Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (15760)	3/19/2000 3:07:00 PM
From: Brian P.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

<<How can you admire the persons environmental beliefs when you haven't even read his book?>> You are putting word in my mouth. I admire the fact that the environment is on his radar screen at all. I don't believe it's even on Bush's radar screen--Bush does not "understand" the issue at all and would not balance anything--he is too much beholden to big business interests and pseudo-conservative ideologues who think that paving over the USA from sea to shining sea is progress. << So really what you've been saying is, I only dislike certain lobby groups. >> No. I think the whole lobby system needs reform. Of course I have interests just like all individuals in a democracy. I would like to see lobbies wage open democratic battle for their interests and reduce the power of hidden MONEY to be the thing that talks most. I would like to see citizens vote less with their pocketbook and more with a real voice. I know you think that is pie-in-the-sky or unconstitutional. But I think McCain brought the subject of money corrupting the process up for debate and it deserves more attention than it gets. I really don't think the Founders wanted or expected congressmen to worry as much as they do about who is and is not giving them money. I think if the Founders could have imagined the expensive money/media-driven world we live in they would be dismayed, and dismayed by the central role money plays in politics today. I imagine that Jefferson and Madison would have disagreed on just what to do about it but I think they would both be dismayed. Fact is, the most cogent response George W. Bush has mounted against the idea of campaign finance reform is to say that it would hurt the Repubs more than the Dems. Gimmee a break. On the environment, people sort themselves out into two broad categories: Take global warming, for example. There are those who say: until I see ironclad scientific proof it is a big problem, I'm not going to worry about it--unending economic growth is too important--even if their is a chance that by the time we have incontrovertible proof it will be too late to do anything about it anyway. The people in the other camp say: if this could be a big problem, and a lot of data suggests it may well be, then we owe it to future generations to err on the side of caution here and take it seriously, this is too important to just wait until it's too late to do anything about it. Of course, people fall out along a continuum, a spectrum between these two extremes. But I see the Republicans as too uninterested and too incautious. Too much in the one camp. I like Gore's interest in the problems of unlimited development and suburban sprawl. I like the fact that he even has it on his radar screen, even brings it up. That's all. Doesn't mean I love Al. You like Bush's general drift--doesn't mean you love George. Read Asphalt Nation - How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Take it Back, by Jane Holtz Kay. (Random House, 1997)

To: greenspirit who wrote (15760)	3/19/2000 9:54:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Al Gore is an environmental zealot. It is unfortunate for the environment that we are forced to choose between an environmental zealot and an environmental ignoramus. Admirers of moderation have little to cheer about in this election. So really what you've been saying is, I only dislike certain lobby groups. Lobby groups on both sides have a function: they force contentious issues onto the table, where politicians, who would prefer to avoid the contentious, are forced to discuss them and reveal their opinions. Ideally, though, no lobby group should be permitted to maneuver itself into a position where it has the power to actually decide policy on the issues with which it is concerned. That ideal has not been often met in our history, and it doesn't seem likely to come any closer to being met under either Bush or Gore. Regarding China, about which we talked a bit a while back, it doesn't seem that the intimidating talk had much effect. Things will be interesting for a while. I was reading this article: iht.com and noticed, as I often have, that comments on the China issue from Asia-Pacific leaders are inevitably far more practical, moderate, intelligent, and grounded in reality than anything coming out of Washington. It would be wonderful if whoever prevails in the upcoming election would develop a China policy in conjunction with allies in the area. Like most wonderful things, though, it isn't likely to happen.