Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:33:36 CDT
From:         "The Truth (some assembly required)" <T9AA@SDSUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Andy, Leader and maybe Dave on the Environment

I just got the book so maybe we can get back to Gore on the Environment
if I find some things I find interesting.

>>> Democrats are behaving like their caricature of Republicans; now we
>>> know why.
>> That's it...The GOP have been winning, running, and ruining the
>> country. The Demos may have figured out how the GOP keep winning.
>> Could it be that Demos have decided that how you play the game is not
>> as important as winning?
> If you're going to argue that Demos are better, pointing out that
> they're the same is a bad start.

Good rhetorical point, andy.

Some points here, OK?
1) While, according to the League of Conservation Voters and the
   Rifkins (in the LCV Congressional Report, _Vote for the Earth_ and
   _Voting Green_), the democrats are generally better on "Green"
   issues than the republicans.
2) However, according to my recollection (my data is in another state,
   but I can check by tomorrow if anyone cares), the Democratic
   leadership of both houses do not come with shining records for
   the environment.
3) While the Rifkins do not have any Republicans on their "A-List"
   (list of legislators with "A" ratings for environmental legislation),
   there are a few on the "B" list.
4) There are number of Democrats on the "F" list, although they are
    outnumbered by Republicans by a large margin.

Therefore, just on environmental standards alone, the Democrats do not
earn a "better" rating. Since I don't have the info, I won't get into
the National Taxpayer's Union or other vote ratings.

However, at least since I started paying attention, the Democrats have
been taking the "High Road" for campaigning. Actually, I'd say that
the Dukakis campaign was stalled with a flat tire and stuck in a ditch,
but that is neither here nor there.

I do recall hearing that the 1960 and 64 campaigns had adverts that
were considered so horrible, they were pulled after one broadcast.
These came from the Democrat side. Remember "Daisy," anyone?

>>> But it was for a good cause, so it's okay.  Right?
>> RIGHT!!!!
>> Relax, we are talking Politics, aren't we?
>Yes, we're talking politics.  Does that really make truth irrelevant?

To the Nazis, "Genetic Cleansing" (Sp?) was a good cause. The
ends do not justify the means, except under certain occasions (waffle).

>>> I'm pointing out that the record isn't what Leader asserts and
>>> even if it is, the credit/blame is shared.
>> The record is basically bad. Everyone shares the blame except for
>> the handfull of environmental activists who had the will and the
>> political ability to do something about it.
> The truth of that statement depends on how we're defining
> "environmental activists"; we'll come back to it.  We know who pays
> for the bulk of the habitat restoration and preservation done by govt
> and by private parties; they usually aren't called "environmental
> activists".

They are called "hunters" or "fishers." For Superfund projects, they
are called "polluters," and for a number of other projects, the
generic "taxpayers" may be used.

However, in defining the problems, in crafting solutions and in the
lead of making these things issues, the self-same environmental
activists are driving forces.

>>> >   The primary reason why these minimal(and I do mean MINIMAL)
>>> >   improvements have been made is because the public was convinced
>>> >   that the environmental situation was extremely critical and
>>> >   corrective action could not be postponed any longer.
>>> Hold it.  First Leader claims that we're going downhill fast, and
>>> now we're going uphill slowly.
>> No. Wrong. downhill fast, but thinking about getting our brakes fixed
>Not close.  We are going uphill slowly.  It may not be fast enough,
>but the direction is clear.

I agree with Andy on this one. I think that on some issues the downhill
trend is going, but in general, we are at least even, if not uphill.

Think about it. Five years ago you didn't hear much about recycling
paper, or the rainforest. Now, they are major concerns. Much of it
is "pop environmentalism," as much a fad as Pearl Jam and tie-dye
(I know, O'andy- for some, tie-dye is not a fad), but you have to
start somewhere.

>>> So, I take it Leader support's China's population control measures.
>> You want to get down and dirty?
>I'm one of the few openly pro-abortionists on this group.

I'm another. I've thought about this issue and cannot think of an
answer outside of mass murder (at least in the short term. Education
is the perrenial long-term answer, but that doesn't answer much in
the short-term), and I will not be a party to that. Since none of
us seems to be in much disagreement here, let's drop this subject.

>>> Yes, I remember what he actually said.  He was right.  The LA basin
>>>has always had certain kinds of pollution because of the vegetation in
>>>that basin and the air patterns.  We're eliminating that vegetation
>>>through population increases, which is the most effective means of
>>>habitat destruction.
>> Was the pollution coming from the trees?
>Yes.  LA was known as a "smoky" basin before there were cars.  Nature
>isn't benign.

Well, that was from cooking fires. The sky was smoggy when the first
Conquistadores came up the coast.

However, the Smokey Mountains got their name from the trees there. I
don't recall the story, but I can find it by Wednesday, if anyone
cares.

>>> What about it?  I'm perfectly willing to agree that Bush lies.  I'm
>>> looking at whether or not other people are different.  Leader isn't.
>> Alot of people are different. Unfortunately, they rarely get elected.
>> And yes, I'm throwing my good sense to the wind...I think Gore is
>> different. I don't think Gore is lying about the environmental
>Since he's advocating "self-censorship" of anything other than
>horror stories....

He may be painting everything darker than it is, but then again,
the truth may not always be such a great motivator. Look at McCarthy.
Look at the War between the States. Abolition, while a minor part of
the disagreements between North and South, made a great rallying cry.
I, as a college student and wannabe-eco-journalist, may disagree with
his opinions on this issue, but I am not currently in a position to
judge.

>> I think the environment is the most important issue.
>Really?  How many hunting licenses and tags has Leader bought?  (Hint:
>a "0" response demonstrates that "think" doesn't translate to action.)

There are other ways to show "think" translating to action. Recycling
newspapers. Buying recycled. Not using harmful chemicals. (insert index
of _Fifty ways to save the Earth_ here). I do agree that the money
recieved for hunting licenses goes directly to wildlife management.
(Heck, that's like agreeing that the grass is green.)

>>It's very much related to the philosophy that everyone on the planet(at least
>>all Americans) can be rich. This philosophy was explained to me, by
>>the  way, by young WASP Republicans during the Reagan administration.
>>(p.s. sorry for resorting to personal priorities)
>Said WASP is correct.  It isn't a zero-sum game.  We can't do it with
>our current population.

Which means decreasing the total population, which means voluntarily
decreasing family size (or nothing short of total war for all people
on earth), which is not much of a problem in the US but is vital
for the third world.

How do we help? Can we help? Is it our place to say?

>>Leader, I think
>-andy

Dave
t9aa@sdsumus.bitnet
We are living in a revolutionary situation.
              --Henry Kissinger

Disclaimer:  The opinions contained in this post are not the
opinions of the Administration, Faculty, or Student Body of
South Dakota State University.  Hell, they might not even
be mine.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU