🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan Ferber <Dan_Ferber@qms1.life.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>gahler@cais.cais.com (Mark Gahler):
>>My local chapter of the Sierra Club came out with its political endorsements
>>recently. It's noteworthy that one of their endorsements goes to a 
>>Republican. Also, another candidate was rejected partly because "she's the 
>>daughter of radio talk show host G. Gordon Liddy -- need we say more?"

DF>Yes, the Sierra Club endorses Republicans--it is a non-partisan, but
DF>politically active, organization.  This is not news, except to those who
DF>stereotype all environmentalists as liberals.  

It was news to me. I admit I haven't paid much attention to SC's endorsements
throughout history, but the few samples I've seen were straight ticket Dems,
except for the one I noted. It's possible, however, that the endorsed 
Republican was running unopposed, since I don't recall seeing an opponent
mentioned. 

The endorsements of environmental groups for California ballots was posted
here last year. All of the SC endorsements were Dems, which wasn't especially 
surprising nor disturbing (note the complaints that SC doesn't endorse Green
candidates either), but SC also decided to make endorsements on issues 
barely related to the environment. They endorsed opposition to Prop 187,
for example. Why take that position (or any position) on that issue? Its
relation to the environment is population, and doesn't a higher population in
California mean more environmental degradation in California? 

If SC wants to take a *principled* stand in support of benefits for immigrants
(let's forget they're illegal immigrants for the moment), then they should
support the same benefits that the ancestors of their members received. 
SC should support a new Homestead Act. We could slice up fertile or otherwise
valuable public land in California into 160 acre tracts and give them away to 
immigrants so they can support themselves with farming, ranching, mining,
development, etc. My immigrant Norwegian ancestors, some of whom lived in a
sod hut on their North Dakota homestead, would expect nothing else.

If SC finds that supporting a new Homestead Act conflicts with their wishes
on public land use, and are unable to take a principled stand on immigration,
then they should either shut up or expect criticism for being partisan and
hypocrites. In fact, I believe it was their partisanship that led to that 
particular endorsement. 

DF>BTW, how do you know what the reasoning for not endorsing Liddy's daughter 
DF>was?  Perhaps you made that up, as propaganda.  I happen to know these 
DF>decisions are made in meetings with SC members only, so how would you know?

See those quotation marks in my post--beginning with "she's the daughter..?"
That means I'm quoting someone or something. In this case, it's the chapter's
newsletter. Of course, I could be making it up, as you say.

DF>I have not seen Mr. Bashford's other posts (perhaps in other groups?),
DF>but it doesn't take a Dr. Freud to see how Rush scapegoats--liberals,
DF>environmentalists, Clinton, you name it.  He's exactly right about that.  

DF>Dan Ferber

Oh, I don't deny Limbaugh blames Liberals, Clinton, etc. for our troubles.
That's why he's right, rich, and famous. But Bashford makes Hitler comparisons 
and claims "Librill" is a code word for "Jew." Perhaps it's you and Bashford
who can't make the distinction.

BTW, some nitwit e-mailed me and insisted that conservatives use "poor" as
a code word for "Jew." 

Mark Gahler