🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <439kcp$oas@zippy.cais.net>, gahler@cais.cais.com (Mark Gahler)
wrote:

> 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? 

I wasn't aware that they took that position:  it hasn't been mentioned in
the National SC literature at all, to my knowledge.  Might be the state
organization.  Don't know the direct link to environmental issues.  The
best I can come up with for a link to the environment is this:  The SC has
been very concerned with issues of environmental justice (e.g. poor folks
get the short end of the stick on siting of hazardous waste dumps and
polluting factories where they live).  Illegal farmworkers in CA and
elsewhere face serious health risks from pesticides--this is one issue SC
is getting more involved in lately.  Probably, SC opposed Prop 187 for its
cuts to health care of immigrants or something like that.  Just a guess.
 
> 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.

Where's the land going to come from?  Do you propose taking private land? 
the fertile land is already being used.  The land claimed by your
ancestors was not "owned" (except by the Native Americans who were driven
off of it--I won't get into that).  It is a different time and place.

As far as the best principled stand, I think (this is me not SC) that it
is principled for us to give at least minimal life-sustaining health care
to both legal and illegal immigrants.  It's wrong to cut off sick and
dying people.  I think it is society's responsibility not to let it's
residents die unnecessarily.  Having said that, I also think that our
borders should be tightened to get illegal immigration under control.

> 
> 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.

This quote could still be taken out of context.  But if that is their
*sole* reason, then it is wrong and I agree with you.  SC generally bases
its endorsements on knowledge of the candidates positions and past voting
records, if available.

> 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. 

Two out of three here:  rich and famous.  This doesn't translate into
right, by any stretch of the imagination.

> 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." 

I don't think that "librill" is necessarily a code word for Jew, (although
"Hollywood cultural elite", "international banker" and "east coast elite"
sure are, and these words are used by conservatives often.  Just ask Bob
Dole about the Hollywood elite.).  Also, many folks think all Jews are
liberal--this is not true.  Have you ever read the column of the
syndicated column of the raving Reaganaut propaganda queen Mona Charen? 
Substitute Rush and you'd never know the difference.

Peace

Dan