Organization: /usr/lib/news/organizatoin
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:07:18 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Gore on the Environment

>> 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.

>> 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?

>> 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".

>> >   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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

>> 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....

> 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.)

> 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.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)