🚀 go-pugleaf

In <325d830c.22805649@news2.cts.com> dan@bluebird.com (Dan Anderson)
writes: 

>[Flag] No on Proposition 209
>
>Proposition 209 is portrayed as a "Civil Rights Initiative" against
>Affirmative Action. In reality, it would perpetuate environmental
>discrimination against people of color -- via disproportionate
>exposure to environmental toxics.

(snip a lot)

>Proposition 209 would terminate state funding for programs that target
>environmental education at those minorities most impacted by
>environmental toxics -- programs that counsel minority parents how to
>save their children from lead poisoning.
>
>Lead poisoning is the "number one environmental health threat to
>children." Scientific studies show that childhood lead exposure causes
>lowered IQs, learning disabilities, shortened attention spans and
>behavioral problems.
>
>Children with moderate lead levels are seven times more likely to drop
>out of high school, and six times more likely to suffer reading
>disabilities.
>
>Proposition 209 assumes that all Americans enter the educational
>system and the workforce on a "level playing field" that is
>color-blind. But toxics like lead have tilted the environmental
>playing field sharply against children of color.
>
>Sierra Club opposes Proposition 209 because equal opportunity requires
>equal rights to a safe and healthy environment for *all* families.

PROPOSITION 209:  "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education or public contracting."

How do you get what you wrote from that?  What does Prop 209 have to do
with lead poisoning or toxic waste?  Why can't you just be honest and
say that you are standing in solidarity with your liberal brethren
against Prop 209.  I'm sure your members would accept that.

>
>[Flag] Yes on Proposition 210
>
>Sierra Club supports Proposition 210 to increase the minimum wage in
>California. This measure has been endorsed by a long list of
>community, religious, ethnic and labor organizations.

I'm not even going to try to figure out how the minimum wage relates to
the environment.  Talk about a streeeeeeeeetch.
>
>[Flag] Yes on Proposition 217
>
>Sierra Club supports Proposition 217 because it protects an income
>stream of $800 million per year that city and county governments rely
>upon to maintain programs and services that preserve and protect the
>environment.

(snip)

Proposition 217 would retain the top two income tax brackets for
>California taxpayers. It does not increase taxes, but retains a
>progressive system where wealthy persons (joint taxpayers with taxable
>income over $230,000 and single taxpayers with taxable income over
>$115,000) pay a higher tax rate than less wealthy taxpayers.


Hmm. I have to think about this one.  You say "paying a higher tax
rate" --- "does not increase taxes."   Ohhhhkay.  Do your major donors
appreciate the fact that you support raising their taxes?

>[Flag] No on Proposition 218
>
>Sierra Club opposes Proposition 218

(snip)

>Under its provisions, only property owners, regardless of whether they
>are citizens or residents, would vote on special assessments. Their
>votes would be counted ad valorem (in proportion to the value of their
>property).

This is because the property owners are the ones who pay the
assessments.  Without Prop 218, we continue to have local bureaucrats
imposing and then increasing assessments to fund their fiefdoms (park
districts, light and street districts, fire districts, water districts,
sewage districts, transportation districts -- all the things our taxes
were supposed to cover), while those who pay the fees have no voice.

In my opinion, your members should read the initiatives and think for
themselves.

Just my two cents.
Edi Thompson