Leave fossil fuels in the past
After reading Rep. Phil Roe's comments in the May 21 article, “Republicans say ‘Green New Deal would've killed coal,’” I say Roe is talking to the past. Instead of trying to slow the trend away from the dirtiest of fossil fuels, he might first reflect on fossil as a metaphor: a person or thing that is outdated and resistant to change.
He won't find agreement among most Americans, particularly younger folk already apprehensive about coming effects of climate change, even if we act fast to at least moderate the change. Roe belongs to the world's only major political party still denying climate reality. While science says we are set to face major ecological collapse with a million species going extinct within 10 years, his party's Secretary of State, big grin on his face, praises the Arctic ice melt for opening faster trade routes. As I write this, epic flooding is happening in the already waterlogged Midwest with more slow-moving rain predicted.
They call the Green New Deal extreme. No, it isn't. It's just some common sense strategies, taking into account the urgency, which requires Republicans to remove their heads from the sand. There's no denying fossil fuels have to be phased out. One Trump EPA appointee mockingly said "Science is a Democrat thing." Well, you bet it is.
Roe always claims to be for an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy. Don't trust that. We Democrats still talk of his comment after visiting the opening of Rogersville's natural gas plant: "It's a threat." To What? Why, coal of course. If a cheaper and cleaner fossil fuel is a threat, you can imagine his true stance on green energy.
Then he tries to excuse U.S. responsibility on the basis of China's performance. That's a distraction, not leadership.
This is in response to the liberal views on growing the local population.
Both responses that were printed were no more than an attack on conservative viewpoints, no more, no less. Both responses tried to paint this area as a backward, racist, homophobic, backwoods, terrible place to live just because the area contains a largely conservative population.
Let’s start with the liberal catch phrases, diversity and inclusivity. Why don’t we burden our already overburdened K-12 education systems with children that cannot speak or read the English language? That will help increase the population. Why don’t we import some MS13 gang members or invite the Mexican cartels to establish a distribution center here and maybe throw in some Bloods and Crips?
Our drug problem is bad enough now, but we could make it worse. While we are at it, make this area a haven for those who break every teaching found in scripture? Why don’t we offer to take in some of the homeless folks from the cities in California or other large cities? We are doing a poor job for the homeless we have now, but let’s add a few thousand more. Let’s make this area a sanctuary area for illegals. Last but not least, I would like to have me some of that traffic gridlock that you find in large metropolitan areas.
If this is such a terrible area to live, in why do we have a large segment of folks who have moved or retired here from other areas of the country?
In summary, let’s turn this area into another L.A., New York City, San Francisco, Portland or Seattle. Do this and see just how much of the population you lose.