From: pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren)
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:00:24 GMT

In article <Bu4p8B.D1K@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <machman.715464078@milton> machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
>>cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:
>
>>I believe if Gore were vice-president, we'd be trying to do 
>>something about reducing the risk of global warming, at least not 
>>ignoring it like the Bush administration has been.
>
>"Trying to do something"?  Do you approve of that if the "something"
>is establishing a global eco-fascist state?  

Since Gore is an environmentalist, Republicans are trying to paint him as an
"environmental extremist" (as is exeplified by the emotive smear term "eco-
fascist" posted above).  Indeed any environmentalist would appear to be an
"environmental extremist" by the standards of George Bush when you consider:

-GB favors finanical incentives to make paper out of virgin timber but opposes
financial incentives to make paper from recycled paper.
-GB has tried to weaken industrial polution laws.  The mechanism by which he
has attempted to do this is by allowing companies which pollute below the limit
to sell the balence to other companies, thus allowing them to pollute above
the limit.
-GB tried to divert money from public transportation to extending roads for
more private motor vehicles.
-GB has opposed funding for the development of the magnetrain which has been
developed very successfully in Japan.  It is much faster, much more efficient
and much less polluting than private cars.

If it is to take away your right
>to use your property?  

You will need to enlarge on this.  Most people would probably agree that the
right to use one's property should not compromise other poeples' right to
breath clean air.

If it is eliminating all internal combustion
>engines in the next 25 years?  

Given that Gore can be part of the administration for, at most, 16 years, I
fail to see how you think that he plans to control what happens 25 years from
now.  He may see this as a desirable goal.  Indeed, if it can be replaced by
something more efficient and less poluting it is a worth-while goal.  I fail
to see how jobs will be compromised by technolgical development spread over
25 years.

If it is defining a desire to live a
>technologically advanced civilized lifestyle as a mental illness?  

Does a technologically advanced, civilized life-style neccessarily have to
be environmentally destructive and energy-inefficient?

If 
>arguing against environmentalist pseudoscience is defined as a mental illness?
>If the government forces you to use primitive tools and methods to do
>your job?  Is this REALLY what you want?  If you don't Gore understands,
>he realizes it is insane to oppose him, so he'll send you to a "re-education"
>program to set you straight.

This is nothing but a lot of scare-tactics with no factual justification.

>
>Far from ignoring environmentalist doomsaying, Bush has been paying the
>chicken-littles far too much heed (eg. the "Clean Air Bill" and blessing
>the "Earth Summit").

This is also just opinion with no factual justification.

Peter Lauren.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh