Gale Norton has served as Colorado's Attorney General and is now GW Bush's nominee for Interior Secretary - in charge of the Administration's environmental policy. Norton was a protege of James Watt (Interior Secretary under Reagan), who claimed that forests cause pollution and was eventually caught in an influence-peddling scandal involving oil companies, mining companies, and federal land rights. Norton will be charged with carrying out Bush's policies, including the plan announced late in the campaign to open pristine Arctic Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling. Environmental activists are furious that Norton, who failed to prosecute polluters in Colorado, is nominated.

Doc Nagel: Ms. Norton, I'm sure you realize why there is opposition to your nomination.

Gale Norton: Not really. I've always been a committed conservationist.

DN: I think the worry is that your record as Attorney General in Colorado looks pretty lax.

GN: What does that have to do with anything?

DN: Usually when people use the word "conservationist," they mean someone who strives to preserve nature by setting aside wilderness areas, limiting human encroachment into natural areas, that kind of thing. What do you have in mind when you say you're a committed conservationist?

GN: Anytime anybody wants to talk to me, I've got plenty of interesting topics at hand. I can speak intelligently with people about dozens of things.

DN: That would make you a committed conversationalist, wouldn't it?

GN: How about those Giants?

DN: Right. Let's consider this one particular case, the Alamosa River case. Are you familiar with it?

GN: Yes, I sued the mining companies that had allowed polluted water to enter the river.

DN: Twelve miles of the river are dead - nothing lives in or around the river over those miles, and further downriver there's additional environmental damage. This was the result of water contaminated with mining chemicals that had been stored in artificial ponds near the river, in violation of Colorado law. Your critics claim you never did anything to stop the mining companies from illegally storing toxic waste.

GN: That's ridiculous. I sued the mining companies for the damage.

DN: But only after the damage was done, only after their violation led to the devastation of the river. Couldn't it have been prevented?

GN: I don't see how.

DN: Well, say, by enforcing the state law?

GN: I did enforce the law. I sued the mining companies.

DN: Yes, yes, you did, after the federal Environmental Protection Agency required you to. It doesn't seem fair to take credit for that, does it?

GN: Of course it's fair. I deserve credit for suing the mining companies.

DN: But you didn't actually bring the lawsuit until the EPA threatened action against you and the State of Colorado. You didn't willingly sue them.

GN: I don't see the difference. I sued them, they have paid hefty fines and have agreed not to allow the toxic water to seep into the river any more.

DN: So if I park illegally in a handicapped spot, and my car is towed away, I deserve credit for not leaving my car in the handicapped spot?

GN: I don't see what you're getting at.

DN: Aren't you being a little disingenuous here?

GN: That stock market - whew! Up! Down! Up! Down! It's so volatile!

DN: Let's move on to the Bush Administration's policies. One of Bush's first actions as President was to put a temporary moratorium on Bill Clinton's last few acts relating to environmental protection. Bush is questioning the naming of several National Monuments. Can you explain the rationale behind this action?

GN: We want to make sure that the previous Administration didn't overstep its legitimate authority.

DN: Doesn't the President have the authority to establish National Monuments?

GN: We need to be sure that naming these monuments at this time by the previous Administration was appropriate in light of the election's outcome.

DN: So it's really a matter of trying to reverse Clinton's efforts to protect the environment?

GN: We need to be sure our environmental policy is in our best interests as a nation.

DN: Wasn't that Clinton's argument, though? - That setting aside these areas was in the best long-term interest of the nation?

GN: Yes, but in this context we need to be sure it's the will of the people.

DN: There were hundreds of hours of public testimony and over a million pages of affidavits and public comments, weren't there?

GN: We need to be sure this is the best use of the land.

DN: What factors go into making that decision?

GN: There are many factors to consider: the use of the land, how the land is used, what use the land can be, how we might be able to make use of the land...

DN: Land-use issues.

GN: That's right.

DN: How about those Giants?

Without doubt, Norton will receive the consent of the Senate and become our new Secretary of the Interior, despite the efforts of eco-fascist Greens and the special-interest tree-hugging lobby.

This document is meant as satirical entertainment only. Basing your decision about moving to Canada on this document is not advised.