Subject: Re: Slash Burning
Date: Jan 19 20:01:23 1996
From: Don Baccus - donb at Rational.COM


> >Option 9 wasn't all that bad. Not all that good, but a great step
> >forward.
> ...
> >Oh, sorry, being cynical again...

> Cynical? Sounds like you're inventing your own cover to hide behind while
> trying to defend a man (Clinton) who is politician first and idealist
> somewhere down the line.

First, I stated that it was politically smart. Thus, the fact that
Clinton is a politician first and foremost fits. He made it clear
that he was doing it for political reasons. Events have shown him
to be politically astute - he (and we) have had our butts kicked
recently.

Why are we doing this in private instead of in public?

Duck and cover is a paradigm well suited to politics. You're pulling
a Clinton, here...

> In cases whre a win-win solution is possible, Clinton comes up with a
> lose-lose solution.

OK. What was the win-win option endorsed by the scientists? They
all offered less harvest to the industry than Option 9 - how was
that a win for industry? Please keep in mind that the industry has
made it clear that they reserve the right to declare a win for them
to themselves, on their own (short-term) terms.

Which of the 8 options looked better to the industry? "win-win" implies
good to industry as well as forests, so please be *specific*.

> Clinton only remains where he is (and will) because no one with any merit
> has come forward to challenge him.

Like Newt? Bob? Gordon? Larry? Helen? Just who?

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <donb at rational.com>