[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Gale Norton, political activism, and this list......
Jack makes a serious post, even if his fonts are all screwed up.
I also believe Gale Norton is the wrong person for the job of handling what's
left of our national resources. Her record concerning the environment sucks.
I hope Jack doesn't get dissed off this list only because he makes a plea for
us to decide just where are passions lie and would like to see where everyone
is coming from.
That takes dialogue.
Sly
dated 1/24/2001 7:23:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, baltjack@hotmail.com writes:
<< <DIV>
<DIV>I'm glad my recent post reached a few folks and encouraged them to get
involved with the Norton nomination. And yeah, it was certainly amusing to
hear from the folks who think Norton's a great lady, is supremely qualified,
will do a great job, etc. Except of course, none of them actually said this,
or if they did, they sure didn't provide any concrete proof, or details, or
evidence to support their feelings. And for good reason. Even a casual
examination of her record proves the following:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> * Gale Norton's enitire career has been spent as an enemy to the
environment. Her mentor, friend, and soulmate is James Watt, without
question the worst Secretary of the Interior we ever had.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> * Among other things, she's spent years doing legal work and
lobbying for any number of industrial polluters, including several firms
involved in repeated instances of lead-paint poisoning and pollution.
Needless to say, all of her work for these firms involved denying or limiting
their responsibility or culpability for their crimes, and questioning the
right of the federal government to force them own up to their actions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> * For years, Norton has advocated a strict "Property Owner's
Inalienable Rights" doctrine which essentially states that private landowners
can do whatever they wish to on their land, without any local, state, or
federal interference. The major beneficiaries of this misguided policy have
been corporate polluters.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> * In Colorado, Norton has championed legislation that would limit
corporate liability in lawsuits and cleanups, and has instead pushed for
"voluntary compliance" laws for private companies as opposed to state or
Federal regulations. Needless to say, the timber, mining, and oil interests
she's chosen to go to bed with for 20 years have treated this "voluntary"
compliance with anti-pollution laws as a joke. Gee, what a surprise.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> * Norton is the choice of a President who as a sitting Governor,
had a deplorable environmental record in Texas. This is not idle
speculation, but is instead, well documented by anyone willing to check it
out. Norton was also championed by Dick Cheney, whose voting record on
environmental matters as a Congressman was abysmal. Among other things, he
tried to allow snowmobilers free access to our National parks, terming this,
and I quote, "A swell idea!" Hey, what a guy! Next time I go to
Yellowstone, I really wanna hear snowmobiles from three miles away. What a
cool idea, Dick, let's go camping!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> * In short, Norton will be a horrific Secretary of the Interior.
From her track record on the environment, and that of the gentlemen who
hand-picked her, we should have no confidence whatsoever that she's the right
person to safeguard the preservation of our natural areas, our parks and
monuments, our water, our air, and our public lands. There is a world of
evidence to suggest that she is absolutely the wrong person for this
position. There is no reason whatsover, based on her entire career, to
believe otherwise.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> It should not be necessary to say all this, except that I felt
a response was in order to some of her more vocal cheerleaders who seem to
think (for reasons they've left un-explained) that she's a great choice for
the job. And it should not be necessary to say all this, were it not for the
fact that someone actually suggested that this discussion was not appropriate
for this list, and that this list was not a suitable place to discuss such
matters.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Gee, excuse me and all that, but I was under the distinct
impression that this list had something to do with the Great Outdoors. Or am
I mistaken? Is it wrong to discuss the ascension to office of a woman who
will be in a position to do irreparable damage to our public lands, which
include, I might add, our National Scenic Trails? Is it wrong to encourage
folks to get involved and informed on this? Is it outta place to bring this
up as something that some of us might take more than a casual interest in?
Or is the future of our natural resources an inappropriate topic here? Gee,
sorry. Didn't mean to distract from the critical discussions about tuna
fish, or swapping cute photos of each other, or when the Tuba Guy is gonna be
on Letterman, or who's gonna run the chili cook-off at the next gathering of
Listers. Wow, sorry I interfered with those critical dialogues, please!
forgive me. How shocking of me to actually wonder if folks interested in
the Appalachian Trail might want to get involved in activity that might
ensure its survival, or at least ensure that the single most powerful Federal
official in a position to help---or hurt----the Trail, might actually be
someone who does not have a decades-long history of enmity towards the
environment.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I appreciate Kahley's recent letter; all I was attempting to do
was initiate a dialogue here, and to provide a way for interested parties to
get informed and to get involved. I was never deluding myself that everyone
would be receptive to this suggestion, or that everyone on this list shares
the same political beliefs. However, considering the nature of this List,
I'd kinda hoped that at least some folks would be interested.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Lastly, whatever your political persuasion, I suggest you check
out the Nov-Dec. 1999 issue of the Sierra Club's monthly magazine. (You can
find it at <A HREF="http://www.sierraclub.org/";>www.sierraclub.org</A>). It
should really open some eyes, especially those deluded souls that think
President Bush or any of his likely appointees have any genuine interest in
protecting our natural world. I particularly advise some of Norton's more
vocal cheerleaders from this list to take a few moments and read this. Their
future comments on this subject would have a hell of a lot more credibility
when they've read a little history. Until then, their comments are pretty
lame. To tell us, "Well I like Gale Norton!" without going into the reasons
why, does not really add much to this discussion. I like Gwyneth Paltrow,
Sandra Bullock, and Uma Thurman, too. I just don't think any of 'em are
qualified to!
run the Interior Department. And neither, for that matter, is Ms.
Norton.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Once again, sorry for taking up so much of your valuable time
and space; those who wish to get back to talking tunafish and tubas are now
free to do so.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
Jack Tarlin</DIV>
<DIV>
A.T. 95-96; 97; 98; 99;
2000</DIV></DIV>
<hr>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at <A
HREF="http://explorer.msn.com";>http://explorer.msn.com</A> >>