On Thursday, Larry King interviewed President Clinton for half an hour, then spent the rest of the show discussing the administration with three political analysts. In his years in office, President Clinton has accomplished three of the five major goals that he vowed to do when he was first elected in 1992. As to what he will be most remembered for, it was a toss up between our booming economy or the Lewinsky imbroglio.

I guess I should have some sort of opinion of his Presidency. It's not something I think about, and maybe that's a good thing. We're apt to notice the failures rather than successes. One of the things that impressed me from the program is that he is the most color-blind President in our era. He has also championed equal rights for homo- sexuals, at least legally. He made it clear that he doesn't like to apply the word marriage to homosexual partnerships, but those part- nerships should have the same legal rights as a marriage.

Politics in our country -- and most countries, I think -- is a careful balance of trying to get what you want done by compromising some of your other ideals. No one person in our country has enough power to make changes without the support of a good number of other people. So politicians have to decide what's important, what's achievable, and what is it their constituents want. Very few decisions are win-win situations for everyone involved, and you'll be criticized no matter what you do. So it's a tough job, and one I wouldn't want to do. It's always easier to decide for yourself than to make a decision that'll influence many people.

One of the problems of today is pollution and its effects on global environment. Specifically I'm thinking about air pollution: carbon monoxide and dioxide and other green house gases. The United States has the highest per capita emissions, and the highest total emissions of any country. China and India are not far behind in total emissions, with a fractional per capita emission average compared to the US. The two countries are rapidly trying to reach an industrial and technolo- gical parity with the US, which means that their per capita average is increasing and their total emissions are increasing rapidly.

Telling them to not join the 20th century is not an option either one will accept. Both want to be world powers, and to do that you need energy, and lots of it. What the rest of the world, including the US, is doing is helping the two countries implement efficient energy processes. Their power plants, manufacturing centers, and consumer goods are all 20% to 40% less efficient than best practices. Improving these processes will provide them with some of their immediate energy needs without producing more pollution.

Both countries' governments are doing what they can to push their eco- nomies to be more efficient and therefore more environmentally friendly, with China having better success due to their more centralized govern- ment. This is a moderately controversial policy for the US, because we're helping to create more capable competitors. How can we help China whilst they have a Communist government? But how will not helping them change that? You can't antagonize a country to change against its will. Whereas providing aid not only helps the environment, but opens up lines of communication and makes the Chinese government more disposed to listen to our ideas. And that's a good direction to follow.