Liberal columnist Joel Connelly says in print what many politicos have been saying for years: the Sierra Club is not a fair-minded, issue advocacy group. It's a partisan front-organization.
And Connelly defends John McCain. The notion of the presumed GOP Presidential nominee receiving such treatment in that column does tilt the world a little towards the upside down.
Now, if only others in the media could actually start fairly reporting on the group as the liberal partisans they are rather than reasonable conservationists they seem to be often portrayed as.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 04, 2008 07:19 AM | Email ThisI asked what about the billions of dollars being spent on really alterative technology such as fuel cells and hydrogen (which Bush championed from the first years of his administration).
I got an email back from her "science advisor" about how, oh well, hydrogen is no good and biofuels are great...the same party line.
So, it's never about "the environment" and it's always about supporting their political party.
Bush has actually done more to help the enviroment by sticking firm to his commitment to hydrogen, nanotech and real groundbreaking technologies than any President before him or any non-President such as Al Gore.
Look, groups like that and, say, the Washington Conservation Voters, or progressive minority, serve one purpose and one purpose alone: to get democrats elected.
Since David Barnett bought the whores running the WCV to do a hit piece about gambling of all things on a Republican candidate, I've got no time or desire to give a damn what they say or think.
It just amazes me that anyone else does.
It was a few years ago, and they had a big brewhaha (sp?) about that one. The winners did not make get their way (in changing the club's basic principles or charter or whatever) because they believed they were right. There is no way to be that stupid; it's a physical impossibility. However, it was all about what is politically correct.
So, not being called xenophones and racists by idiots (due to the fact that 0-immigration = 0 net population gain in US - see numbersusa website) is obviously more important to them then anything regarding a clean environment.
I have respect for a few environmental groups, most notably the Nature Conservancy, as they put their money where the mouths are.
Posted by: Dave Lincoln on March 4, 2008 11:23 AMS/B: "xylophone"? no, "xenophobe" scared of Xenon and any other noble gases. Hard to live with my illness in Seattle, in fact, as Neon is all over the place. It's freakin me out, man!
" Unfortunately, the land requirements of corn ethanol are massive and its costs high. Worse, a major American commitment to biofuels would likely raise food costs and hunger risks for the world's poor. "
" Land producing corn for ethanol is producing no food grain, and far less feed for livestock or poultry. "
" Ethanol yields 35 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline. "
" As the final nail in the policy coffin, corn ethanol delivers barely more energy than it takes to make it. "
" It is neither moral nor constructive to shift major amounts of the world's food supply to fuel production when significant elements of the world's people remain ill-fed. "
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 4, 2008 12:48 PMDislike of the Sierra Club is appropriate.
They are dangerous nimbyistic parasites who have closed down much of the backcountry access and are now concentrating on urban public policy.
I enjoy it when their student propagandeers show up on my porch try to convince me about the latest crisis.
I invite them in and then send them home with a copy of Tom Knudsen's April 22-26, 2001 piece "Fat of the Land". It appeared in the Sacramento Bee.
One young co-ed actually quit the Sierra Club after reading the articles.
"Fat of the Land" used to come up high on Google, but now you've really got to search. The following URL should work.
http://enviro-lies.org/
Posted by: Bart Cannon on March 4, 2008 02:49 PM
I joined the Sierra Club last year with as large a donation as I could because I was so thrilled by their anti-Prop 1 campaign. Had it not been for them and Ron Sims' courageous stand, the outcome would have been entirely different.
I continue to be disappointed by their advocacy of tolls and congestion pricing, both of which in my opinion will constitute gov't meddling to promote urban sprawl, and although the SC seems to be moving away from biofuels a bit I fault them and almost the entire env. movement for not fighting that hoax from the beginning--but then, they weren't the only ones to be seduced, as George Bush is also big on that band wagon.
Still, I will always remember fondly the Sierra Club's pivotal role in the Prop 1 debate and their success in foiling a huge growth of bureaucracy & taxes and particularly of market-distorting non-user-fee revenue sources for the pavement lobby.
Thanks all-- and Don't everybody post your agreement with me at once, be careful of the server. --new left conservative #1
PS. I have not yet found & read "Fat of the Land" but hope to have time to read it--I'm sure it will raise interesting points.
Posted by: new left conservative #1 on March 4, 2008 10:18 PM