Its a human interest story and a national scandal
In this election process both candidates for President have
been silent about certain things in their pasts, although for
different reasons. Thursday a report out of Maine exposed
something about George W. Bush's past record on a
roadway there twenty-four years ago. But Al Gore has also
been very silent about his past record with regard to a
highway. Now from the opposite side of the continent comes
a story exposing Gore's involvement with something he has
been strangely silent about in this campaign, something that
some citizens think all voter should consider in making their
decision.
Starting when Al Gore was in Congress and for many years
Al Gore spoke of and worked very hard for something he
called the "information superhighway". But in this campaign
he seems to be hiding from his involvement with that issue,
even though it is something that affects the lives of every
American directly or indirectly. Of course, we don't often
call it the information superhighway. We call it the Internet.
Some Americans now can be on the Interstate and Intenet
at the same time!      to tough questions     to page history

Why is our method of choosing a President so absurd that
Al Gore seems to be hiding the fact that ten years ago he
was called "the most determined advocate" for the Internet?
Are we Americans so upset about being able to e-mail
friends, family, or businesses? Are we upset because
we can so quickly find information we need on the Internet?
Are students angry because they can use the Internet to
further their education? Are we disappointed that we don't
have to wait in line at a bank or airline counter as in the good
old days?  Does ordering products on  the Internet make things
too easy? Is having access to the world a nuisance? Are those
in business who have become wealthy through the opportunities
provide by the Internet annoyed about it?

Why is Al Gore so silent about his part in bringing us the Internet,
which has improved our lives in so many ways?

As you see in my entry at  hailalgore.htm#gift  I have attempted
to thank Al Gore for the great benefits and pleasures I experience
daily with the Internet. I have arranged to have the author of a
book, one that I would not have known about were it not for the
Internet, to present a copy of the book to Al Gore in San Antonio,
where the author lives. But his campaign has not responded to me,
just as it did not respond to the fellow in Maine. Just like the fellow
in Maine, I have proof of Al Gore's involvement in the development
of the Internet and am going to the media with the information
Al Gore is trying to run away from.

It took Acts of Congress to develop the Internet.
In Congress Al Gore was the most determined advocate for the Internet
The benefits Al Gore described and worked for are now evident everywhere.
It is time to start asking Al Gore these questions
about his past:
Didn't you introduce S. 2594, the Supercomputer
Network Study Act of 1986?
Didn't S. 2594 require the White House Office
of Science and Technology to report to Congress
on the Federal Government's role in promoting
high-speed networking?
Didn't you introduce the National High-Performance
Computer Technology Act, S. 2918 in 1988 and then
reintroduce the bill in 1989 as S. 1067, the High-
Performance Computing Act?
Do you deny Newt Gingrich's statement that you
are the one in Congress who, "most systematically
worked to make sure that we got to an Internet"?
And there are many other such tough questions
that Al Gore ought to answer.
Didn't you say back in 1990 that children in schools
would be able to use networked computers to learn
about all kinds of things?
Didn't you talk about businesses benefiting from
the Internet when experts in computers like
Bill Gates said that there was no way for Microsoft
to make money with the Internet and so Microsoft
wasn't going to develop a browser?
Why did you keep talking about connecting computers
when so few computer experts weren't interested?
 

Party politics corrupt the process of republican or democratic
decision making. George Washington saw this and attempted
to show that there is a better way. Washington found people
of talent on both sides of lines that divided political parties,
Jefferson and Hamilton for example.
We tend to think ours is the only way, but it isn't. Washington
undoubtedly read Wm. Godwin's book Political Justice, which
was very popular in America. Godwin, a great student of history,
also saw party politics corrupted good political process and knew
of other ways of making decisions that promised and sometimes
had delivered better results. In early Rome, during the year
called the interregnum, two opposing parties used a process that
proved to be a great success. It was decided that, instead of one
party nominating one of its own members to run for election,
one party would nominate the person in the opposing party in
whom they had the most confidence. So, instead of looking at
an opponent's flaws or things about them that were disturbing
or frightening, they were looking for the best qualities. The party
of the Romans finally nominated Numa, a Sabine farmer. The
Sabines approved greatly of this and, as one might expect, a
degree of confidence in the decision making of opponents was
increased. With party politics as usual just the opposite happens.
Distortions work better when negatives have currency in making
a choice.
Our constitution actually provides for the kind of choice that
worked so well for the Romans and Sabines nearly thirty
centuries ago. Although we complain often about the Electoral
College, which actually chooses the President and Vice President,
it could work very differently and more to our satisfaction. We
could elect members to the Electoral College we have confidence
in. For example, I have confidence in Ralph Monroe, who has
long served our state, is very fair,  and informed. Most importantly,
he knows how our state's government has served well in the past.
If he and others in the other states could be chosen as uncommited
members of the Electoral College, there would be a selection of
a President without the kind of campaigns we endure now with all
the negatives and distortions. The influence of money would
diminish, if this were the way we chose our President and Vice
President. We might be surprised more often, but more also more
pleasantly so.