of the land to benefit as many segments of the public as possible.
I would not want to lose any of our park, DNR, or wilderness lands.
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.