Re: [at-l] the vote

Well, since your post escaped... I'm voting enthusiastically for Gore.  Gore
cares about and understands the environmental issues of his time better than
any major party candidate since at least Teddy Roosevelt.  And by "the
environment" I don't just mean national parks, open space, and clean water.

For example, Gore cares about global warming, and has done so at
considerable political expense (how many points do you think Gore won for
helping to negotiate the Kyoto treaty?).  On the other hand, Bush still
thinks that "the jury is out".  Then again, he thinks the same on evolution.
How can a man who so fundamentally misunderstands the way that science works
make informed decisions about a problem that won't admit a quick fix?  The
next president doesn't have to understand the details of global climate
models, but he has to understand that science is a social process, and that
waiting for complete unanimity is nothing more than a recipie for inaction.

I'm concerned about how the composition of the supreme court is going to
affect the ability of the federal government to address pollution issues.
In my own state, New York, the Adirondack's rivers and lakes are dying
because of acid rain generated by midwestern power plants.  These are
interstate issues, but the same "strict construtionists" (e.g. Scalia and
Thomas) that Bush admires also favor strict limits on the federal
government's ability to conserve wetlands and set limits on pollution.  The
"strict constructionist" philosophy is attractive on the surface, but it
ignores the fact that we live in a very different world than the framers of
the constitution did.

Gore also seems to understand that many environmental problems today are
global in nature, and are tightly entwined with the growing human
population.  I don't know what to do about the problem, but I have seen no
evidence that Bush has even thought about it.

I know that many folks on this list feel strongly about individual property
rights.  We disagree... there have always been limits on what people can do
with their property (check out the history of water rights if you don't
belive me).  Bush made most of his millions by helping the Texas Rangers
build a new stadium... with taxpayer money... on condemned land.  Bush is
clearly no believer in property rights, but he seems to value baseball a lot
more than water quality, habitat protection, or an unspoiled landscape.

And finally, take a look at some of the anti-environmental stuff the
congress has been trying to push through since the "contract for America"
years.  They're still at it.  I have no faith at all that Bush would stand
up to a Republican congress.

On fiscal issues I am much more comfortable with Gore.  It's actually kind
of funny to see the Democrat running as a fiscal conservative, while the
Republican proposes throwing money.  Gore's tax cuts make a good deal of
sense... they promote education and energy conservation among other things,
while the income caps leave money available for paying down the debt.
Paying down the debt not only releases more money for other purposes, but is
also a necessary precursor for dealing with social security.  After all, the
social security trust fund is invested in (you guessed it) government bonds
(read debt).  On top of that, Bush's proposal for social security has the
"big lie" written all over it... social security has NEVER been run like an
investment account, because the current generation's checks have always been
paid by the next generation's contributions.  And can you imagine what will
happen when all those social security accounts tank the next time the stock
market goes sour?  Don't think it can't happen... my employer has an ESOP
(employee stock ownership plan), and the value of mine dropped by a factor
of four over the last year and a half.

Gore's biggest problem is that he's an introvert, not an extrovert like
Bush.  That awkwardness he exhibits is just part of the package... I know...
I'm introverted too.  And when you look at his "serial lies" they turn out
to mostly never to have happened.  Gore NEVER claimed to have invented the
internet (though he sponsored the legislation that moved the old "Arpanet"
out of the department of defence).  Gore NEVER claimed that he and Tipper
were the model for the couple in "Love Story" (though the author did say
that Gore was the model for one of the characters).  Gore's statement about
the girl without a desk in Florida was based on a newspaper article and was
indicative of a real and ongoing problem.  And the Gore flap about the cost
of prescription drugs was based on a congressional study... the problem was
that the study used wholesale prices; when you used retail prices the cost
difference was less, but still substantial.

But Gore is stiff, and Bush has an easy manner, and so Bush gets away with
whopper after whopper while Gore gets nibbled to death by ducks.  Of course,
if we elect Bush and take Houston as our environmental mecca at least the
duck problem will go away.

And, just to keep this hiking related, I'll be hiking to the voting booth.

-- Jim Mayer

----- Original Message -----