Be sure to tune in to NBC at 4:30 to watch the Washington Redskins stomp the Seattle Seahawks. If you're at work, you can follow the game via the live coverage from ESPN on your computer.
Also, remember that there will be debates for both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party tonight starting at 7 pm on ABC. If the Skins game doesn't go into OT, that's going to be over 7 hours of football and politics.
All I need is a 6-pack, and I'll be set for the evening!
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Wonderin' Bout Wyoming
As many bloggers have pointed out, the GOP Caucus in Wyoming is today. While most are ignoring it, a few are paying attention.
From what I understand, the three names to watch in Wyoming are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and possibly Ron Paul.
3 men who all need momentum.
From what I understand, the three names to watch in Wyoming are Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and possibly Ron Paul.
3 men who all need momentum.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Iowa Results and Fallout
Dem Caucus
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%
GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.
Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.
- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.
- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.
- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.
- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.
- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.
- Obama 38%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 29%, Richardson 2%
GOP Caucus
- Huckabee 34%, Romney 25%, Thompson 13%, McCain 13%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 4%, Hunter 1%
Note: Thompson edged out McCain in the number final number of votes each received, which gives Fred a third-place finish.
Last night was a spectacle to behold, really. While the GOP is smart to keep it simple and plain in their caucus (which really makes it more like a primary), it is notable that the Dems have a much more interesting way of going about their caucusing because it involves a lot more interaction and stumping by caucus-goers for their candidate.
- Clinton was destined to lose, here...but not by 9 percent. With New Hampshire a total dogfight between Obama and Clinton, Hillary has a lot of making up to do and only a few days to do it.
- Fred Thompson got the 3rd place finish that he needed to move forward with some momentum heading towards South Carolina (Fred isn't getting much in New Hampshire, and never really will). If Huckabee gets stomped in New Hampshire, that helps Fred...but also helps Mitt Romney in South Carolina. The next 2-3 weeks are key for Fred's campaign.
- Ron Paul polled a solid 10%, it will be interesting to see the effects that will have.
- Joe Biden and Chris Dodd both have dropped out of the running for the Dem nomination. Somewhere, Johnny Camacho is weeping gently over a piece of Biden's hairplugs.
- ABC has dropped Duncan Hunter, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich from Saturday night's GOP and Dem debates. The reason was due to the fact that none of the 3 met any of the requirements to debate. There are 3 requirements, and a candidate must reach one...those requirements are: Finishing 4th or better in Iowa, poll 5 percent or better in New Hampshire, or poll 5 percent or better in one of the major national surveys. This, combined with the dropouts of Biden and Dodd, leave 4 Democrats and 6 Republicans to debate on Saturday.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
It All Comes Down to This
Iowa is but an hour or so away...the Democratic caucuses across the Hawkeye state will begin at 6:30, the GOP caucuses will begin at 7:00. By 7:30, the first results should start coming in.
Given that only 250,000 people are expected to caucus tonight, polls may mean everything or nothing. The latest poll to come out (Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby) looks as follows...
Dems - Obama 31%, Edwards 27%, Clinton 24%, Richardson 7%, Biden 5%, Dodd 1%, Kucinich >1%
GOP - Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 11%, McCain 10%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 6%, Hunter 1%
Clinton needs to do better than that, as Obama and Edwards are on a momentum up-swing, and with Obama hanging in with Clinton in New Hampshire, a 3rd place finish would not be good for Hillary.
On the other side, Huckabee/Romney is about how most expect the caucus to finish. However, the battle for 3rd is key for momentum heading forward. Fred Thompson NEEDS a 3rd place finish to keep things going. McCain, however, does not really need it as Iowa has not been his focal point...New Hampshire, on the other hand, has been McCain's early target.
Ron Paul's 10% is really impressive, IMO. Maybe he's starting to catch on to a larger group of voters, after all.
John McIntyre has a pretty good analysis of what the major campaigns need in tonight's caucus.
Given that only 250,000 people are expected to caucus tonight, polls may mean everything or nothing. The latest poll to come out (Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby) looks as follows...
Dems - Obama 31%, Edwards 27%, Clinton 24%, Richardson 7%, Biden 5%, Dodd 1%, Kucinich >1%
GOP - Huckabee 31%, Romney 25%, Thompson 11%, McCain 10%, Paul 10%, Giuliani 6%, Hunter 1%
Clinton needs to do better than that, as Obama and Edwards are on a momentum up-swing, and with Obama hanging in with Clinton in New Hampshire, a 3rd place finish would not be good for Hillary.
On the other side, Huckabee/Romney is about how most expect the caucus to finish. However, the battle for 3rd is key for momentum heading forward. Fred Thompson NEEDS a 3rd place finish to keep things going. McCain, however, does not really need it as Iowa has not been his focal point...New Hampshire, on the other hand, has been McCain's early target.
Ron Paul's 10% is really impressive, IMO. Maybe he's starting to catch on to a larger group of voters, after all.
John McIntyre has a pretty good analysis of what the major campaigns need in tonight's caucus.
Fatal 4-Way: 2008 Election May Be a Multi-Candidate Slugfest
We could have a legitimate 4-way race for President this coming fall. Think about it.
You'll have the Democratic Party nominee, the Republican Party nominee...that is certain. However, given the current buzz going around, we may now see a viable Independent and a Constitution/Libertarian Party candidate. Imagine this ballot...
- Dem Candidate (insert Clinton/Obama/Edwards here)
- GOP Candidate (insert Giuliani/Romney/McCain/Huckabee/Thompson here)
- Michael Bloomberg (Independent)
- Ron Paul (Constitution and/or Libertarian Party)
There is a good possibility that all of these candidates could snag 10% of the vote, especially with Bloomberg and Paul pulling at swing voters. Turnouts would be tremendous, and the winner would be whoever gets a plurality, but not a majority.
Bloomberg is as close to running as possible without having announced or formed an exploratory committee, and he has already committed up to $1 billion of his own money towards a presidential bid. Bloomberg, currently mayor of NYC, is a former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent whose appeal is targeted at social liberals and fiscal conservatives.
Paul has already implied that he may look into going the 3rd Party route if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, and both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have made overtures to Paul to run as their candidate. Considering his campaign has raised tons of money without having spent much of it, Paul might very well be positioning himself for a strong 3rd party run.
Now, consider the slight possibility that if John McCain wins the GOP nomination, Joe Lieberman might be his running mate (a bit out there, but possible), and the entire race is thrown into a whole other world of possibilities and uncertainty.
Can you imagine a 4-way race with non-mainstream candidates who are actually viable contenders for the White House? Folks, we may be sitting on the cusp of history.
You'll have the Democratic Party nominee, the Republican Party nominee...that is certain. However, given the current buzz going around, we may now see a viable Independent and a Constitution/Libertarian Party candidate. Imagine this ballot...
- Dem Candidate (insert Clinton/Obama/Edwards here)
- GOP Candidate (insert Giuliani/Romney/McCain/Huckabee/Thompson here)
- Michael Bloomberg (Independent)
- Ron Paul (Constitution and/or Libertarian Party)
There is a good possibility that all of these candidates could snag 10% of the vote, especially with Bloomberg and Paul pulling at swing voters. Turnouts would be tremendous, and the winner would be whoever gets a plurality, but not a majority.
Bloomberg is as close to running as possible without having announced or formed an exploratory committee, and he has already committed up to $1 billion of his own money towards a presidential bid. Bloomberg, currently mayor of NYC, is a former Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Independent whose appeal is targeted at social liberals and fiscal conservatives.
Paul has already implied that he may look into going the 3rd Party route if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, and both the Constitution and Libertarian Parties have made overtures to Paul to run as their candidate. Considering his campaign has raised tons of money without having spent much of it, Paul might very well be positioning himself for a strong 3rd party run.
Now, consider the slight possibility that if John McCain wins the GOP nomination, Joe Lieberman might be his running mate (a bit out there, but possible), and the entire race is thrown into a whole other world of possibilities and uncertainty.
Can you imagine a 4-way race with non-mainstream candidates who are actually viable contenders for the White House? Folks, we may be sitting on the cusp of history.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
London Telegraph: Petraeus is "Person of the Year"
Time Magazine may have thought Vladimir Putin was the Person of the Year in 2007. However, the London Telegraph took a different route.
They named Gen. David Petraeus as their "2007 Person of the Year".
To quote the paper's article, "The critics said it couldn't be done, but the vision and determination of General David Petraeus have brought greater security and cause for optimism to the people of Iraq."
The article continued, "The reason for picking Petraeus is simple. Iraq, whatever the current crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan, remains the West's biggest foreign policy challenge of this decade, and if he can halt its slide into all-out anarchy, General Petraeus may save more than Iraqi lives."
Indeed it has. Good common sense from across the pond.
(h/t The Political Grapevine)
They named Gen. David Petraeus as their "2007 Person of the Year".
To quote the paper's article, "The critics said it couldn't be done, but the vision and determination of General David Petraeus have brought greater security and cause for optimism to the people of Iraq."
The article continued, "The reason for picking Petraeus is simple. Iraq, whatever the current crises in Afghanistan and Pakistan, remains the West's biggest foreign policy challenge of this decade, and if he can halt its slide into all-out anarchy, General Petraeus may save more than Iraqi lives."
Indeed it has. Good common sense from across the pond.
(h/t The Political Grapevine)
Disgusting Case of Discrimination
Courtesy of Breitbart.com.
HOUMA, La. (AP) - A 6-foot-3, 265-pound man says a restaurant overcharged him for his trips to the buffet line, then banned him and a relative because they're hearty eaters. A spokesman for the restaurant denies the claim.
Ricky Labit, a disabled offshore worker, said he had been a regular for eight months at the Manchuria Restaurant in Houma, eating there as often as three times a week.
On his most recent visit, he said, a waitress gave him and his wife's cousin, 44-year-old Michael Borrelli, a bill for $46.40, roughly double the buffet price for two adults.
"She says, 'Y'all fat, and y'all eat too much,'" Labit said.
Labit and Borrelli said they felt discriminated against because of their size. "I was stunned, that somebody would say something like that. I ain't that fat, I only weigh 277," Borrelli said, adding that a waitress told him he looked like he a had a "baby in the belly."
Ok, it's hard to use the words "only", "weigh", and "277" in that order. However, to charge people double because they eat "all they can eat" at an "all you can eat" buffet is a bit ridiculous. It gets better.
Houma accountant Thomas Campo said the men were charged an extra $10 each on Dec. 21 because they made a habit of dining exclusively on the more expensive seafood dishes, including crab legs and frog legs.
"We have a lot of big people there," said Campo, who spoke for owner Li Shang, whose English is limited. "We don't discriminate."
Labit denied ever being told he would be asked to pay more than the standard adult price.
The argument grew heated, and police were called.
The police report states, "The incident was settled when the management advised that the bill was a mistake and, to appease Ricky, the meal was complimentary."
Labit said he insisted on paying but was told not to come back. He complained that when seafood on the buffet line runs out, the restaurant only grudgingly cooks more.
Campo said the proprietress tries to reduce waste of quality food, he said.
"Food is for eating, not toys for your child," reads a sign posted on a wall in typewritten text. A handwritten addition reads "Or 20% added."
Well, I don't see these men giving food as "toys for their children". Looks like they're simply eating what they want to eat. Even though the meal was complimentary, the guy insisted on paying (which is the honorable thing to do), and was rewarded for doing the honorable thing by being banned from the restaurant.
I don't think it is right for people to stuff and engorge themselves on food for the sake of doing so. However, it is also wrong to charge extra and discriminate against people for eating more than a normal person, especially when the extra charges were targeted at some "big guys".
I've seen rail thin men and women that can pack away 4-5 plates of greasy, fatty foods at a buffet...while I'm lucky to get past 1 salad and 1 plate of food, and I'm not a small person by any stretch of the imagination.
What got me were the comments at Breitbart regarding this article, tons of fat jokes and totally out-of-line commentary on "gross" and "disgusting fat slobs". I commented on my own, pointing out that this is, in fact, discrimination. I feel that it is more disgusting to hold such nasty views of the overweight than to be overeater who is overweight.
HOUMA, La. (AP) - A 6-foot-3, 265-pound man says a restaurant overcharged him for his trips to the buffet line, then banned him and a relative because they're hearty eaters. A spokesman for the restaurant denies the claim.
Ricky Labit, a disabled offshore worker, said he had been a regular for eight months at the Manchuria Restaurant in Houma, eating there as often as three times a week.
On his most recent visit, he said, a waitress gave him and his wife's cousin, 44-year-old Michael Borrelli, a bill for $46.40, roughly double the buffet price for two adults.
"She says, 'Y'all fat, and y'all eat too much,'" Labit said.
Labit and Borrelli said they felt discriminated against because of their size. "I was stunned, that somebody would say something like that. I ain't that fat, I only weigh 277," Borrelli said, adding that a waitress told him he looked like he a had a "baby in the belly."
Ok, it's hard to use the words "only", "weigh", and "277" in that order. However, to charge people double because they eat "all they can eat" at an "all you can eat" buffet is a bit ridiculous. It gets better.
Houma accountant Thomas Campo said the men were charged an extra $10 each on Dec. 21 because they made a habit of dining exclusively on the more expensive seafood dishes, including crab legs and frog legs.
"We have a lot of big people there," said Campo, who spoke for owner Li Shang, whose English is limited. "We don't discriminate."
Labit denied ever being told he would be asked to pay more than the standard adult price.
The argument grew heated, and police were called.
The police report states, "The incident was settled when the management advised that the bill was a mistake and, to appease Ricky, the meal was complimentary."
Labit said he insisted on paying but was told not to come back. He complained that when seafood on the buffet line runs out, the restaurant only grudgingly cooks more.
Campo said the proprietress tries to reduce waste of quality food, he said.
"Food is for eating, not toys for your child," reads a sign posted on a wall in typewritten text. A handwritten addition reads "Or 20% added."
Well, I don't see these men giving food as "toys for their children". Looks like they're simply eating what they want to eat. Even though the meal was complimentary, the guy insisted on paying (which is the honorable thing to do), and was rewarded for doing the honorable thing by being banned from the restaurant.
I don't think it is right for people to stuff and engorge themselves on food for the sake of doing so. However, it is also wrong to charge extra and discriminate against people for eating more than a normal person, especially when the extra charges were targeted at some "big guys".
I've seen rail thin men and women that can pack away 4-5 plates of greasy, fatty foods at a buffet...while I'm lucky to get past 1 salad and 1 plate of food, and I'm not a small person by any stretch of the imagination.
What got me were the comments at Breitbart regarding this article, tons of fat jokes and totally out-of-line commentary on "gross" and "disgusting fat slobs". I commented on my own, pointing out that this is, in fact, discrimination. I feel that it is more disgusting to hold such nasty views of the overweight than to be overeater who is overweight.
Podium Positions: Energy and Environment
Energy and environmental concerns have been a position of the left for a while. However, that does not mean that conservatives don't know or don't care about energy conservation and environmental concerns. We just don't buy into the liberal hype as much on issues such as global warming. Despite claims about the "consensus" about global warming, there is no consensus. However, that doesn't mean that things don't need to change along the energy and environmental fronts.
Global Warming
Given the outcry of innumerable scientists that there is not a consensus on global warming, and that similar warming trends are taking place on other planets, I am inclined to disagree that global warming on Earth is solely the fault of evil pollutants and corporations. While pollution does not help keep our planet in pristine shape, I fail to see where science has proven this without a doubt.
We should continue to monitor climate trends and the effects that human efforts and solar activity have on our climate. I believe we have not arrived at the true answers about global warming, at least not the most important ones.
Nonetheless, we all want cleaner air and water, it's simply healthier for us. So pursuing smart, sensible conservation efforts is a good thing.
Alternative Energy
Of course, pursuing cleaner and more efficient sources of energy is something worth looking into. Solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, biofuels, hydrogen-powered vehicles, ethanol...these are all worthy projects and should be further researched.
Federally-funded scientific research in the field of energy has already been pointed in the direction of the above-mentioned sources of energy. Continued research should be looked at in the future.
However, until we can make these alternative sources financially prudent for both the producer and consumer, we've got to provide power and electricity to keep ourselves going.
Until Alternatives Become Cost-Effective...
We are still quite a distance from the day that alternative energy sources can become reliable and/or cost-efficient. Until then, we have to focus on what we, as a nation, have at our disposal.
Clean-burning coal is an alternative that we should look at more seriously. In fact, the state of Virginia already has many large deposits of coal that can be used in the "clean-burning" process. Not only does this help on a national level, but also brings relevance and importance to the mining industry in our state.
Let's face it, we deal too much with nations that are hostile towards us when it comes to oil. What we need to do is focus on opening up further drilling in Alaska and other areas of the United States where we are legislatively limited to drill...despite the bounty of oil beneath these restricted grounds which would make us more self-reliant when it comes to oil. Also, with Brazil having recently discovered a new, rather large deposit of oil that they plan on opening up for drilling, it would be sensible to move our trade away from nations like Venezuela to one like Brazil, whose stance towards America is rather favorable.
Another way to reduce our oil dependency is to look towards nuclear energy. Several nations that have been lauded for "being green", like Japan and France, have a much higher percentage of nuclear-generated electricity than America does. 3 Mile Island was almost 29 years ago, and that incident was not only an example of what can go wrong with nuclear power...but also an example of how many safeguards are in place to prevent a nuclear meltdown. It's time to move on and move towards greater use of this efficient and effective form of power.
In fact, by going to clean-burning coal and nuclear power, our oil dependency lessens dramatically...basically for use in automobiles and a minority of households for heating purposes.
Conservative Conservation
For those who doubt the connection of conservatives and conservation, see this exchange between an unnamed southern governor and President Reagan as noted in Edmund Morris' Dutch.
Governor: Mister President, I want to know why a bear needs more fresh air than a human being?
Reagan: Well, Governor, have you ever smelled a bear?
Admittedly, that quote is a bit light and humorous, but Reagan was a fan of sensible conservation of forests and open land. Conservatives, especially the ones who like to claim the mantle of Reagan, would be wise to keep this in mind. As much as we Americans like our clusters of new development making life convenient for us, we also like wide open spaces and lush green forests. While growth in inevitable in a nation such as ours, we could help conserve our wildlands a great deal with smart, conservative conservationism.
I expressed in the Podium Positions regarding the economy, I believe we should begin a new focus on agriculture. Not only would this provide positive economic results, but would also help with creating results from conserving farmland.
Overview
While alternative sources of energy and fuel are undoubtedly the future, they have not been cost-effective for the consumer. Until we can make these products cheap and widely available for public consumption, we still need to power our nation. Clean-burning coal, domestic oil, and especially nuclear power would not only reduce our need for foreign oil, but the clean-burning coal and nuclear power would lessen our need for oil in general.
We must be smart about the protection of wildlands, but neither overly careful nor overly careless. Our nation has always reserved a general love for the wilderness. It's part of our heritage as a country. Agricultural growth will provide dividends both economically and environmentally, as well.
Global Warming
Given the outcry of innumerable scientists that there is not a consensus on global warming, and that similar warming trends are taking place on other planets, I am inclined to disagree that global warming on Earth is solely the fault of evil pollutants and corporations. While pollution does not help keep our planet in pristine shape, I fail to see where science has proven this without a doubt.
We should continue to monitor climate trends and the effects that human efforts and solar activity have on our climate. I believe we have not arrived at the true answers about global warming, at least not the most important ones.
Nonetheless, we all want cleaner air and water, it's simply healthier for us. So pursuing smart, sensible conservation efforts is a good thing.
Alternative Energy
Of course, pursuing cleaner and more efficient sources of energy is something worth looking into. Solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power, biofuels, hydrogen-powered vehicles, ethanol...these are all worthy projects and should be further researched.
Federally-funded scientific research in the field of energy has already been pointed in the direction of the above-mentioned sources of energy. Continued research should be looked at in the future.
However, until we can make these alternative sources financially prudent for both the producer and consumer, we've got to provide power and electricity to keep ourselves going.
Until Alternatives Become Cost-Effective...
We are still quite a distance from the day that alternative energy sources can become reliable and/or cost-efficient. Until then, we have to focus on what we, as a nation, have at our disposal.
Clean-burning coal is an alternative that we should look at more seriously. In fact, the state of Virginia already has many large deposits of coal that can be used in the "clean-burning" process. Not only does this help on a national level, but also brings relevance and importance to the mining industry in our state.
Let's face it, we deal too much with nations that are hostile towards us when it comes to oil. What we need to do is focus on opening up further drilling in Alaska and other areas of the United States where we are legislatively limited to drill...despite the bounty of oil beneath these restricted grounds which would make us more self-reliant when it comes to oil. Also, with Brazil having recently discovered a new, rather large deposit of oil that they plan on opening up for drilling, it would be sensible to move our trade away from nations like Venezuela to one like Brazil, whose stance towards America is rather favorable.
Another way to reduce our oil dependency is to look towards nuclear energy. Several nations that have been lauded for "being green", like Japan and France, have a much higher percentage of nuclear-generated electricity than America does. 3 Mile Island was almost 29 years ago, and that incident was not only an example of what can go wrong with nuclear power...but also an example of how many safeguards are in place to prevent a nuclear meltdown. It's time to move on and move towards greater use of this efficient and effective form of power.
In fact, by going to clean-burning coal and nuclear power, our oil dependency lessens dramatically...basically for use in automobiles and a minority of households for heating purposes.
Conservative Conservation
For those who doubt the connection of conservatives and conservation, see this exchange between an unnamed southern governor and President Reagan as noted in Edmund Morris' Dutch.
Governor: Mister President, I want to know why a bear needs more fresh air than a human being?
Reagan: Well, Governor, have you ever smelled a bear?
Admittedly, that quote is a bit light and humorous, but Reagan was a fan of sensible conservation of forests and open land. Conservatives, especially the ones who like to claim the mantle of Reagan, would be wise to keep this in mind. As much as we Americans like our clusters of new development making life convenient for us, we also like wide open spaces and lush green forests. While growth in inevitable in a nation such as ours, we could help conserve our wildlands a great deal with smart, conservative conservationism.
I expressed in the Podium Positions regarding the economy, I believe we should begin a new focus on agriculture. Not only would this provide positive economic results, but would also help with creating results from conserving farmland.
Overview
While alternative sources of energy and fuel are undoubtedly the future, they have not been cost-effective for the consumer. Until we can make these products cheap and widely available for public consumption, we still need to power our nation. Clean-burning coal, domestic oil, and especially nuclear power would not only reduce our need for foreign oil, but the clean-burning coal and nuclear power would lessen our need for oil in general.
We must be smart about the protection of wildlands, but neither overly careful nor overly careless. Our nation has always reserved a general love for the wilderness. It's part of our heritage as a country. Agricultural growth will provide dividends both economically and environmentally, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
