Can you really call it a "national" park if 99% of the citizens can't
afford to visit it?
1- National Park funding is not hurting as bad as many claim. The problem is
that we're trying to fund WAY too much. I'm pretty conservative, but I'm
completely anti oil and pro environment. If we actually restricted people from
destroying our environment, we wouldn't have to pay to essentially 'repair' so
much of it so often. There's plenty we spend too much on that shouldn't get
funding anyway, but a lot of spending could be prevented if we did things right
to begin with.2- Ranch, While I agree that your statement has merit,
and it certainly is something I resonate with in many ways- I would argue that
the percentage isn't nearly that high. Again, the principle regarding
state-owned, yet few have access has merit, but many citizens go in to debt for
their new Big Screen, etc- while they complain they don't have money. I know
SEVERAL poor college student friends of mine who complain about their debt, yet
go out and get an xbox. The majority of the % that can't afford things, can't of
their own accord. I've met few who didn't seem to literally have any way out.
How does this work, where the concept of nation states is void? The moon
currently belongs pretty much equally to every one who can see it, and even
those who can't. The landing sites are incredible artifacts, but we need to
onboard more than ourselves as far as protecting them, because I think it won't
be us who goes there next.
Is it possible to look at these moon landingSites close up on the internet
similar to how we can look at places on earth includingour own
houses and yards?
Many US parks are in the shape they are in because so many of the employees
don't do their jobs. They wait for the 'maintenance guys' rather than doing a
quick clean up themselves. They don't want to work, just stand around and talk.
We see it every time we visit the parks.