<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ted Stevens strikes again</title>
	<link>http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/06/30/ted-stevens-strikes-again/</link>
	<description>Politics, policy, media, culture...missives from Capitol Hill</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:24:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jason Coleman</title>
		<link>http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/06/30/ted-stevens-strikes-again/#comment-3157</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:58:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/06/30/ted-stevens-strikes-again/#comment-3157</guid>
					<description>Hi there Tim, caught your defense of holds and thought I'd take a look around.  

I wanted to jump in here and say that while I agree that Sen. Stevens is a bit of a porkmeister (ok, he is), but I'm going to disagree with you that this is a less than worthwhile project for our government to fund.

Probably the most important activity a government can undertake (after National Defense) is ensuring an environment where a surplus of food and energy is produced for it's people.   Without these two surpluses in place the nation is doomed.

So to Salmon.   Anything we could do to expand aquaculture in this nation should be looked at as a positive, additionally, development in our last real frontier (Alaska) and our shared frontier (the seas) is something we really need as a nation, it's mazimizing the use of the resources we have.  Increased food supplies are a primary economic driver (wouldn't you agree?).  

I would be happy to jump on Stevens for this, if the project were actually PORK like the bridge to nowhere was, but a earmark that A) produces expansion of food availability and diversity and B) produces economic development in our frontier seems to me like something worth throwing some government might (read: money) at.

Other than this so far, great commentary, I'll be back and I'm throwing you a link, although with today's Instalanche, I don't think you'll be needing it.

--Jason</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi there Tim, caught your defense of holds and thought I&#8217;d take a look around.  </p>
<p>I wanted to jump in here and say that while I agree that Sen. Stevens is a bit of a porkmeister (ok, he is), but I&#8217;m going to disagree with you that this is a less than worthwhile project for our government to fund.</p>
<p>Probably the most important activity a government can undertake (after National Defense) is ensuring an environment where a surplus of food and energy is produced for it&#8217;s people.   Without these two surpluses in place the nation is doomed.</p>
<p>So to Salmon.   Anything we could do to expand aquaculture in this nation should be looked at as a positive, additionally, development in our last real frontier (Alaska) and our shared frontier (the seas) is something we really need as a nation, it&#8217;s mazimizing the use of the resources we have.  Increased food supplies are a primary economic driver (wouldn&#8217;t you agree?).  </p>
<p>I would be happy to jump on Stevens for this, if the project were actually PORK like the bridge to nowhere was, but a earmark that A) produces expansion of food availability and diversity and B) produces economic development in our frontier seems to me like something worth throwing some government might (read: money) at.</p>
<p>Other than this so far, great commentary, I&#8217;ll be back and I&#8217;m throwing you a link, although with today&#8217;s Instalanche, I don&#8217;t think you&#8217;ll be needing it.</p>
<p>&#8211;Jason
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
