Patrick Scott wrote,

> The fact is however, the ecologically
> responsible Republicans are a *minority* in their party. We need to elect
> people who care about preserving our resources, not converting them into
> capital. Before 1994, this might've been a bipartisan concern. Now, the
> environment is of no concern to Congress.

Certainly true. But one of the most hopeful consequences of the current
Congress's action has been the strong reaction against them on
environmental issues, largely from pretty middle-of-the-road citizens (or
so I hear). The newly elected reactionaries badly miscalculated their
support and their mandate, thinking they could gut environmental
protection in the name of balancing the budget. They were wrong.

It's still true, though, that we should all make it a high priority to
overturn the current Congress this fall. Some of the dimmest lights in
Congress were elected from Washington and are certainly vulnerable.
Unfortunately, Linda Smith has strong support and has actually been Doing
the Right Thing by going after the kind of corruption that taints the
election process, so we may not be able to get rid of her. We can't go
after Slade the Slimy for two years more; but I understand there is a good
chance to finally get rid of ol' Jesse Helms, and Phil Gramm is going to
face a new guy who seems very popular. So there's always hope.

Burt Guttman guttmanb at elwha.evergreen.edu
The Evergreen State College Voice: 360-866-6000, x. 6755
Olympia, WA 98505 FAX: 360-866-6794

"I keep seeing this word 'unabridged' on dictionaries. What does it mean?"