🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Gahle wrote:
>Jym "Mr. Greenpeace" Dyer wrote:
>>
>>=o= These are the endorsements of leading environmental groups
>>for national and California statewide offices and propositions,
>>followed by endorsements for the Bay Area.

>>Prop 187 - No (CLCV GP SC)

> What are the environmental implications of Prop 187 that would cause
> the Sierra Club to "endorse" a NO vote? If SC was forced to take a position,
> I'd think that taking away an incentive for uncontrolled immigration
> into California, with the pollution, development, and water problems that
> come with it, and the possible transfer of state funds from wilderness and
> parks programs to social services, would lead SC to be in favor of Prop 187.  

This question vexed me also.  I thought along the same lines you did.
It seemed unbelievable to me, that they should come out against it, 
given all their previously stated positions on overpopulation and immigration. 
The word "population" doesn't even appear in their analysis.  
Did they even consult their population committees in constructing their position?
Was there no one in the orginization had a descenting opinion?
Maybe what Dave Foreman (Earth First! fame) says is true, they spend 
to much time in San Fransisco, and don't get out into the wilderness enough.
I'm a member of the Sierra Club, but in this case I think they wimped out.

All they seemed to care about was education and health, environment be damned:
"Proposition 187 is nothing less than a direct frontal assault on 
both public health and public education."
What do they think is going to happen to public health and education
when the population doubles, trebles, etc, etc?   Do they think, 
like some others have stated on the net, there is no limit to the number
of people California can hold?   If not, when do they consider
will be a convenience time to stop?  

One can only concluded that they have to much vested interest
in not really doing anything about  population growth.
To many people in the Sierra Club are teachers who many 
be out of work if 187 passed (consider one teacher per 30 students, 
that 10,000 teachers, if the 300,000 students number given by the 
"No on 187"  accurate).

Another reason they might have said no to 187, is that even if it did 
curb illegal immigration, it didn't go along with their warm-fuzzy liberal 
ideas of fixing the problem.
All they seem to be willing to do is "educate" people on the problem.
The problem is, I haven't seen any "educating" being done, 
and people are being born far faster than it is possible to educate them,
even if they did.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.