Greenie sweet talk: we don't buy it!

The late President Lyndon Johnson was fond of saying, "Come, let us reason together," whenever he had something he wanted to sell.

And nearly everybody dutifully "reasoned" with him because, standing 6 feet 4 inches tall and weighing in at about 220 pounds in his heyday, he towered above most lawmakers, lobbyists and special envoys who understood that they jolly well had better reason with him. Besides, he almost always had something to give for the programs he was persuading them to support.

His handshake was crushing, and his bear hug could squeeze the wind right out of lesser men. Women kind of melted before him. It was power politics at its very best and nobody has played the game any better before or since LBJ.

Except for the environmental community, which, coincidentally, began to crop up about the time he stepped down. For a generation or more, the Greens have monkey wrenched their way into nearly every facet of public and private life from resource development to land and sea lock-up; the people be damned.

They've had their way and made lots of money from contributions to their causes, many of which have been Alaska-based "causes." The courts and margins in Congress have always gone along with them, and their campaign contributions. There was little need to care a fig about the common people. Until now.

Now, for the first time in a long time, when it looks likely that one of the environmental community's dearest money makers, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, might actually stand a chance of getting Congressional approval for exploration of oil, they want to talk! Never before did they want to talk. They had it their way, all the way.

Recently, we have read newspaper stories headlined: "Time to respectfully confer on ANWR." Oh, butter wouldn't melt in their mouths, as one news story continued: "Balance and fairness, commitment to future generations, belief in ingenuity, and respect for beauty and sacredness of creation...."

Balance and fairness? Oh please! How stupid must they think we be to buy that, when they propose: "There are strong, value-based reasons to conclude, thoughtfully, that the coastal plain of ANWR should be protected, not drilled." And more: "Let the respectful discussions begin." What value-based reasons and whose values? And "thoughtfully," and "respectful"? What balderdash. What travesty.

The "community" is very skilled at talking anything to death. Talking for months and years. Talk. Talk. Talk. Talk through hearing after hearing. Through Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. Through court injunction after court injunction.

Don't buy it.