 |
Lies and more lies about right wing fundingThe SUSPS candidates are NOT single issue candidates just as the three current SUSPS endorsed directors are not single issue directors. What SUSPS has done is to endorse some very distinguished and experienced environmentalists. Personally I feel it would be an honor to have a former three times elected Democratic Governor of Colorado on the Sierra Club Board. It seems to me that Governor Lamm would attract liberal Democrats and not scare them off as you suggest. To say that those of us who are concerned about population and immigration get "almost all of our support from right wing groups" is an opinion based on disinformation. The old Goebbels theory is at work here - if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to believe it. The Republican Party by the way wants to increase immigration. Immigration contributes to growth and the Republicans support growth. There is NO link between and current SUSPS director or any SUSPS endorsed candidate with the Republican Party. In fact the only link that I know of between a Board member and the Republican Party is Sierra Club Vice President Chuck McGrady and I don't believe Chuck is a fan of the Scrub. It is a disingenuous to associate real concerns for uncontrolled population growth with the Republican agenda. Caesar Chavez once wrote that the steady stream of immigrants competing for jobs was a factor keeping farm workers impoverished. I find it interesting that all those who deny the problem of escalating population growth and the contribution to this growth by immigrants refuse to comment on my concerns about neo-indentured servitude in the fields of California and the Southwest. Where's the righteous indignation at the system that feeds a steady stream of poorly paid benefit less serfs into the fields to generate huge profits for agri-business. The entire issue of illegal immigrants could be solved by simply tripling field wages and providing full benefits to all farm workers thereby motivating citizens and legal immigrants to take jobs that no one but the most desperate would take today. Remove the temptation of jobs and the flow across the borders would stop on it's own accord. No need for some wall or the militarization of the borders. The solution can be an economic one. The labor percentage of harvesting a head of lettuce is presently only 10%. Make it 30 or 40% and much of the problems could be solved. It is not possible for the Board to become dominated by directors with as you put it, " an agenda antithetical to that of our frequent supporters." It is not possible because the directors are elected by the membership and therefore reflect the views of the membership. This statement smacks of distrust for the integrity of the Sierra Club membership. Finally you ask, why should the Sierra Club as the largest and most prestigious environmental organization in the United States be involved in this issue? The answer is simple. Because the Sierra Club is the largest and most prestigious environmental organization in the United States it should be in the forefront in addressing one of the most significant environmental threats facing this nation and the planet - population growth. Any serious environmental organization must be advocates for population stabilization or population reduction. What has this got to do with immigration? Immigration is the primary factor feeding the rate of growth in the United States and increasing the rate of material consumption globally. To address the population issue and to ignore the factor of immigration is like trying to harvest a crop without planting seeds or like trying to fight a fire without water. Denial is not the solution. Making blanket unsubstantiated accusations of right wing conspiracies and racism is just a smokescreen for the fact that only the courageous few dare to stand up and say - hey folks, we got ourselves a serious problem here. There are to many of us and little room for more. Sorry Tule elk, black bears and condors - move along now so we can make room for more of us. Pave over that wetland, we need a housing development there and oh by the way, it's a Hispanic housing development so no need for an environmental impact study because well, that would not be politically correct now would it? We need a new school - bye bye wilderness. We need new roads, sorry about draining that marsh but you know, we have people who need to get places and we need to move food from further away to feed them. Already there are plans for another major interstate right down the middle of California east of I-5. And what is really hypocritical is that the Sierra Club is opposing genetically modified foods and nuclear power plants and these things will become a necessity in an over-crowded nation short on fossil fuels and arable land. I am by the way opposed to genetically modified foods and nuclear power plants and that is why I am imposed to population increases. Capiche? Captain Paul Watson, Sierra Club Board member, February, 2004
Home Press Releases |