Sierra Club leader departs amid discontent over group's direction

[cpzilliacus]

L.A. Times: Sierra Club leader departs amid discontent over group's direction

[Brandon]

Sierra Club can go fuck itself for what they tried to do to block the I-355 extension here.

[realjd]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

[Beltway]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

I agree 0% with the Sierra Club's stated goals, but they take it way too far.

[yanksfan6129]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

I agree 0% with the Sierra Club's stated goals, but they take it way too far.

Stated Mission:

To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Pretty freakin' radical, huh?

[corco]

I think it's that last clause that alienates people, but certainly I'm amazed that people don't agree with 75% of the stated objectives

[Beltway]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

I agree 0% with the Sierra Club's stated goals, but they take it way too far.

Stated Mission:

To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Pretty freakin' radical, huh?

They pay lip service to those 'goals'.  In reality they emphasize nature over humans, and regard humans as cancer.

[corco]

They pay lip service to those 'goals'.  In reality they emphasize nature over humans, and regard humans as cancer.

So you disagree with the execution of the goals, not the stated goals, right?

[Beltway]

They pay lip service to those 'goals'.  In reality they emphasize nature over humans, and regard humans as cancer.

So you disagree with the execution of the goals, not the stated goals, right?

Actions speak louder than words, actions in effect become words.

[agentsteel53]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

yep, MADD has gone completely off their rocker.  look at European drinking and driving laws, for example, which are a lot more sane.  you can buy anything up to and including hard alcohol at gas stations and freeway service areas!  just ... don't drive drunk.  you are trusted to be able to make that decision yourself.  

that said - don't drive drunk!.  blood-alcohol level tolerances are much lower - .02 to .05, as opposed to the US's common .08 - and the penalties much stiffer.  in Sweden, you blow a .02 twice, they seize your car.  

but the laws focus on driving drunk, not on drinking.  I think there might not even be an open-container law - you might very well be able to drink an alcoholic beverage while sitting behind the wheel.  (I never tried that, but I was quite happy to consume half a beer with my service-area lunch in Denmark!)

and yet it's the US - with its bizarre state-run liquor stores, blue laws, open-container laws, and the highest legal drinking age on the planet - which has the drunk-driving problem.

[realjd]

They pay lip service to those 'goals'.  In reality they emphasize nature over humans, and regard humans as cancer.

That was exactly my point. I agree with their stated goals, but not the way the organization goes about trying to reach them or with the unstated goals of the organization. I compared with MADD because their stated goal is the reduction of drunk driving - which we can all agree on - but in practice push neoprohibitionist policies.

[jwolfer]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

yep, MADD has gone completely off their rocker.  look at European drinking and driving laws, for example, which are a lot more sane.  you can buy anything up to and including hard alcohol at gas stations and freeway service areas!  just ... don't drive drunk.  you are trusted to be able to make that decision yourself. 

that said - don't drive drunk!.  blood-alcohol level tolerances are much lower - .02 to .05, as opposed to the US's common .08 - and the penalties much stiffer.  in Sweden, you blow a .02 twice, they seize your car. 

but the laws focus on driving drunk, not on drinking.  I think there might not even be an open-container law - you might very well be able to drink an alcoholic beverage while sitting behind the wheel.  (I never tried that, but I was quite happy to consume half a beer with my service-area lunch in Denmark!)

and yet it's the US - with its bizarre state-run liquor stores, blue laws, open-container laws, and the highest legal drinking age on the planet - which has the drunk-driving problem.

Vestiges of prohibition.  We have lots of Christian sects where drinking is sinful.  They try and get the laws to conform to their beliefs.  Crazy stuff like no buying beer until 2PM on Sunday in the county that I live in. The justification being to keep drunks off the road.  This is from the mouth of a county commissioner.  Interesting that he is a member of the xxxx Baptist Church.  If some one is a drunk they are gonna have booze anyway or swill down some Scope. Waiting till after your 11am servcice does nothing to stop drunk driving, it just inconveniences people who are trying to do some shopping on  Sunday morning. 

[mgk920]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

yep, MADD has gone completely off their rocker.  look at European drinking and driving laws, for example, which are a lot more sane.  you can buy anything up to and including hard alcohol at gas stations and freeway service areas!  just ... don't drive drunk.  you are trusted to be able to make that decision yourself. 

that said - don't drive drunk!.  blood-alcohol level tolerances are much lower - .02 to .05, as opposed to the US's common .08 - and the penalties much stiffer.  in Sweden, you blow a .02 twice, they seize your car. 

but the laws focus on driving drunk, not on drinking.  I think there might not even be an open-container law - you might very well be able to drink an alcoholic beverage while sitting behind the wheel.  (I never tried that, but I was quite happy to consume half a beer with my service-area lunch in Denmark!)

and yet it's the US - with its bizarre state-run liquor stores, blue laws, open-container laws, and the highest legal drinking age on the planet - which has the drunk-driving problem.

Vestiges of prohibition.  We have lots of Christian sects where drinking is sinful.  They try and get the laws to conform to their beliefs.  Crazy stuff like no buying beer until 2PM on Sunday in the county that I live in. The justification being to keep drunks off the road.  This is from the mouth of a county commissioner.  Interesting that he is a member of the xxxx Baptist Church.  If some one is a drunk they are gonna have booze anyway or swill down some Scope. Waiting till after your 11am servcice does nothing to stop drunk driving, it just inconveniences people who are trying to do some shopping on  Sunday morning. 

Yep, these are the exact same Protestants who have conveniently forgotten that Martin Luther himself often extolled the virtues of good beer.





Mike

[realjd]

Yep, these are the exact same Protestants who have conveniently forgotten that Martin Luther himself often extolled the virtues of good beer.

And that Jesus Christ himself turned water into wine!

[Chris]

We have such organizations in Europe as well. They always say everything they do is in the interest of nature or the environment, but they are generally just an anti-car brigade. I mean they try to block every single project that improves traffic flow. People getting somewhere by car is their nightmare.

[J N Winkler]

yep, MADD has gone completely off their rocker.  look at European drinking and driving laws, for example, which are a lot more sane.  you can buy anything up to and including hard alcohol at gas stations and freeway service areas!  just ... don't drive drunk.  you are trusted to be able to make that decision yourself.

that said - don't drive drunk!.  blood-alcohol level tolerances are much lower - .02 to .05, as opposed to the US's common .08 - and the penalties much stiffer.  in Sweden, you blow a .02 twice, they seize your car.

But it is not just the laws that are different in European countries--the drinking culture is also significantly different, particularly in the countries which are held up to us as examples of responsible drinking.  (By the way, not all of Europe is sensible about alcohol.  Britain, for example, has an alcohol problem which has been linked to the declining real cost of alcoholic beverages, easy availability of alcopops, liberalization of hours for licensed premises, and even the smoking ban which took effect in England and Wales in 2007 and is thought to have encouraged binging on supermarket alcohol.)

but the laws focus on driving drunk, not on drinking.  I think there might not even be an open-container law - you might very well be able to drink an alcoholic beverage while sitting behind the wheel.  (I never tried that, but I was quite happy to consume half a beer with my service-area lunch in Denmark!)

I am not aware of any open-container laws as such.  However, in Britain there is judicial precedent which (as I understand it) gives the police probable cause for a breath test if the officer sees you drinking from a hip flask while you are behind the wheel of a parked car.

and yet it's the US - with its bizarre state-run liquor stores, blue laws, open-container laws, and the highest legal drinking age on the planet - which has the drunk-driving problem.

I am not so sure that the drunk-driving problem can be attributed entirely to excessive and unsystematic laws which embody ideological holdovers from the temperance movement.  I think the existence of a culture of responsible drinking is an important consideration, as is liquor taxation and restrictions on when and where liquor can be sold.  You could make an argument that high excise taxes on alcohol discourage drinking to excess; indeed, in Britain it has been argued that excise taxes on spirits should be raised for precisely this reason.  (In the US tax competition is perhaps more of a constraint on this strategy than in Britain.  Booze cruises require somewhat more advance planning and investment than, say, a trip to a neighboring low-tax state or a trip to the nearest military base to exercise Class Six shopping privileges.)  It has also been suggested that jurisdictions which permit drive-through liquor sales are much more likely to have drunk-driving problems--a likelihood which is increased when the drive-through liquor vendors are allowed to sell the liquor ready to drink in cups with straws.

In the US it is socially approved to be a dry drunk.  This is in striking contrast to France, where you can expect to be served a glass of wine with lunch and dinner and where the liquor tax has traditionally amounted to just a few centimes per bottle of wine, but where public drunkenness is social anathema.

[JREwing78]

I'll also argue the greater prevalence of public transportation in Europe reduces the perceived need to drive intoxicated. How many places in North America can you get from the bar to your home using public transportation?

I can do it, but then I live about 150 yards from a bus stop.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

I agree 0% with the Sierra Club's stated goals, but they take it way too far.

Stated Mission:

To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Pretty freakin' radical, huh?

They pay lip service to those 'goals'.  In reality they emphasize nature over humans, and regard humans as cancer.

I see plenty of posters on here who think of everyone else as cancer.

[Beltway]

I lump them in with organizations like MADD - I agree 100% with their stated goals, but they take it way too far.

I agree 0% with the Sierra Club's stated goals, but they take it way too far.

Stated Mission:

To explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth; To practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; To educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Pretty freakin' radical, huh?

They pay lip service to those 'goals'.  In reality they emphasize nature over humans, and regard humans as cancer.

I see plenty of posters on here who think of everyone else as cancer.

Do you have some examples of such instances?

[J N Winkler]

Some new things I learned about Europe and alcohol just from a casual look in Wikipedia, compared to alleged American eccentricities:

*  State-run liquor monopolies--It turns out the model is used in all of the Nordic countries with the lone exception of Denmark:  Vinmonopolet in Norway, Systembolaget in Sweden, Alko in Finland, etc.

*  High drinking ages--In Sweden you can be served alcohol in bars and restaurants when you turn 18, but you have to wait until you are 20 before you can buy the good stuff from a Systembolaget shop.

*  Difficult legal access to alcohol--Until 1999, merchandise in Vinmonopolet stores was provided over the counter only (in other words, you had to walk up to the counter, specify what you wanted from the price list, and wait for it to be fetched from the storeroom).

*  Need to "Europeanize"--It turns out that drinkers in Finland (which, of course, is in Europe already) are being urged to "Europeanize" by switching from hard liquor to wine and beer.  Finland unsuccessfully attempted to implement beverage alcohol prohibition several times in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when it was still a grand duchy under Russian rule, and imposed it when it became independent in 1919.  Experience with prohibition in Finland ran a close parallel to the United States--enforcement was slipshod and alcohol-related crime (including public drunkenness, liquor smuggling, and general gangsterism) skyrocketed.  A plebiscite in 1932 revoked prohibition by a 70% majority.

It is certainly true, as JREwing78 says, that transport availability plays a role.  It is not just the existence of public transport in general, but also its availability during drinking hours and in popular drinking and clubbing locations.  I am not sure there are any large US cities (with the possible exception of San Francisco) that operate nightbus services.

[realjd]

and yet it's the US - with its bizarre state-run liquor stores, blue laws, open-container laws, and the highest legal drinking age on the planet - which has the drunk-driving problem.

Does the US actually have a drunk driving problem? I'm struggling to find statistics on per capita DUI arrests compared to other countries. My understanding is that we weren't one of the highest.

I did find many sites stating that El Salvador executes drivers for a first DUI offense and Bulgaria does for a second offense, but I'm calling BS on that.

[corco]

Does the US actually have a drunk driving problem?

I wonder that too- how much of the issue is inflated by targeted enforcement? There have been a couple drunk driving studies that have found that you're not actually significantly impaired until .1- .08 is still fairly safe, and I do think some people are better/more "responsible" drunk drivers than others (eg stick at or below the speed limit, use backroads, are aware that they shouldn't be driving and drive as carefully as they possibly can- I don't think it's those people that usually cause drunken collisions, it's the ones that go 90 because they feel good and kill somebody)

I don't know, my theory is that there are a lot more drunk drivers on the road than we think and the vast majority of them aren't really that dangerous- and for that reason I favor the "drive drunk if you want, but if you get in an accident or get pulled over for something real* you're not driving anymore. Ever." approach.

*Speeding >5 or 10 or whatever is normally enforced in the area is real, getting pulled over for having a headlight out is not (not having your headlights on at all would be something real), I'm on the fence about forgetting to use your blinker or veering too far towards the shoulder- if you're veering into oncoming traffic that's bad, but if you're headed towards the shoulder that's not so bad. I'd say if you forget to use your blinker once that's OK, but you should be followed if caught and if you forget again then that's cause to get a DUI.

[agentsteel53]

I'd say if you forget to use your blinker once that's OK, but you should be followed if caught and if you forget again then that's cause to get a DUI.

there are times when I go hundreds of miles without using a blinker ... I figure if what I am doing is intuitive enough that I don't need to announce my intentions (sometimes because there isn't anyone to whom to announce!) then I just won't bother.

[corco]

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

If you're driving right by a cop and you have to turn, do you use your blinker? Especially if you've been drinking? I know I do/would.

Especially if you forget once in front of a cop and then he starts following you, waiting for you to forget again- if you're too drunk to realize you're being followed by a cop and don't use your blinker, that means you're a bad drunk driver and are therefore dangerous.

I guess the test is- "Is this person driving like a mediocre sober driver?" If they can clear that hurdle, they're good. A mediocre sober driver would likely start using his blinker if followed by a cop.

[agentsteel53]

having been chased across entire counties from one side to the other enough times before, I would assume the cop would start following me on general principle, regardless of how fastidious I have been with blinker usage.