response 301 of 406:

Oct 26 20:29 UTC 2000

Because they think they are more important than anything or anyone else.

response 303 of 406:

Oct 26 20:35 UTC 2000

JEP:  I don't know how the Sierra Club chooses people to endorse.  I think
state level races are done by state level organizations, so there is likely
no consistant rule.  I don't know if they ever endorse Republicans.  I'd be
surprised if they didn't.  However, looking at the environmental scorecard,
I suspect that it would be rare, because the Republican/Democrat split is very
sharp on these issues.  A test would be if they had endorsed Chafee, but
apparantly the Rhode Island Sierra Club is asleep at the wheel because no
endorsements have been made in any Rhode Island race.  I'm curious where you
get your information on how the Sierra Club makes endorsements.

As to the environmental scorecards, the ARE NOT done by the Sierra Club, but
by the League of Conservation Voters (see http://www.lcv.org/scorecards and
http://scorecard.lcv.org/ for two different presentations of the same data
that aren't linked to each other for some reason). And they ARE based on
actual votes.  For the Senate statistics I quoted, seven votes were
considered.  These are described at the web site.

The different statistics on this site are a bit confusing, because they
cover different periods of time.  But for the 7 votes in the year 2000,
41 out of 55 Republican senators voted against (or didn't vote) on all
seven.  That's 75% of Republican senators voting against environmental
measures every chance they got.  And most of the rest weren't doing much
better.  Another 11% voted for just one.  That's pretty dramatic, if you
ask me.

Given that kind of track record, it's hard to complain if the Sierra Club
isn't very fond of the Republican Party.  I don't know if they ever endorse
Republicans.  I know that the League of Conservation Voters endorses
Republican incumbant Lincoln Chafee against his Democratic challenger.  (So
does Planned Parenthood, since the Democrat is pro-life, but the Unions are
backing the Democrat in that race).

response 305 of 406:

Oct 26 22:03 UTC 2000

http://www.sierraclub.org/politics/endorsements/vermont/

That's the Sierra Club Endorsement for Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of
Vermont.

Nyaah, nyaah, jep.

response 307 of 406:

Oct 27 03:27 UTC 2000

I said the Sierra Club endorses only Democrats, and all Democrats, 
because that's been my experience from press releases I've seen as 
articles in newspapers.  Obviously I was wrong once (re 303).  But I'm 
not wrong by very much.  I'll bet you were as surprised to find that 
site as I was to see you'd found one.  Do I lose that bet, Jan?

I'm not familiar with the LCV.  I wonder if they're a branch of the 
Sierra Club.  Wasn't the Sierra Club having severe financial 
difficulties due to lack of contributions a few years ago?

Guns aren't a litmus test issue for me, but the  ACLU is.  Gun ownership 
is indeed a civil right, but one supported by conservatives.  The ACLU 
doesn't want to offend it's liberal support base, so it avoids this one. 
It's no departure for them.  They're a liberal political group.  They 
are proponents about a very limited set of rights, and in a very limited 
way.

response 309 of 406:

Oct 27 04:59 UTC 2000

Re #299: actually, the ACLU stays out of the 2nd amendment matter because
it does not concern the most essential civil rights, which are in the
first amendment. At the moment, citizens having guns or not having guns
has no effect upon the democratic political processes and individual
freedoms to participate in those processes without fear of governmental
retributions. If guns ever became an important instrument of personal
freedoms, there is no reason to think the ACLU would not support such
freedoms. 

Eat your words. The Sierra Club is endorsing 7 Republican candidates for
national office this year, in NY, RI, VT and MD. But this is neither here
nor there, and the "leaning" of the Sierra Club is not due to a political
persuasion, but by the polarization of national politics.  The platforms
of the two parties are an antipoles of environmental concern, and their
party members reflect that. Such matters as clean water and air,
wilderness, endangered species, global warming, green space, should not
be political, but get involved because environmental issues sometimes
stand in the way of development and economic growth.

response 311 of 406:

Oct 27 15:44 UTC 2000

Here's an amusing case where the ACLU is defending a girl who was
suspended from school for "casting a spell that caused a teacher to get
sick".  She was also banned from wearing or drawing any symbols related
to the Wicca religion.  http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n102600.html.
Note that the ACLU is here defending the freedom of an individual to
express their religion by wearing crucifixes and such.  I don't know
that this is relevant to this discussion, but I couldn't resist posting
the link.

The ACLU is unique in being an organization largely composed of idealistic
attorneys.  Idealistic attorneys tend to believe in the enlightened,
but limited rule of law as a positive force in society.  The ACLU
fights to keep the law enlightened, opposing bad laws, but at heart it
does believe in law, including the constitution that is the foundation
for the law of this country.  This is basically a liberal attitude.
The ACLU pursues it's mission of keeping the government from stomping
on the rights of the people by acting entirely within the mechanism of
the government - lobbying and bringing lawsuits.  Their whole style of
operation is founded on a basic faith that government can work right,
if the people are vigilent.

The conservative movement has less essential faith in government.
The whole idea of defending your rights with guns is very different
from defending your rights with lawsuits.  It assumes that government
could fail so completely that no action within its law would suffice
to correct it.  If you think this is a real likelihood, then you have
a fundamental distrust of government.  This is much more in line
with the conservative viewpoint.

My point is that, yes, the ACLU is composed largely of liberals and
its agenda is more in line with liberal philosophy than conservative
philosophy.  They are pro-choice.

But I think that if Jep looked down the list of current ACLU cases and
actions, he'd find that he approved of their stance in about 50% of their
cases, and was glad that someone was doing what they are doing.  The
curious fact is that it actually takes both liberals and conservatives to
make our society work.

response 313 of 406:

Oct 27 16:09 UTC 2000

Thanks for the link, Jan, even though it does look rather irreelevant to this
thread. Personally, I don't find the story itself amusing, although the
behavior of the School Board is amusing in that pitiful way. It's sad that
adults could be behaving in such a prejudiced manner (and if she really DID
cast spells to make someone sick, shame on her, regardless of whether they
worked or not).

Maybe I'll go start an item in Synth and rant about this. =}

response 315 of 406:

Oct 27 16:17 UTC 2000

Ya really think a Glock is going to defend you when the SWAT teams show up?
Koresh's guns didn't help that much.

If the Republican stance on environmentalism is out of a feeling of protecting
private lands, why do Republicans (Bush, especially) have so little regard
for PUBLIC lands? 

response 317 of 406:

Oct 27 16:33 UTC 2000

That my explanation of why the ACLU stays out of gun control issues is
different than the ACLU's, does not mean it is incorrect. Their's is a
reasoned public stance that serves their purposes best (in keeping with
the fact that they are mostly lawyers). 

response 319 of 406:

Oct 27 21:20 UTC 2000

Re #314:
> I don't have any way around this at this time, other than I think no one
> should be building any new homes in the country.  All new construction
> should take place within the city limits, and should be going up or down.

One only has to look at Portland to see the problem with this.  They enacted
anti-sprawl ordinances, and the cost of land inside the city quickly shot
up.  Rents quickly followed.  This in a part of the country that already was
having problems with a cost of living that was going up faster than many
people's wages.

response 321 of 406:

Oct 28 00:38 UTC 2000

re 315

        Naugh, I'm not BAP. But do you think Any repressive government,
 in control of the Law Enforcement system, will let ANYBODY continue to
possess means of self defense, or possible guerilla or resistance weapons?
You can also take note of examples in such cases where the criminal class
in possession of weapons, was included in the power structure as a matter of
course. THey make a very effective and efficient means of supression of
the inhabitants of said state, with the benifit of deniability. Which
leads to more effective oppression, stronger control of the citizenry, and
people willing to give up more of the rights that have already been
sharply curtailed.

        I don't own any guns at present. BUt I'd be willing to bet THere
might be plans for the sten submachine gun within my reach. It was an
easily manufactured and maintained weapon used in world war II by the
resistance, and it was designed by the British, If I remember correctly.
By no means is a gun of any type the only effective weapon that exists, or
can be used, either.

response 323 of 406:

Oct 28 15:52 UTC 2000

re: 316

Janc, that is the WRONG interpretation.  You know, we keep pointing the law
out to people, and they keep say the NRA interpretation is wrong.  I guess
the BIG LIE works.  If this position continues to gain acceptance, I guess
I'll meet you in the ovens.

1.      The second ammendment, like all of the bill of rights (first 10
ammendments) deal with the rights of the individual, not the state.

2.      All of the founding fathers said the right of the individual to keep
and bear arms was required, not just to protect the nation, but to protect
the people themselves from the government if required.

3.      The Michigan state constitution says it is a citizens right to keep
and bear arms.

4.      Despite people pointing to the MILLER decision, said decision never
said the people of this country did not have a right to own weapons, only that
the militia had no need for that particular weapon ( a sawed off shotgun) and
refered the decision back to the original court.

The FACT is, despite all the rhetoric from the gun grabbers, is that we have
a right to own weapons (and that includes cannon)(it's in the law).  You may
not like it, but if you ever succeed in getting a law passed in this country
that says everyone has to turn in their guns, there are going to be a hell
of a lot of law breakers out here who otherwise never broke a law in their
lives.  And you will be very close to another civil war.