With the exception of Fidel Castro, don't they all deserve to be on the list? The list's sin is mainly that of omission rather than commission. :->
>How can any liberal or radical weed through this bull with the
>"white trash" who live in the faith-based realm?
>Marta
>
>Published on Friday, February 11, 2005 by San Francisco Chronicle
>
>Fasten Your Seatbelts
>The Rapture Index
>by Jon Carroll
<snip>
>I am not the first one to notice this. The environmental Web site
>www.grist.org has been covering it; Bill Moyers also wrote a column
>about it. Alas, the quote attributed to James Watt, the secretary of
>the interior under Ronald Reagan ("after the last tree is felled,
>Christ will come back"), is not verifiable, although it's been
>reported many times. Probably the liberal media again, taking time
>out from promoting the homosexual agenda.
>
>So read the Rapture Index. Consider its implications: One of George
>Bush's core constituencies is actively praying for environmental
>degradation. Its members are in fact praying for the end of the
>world, because the end of the world is the beginning of the fun part
>of salvation.
>
>Let's look at the new budget through this lens, which is (I
>emphasize) neither fanciful nor satirical. Money for clean water:
>down. Money for the cleanup of old nuclear sites, including the
>massive job at the Hanford (Wash.) Nuclear Reservation: way down.
>Number of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management acres open
>for logging: up. Amount of territory in Alaska declared OK for oil
>drilling: way up.
If leftists make concerted efforts, we have a very good chance of being able to make environmental issues the Right's Achilles heel among whites.
<blockquote>As Table 1 shows, by a two-to-one margin (55% to 27%) respondents back strong regulations to protect the environment. Furthermore, the level of support is quite deep. Respondents in this survey were asked whether they favored stronger environmental regulations "even if they cost jobs or result in higher prices."
Backing for the environment cuts across virtually every religious group, from white Evangelicals to Jews. Moreover, as Table 2 indicates, that support has remained strong through the last few presidential election cycles.
Table 1. Percent favoring stronger environmental regulation
% % % %
Pop. Agree No Op Disagree ENTIRE SAMPLE 100 55 18 27 Evangelical 26 52 17 31 Protestant
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mainline 16 61 19 20 Protestant
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Latino 3 43 24 33 Protestants
Black 10 39 22 39 Protestants
Catholic 18 60 18 22
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Latino Catholic 5 47 17 36
Other Christian 3 58 21 21 Other Faiths 3 62 18 20 Jewish 2 67 13 20
Unaffiliated 16 56 20 24 Unaffiliated 5 46 20 34 Believers Secular 8 59 18 23 Atheist, Agnostic 3 66 23 11
Source: Fourth National Survey of Religion and Politics, Bliss Institute, University of Akron, March-May 2004
(Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Survey Reports, "Religion and the Environment: Polls Show Strong Backing for Environmental Protection across Religious Groups," October 2004, <http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/ReligionEnvironment.pdf>)</blockquote>
The environment has proven to be a winner on actual ballots, not just in opinion polls.
<blockquote>It's Easy Being Green By WILL ROGERS <http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/20/opinion/20rogers.html> Published: November 20, 2004
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Across the country, in red states and blue states, Americans voted decisively to spend more money for natural areas, neighborhood parks and conservation in their communities. Of 161 conservation ballot measures, 120 -- or 75 percent -- were approved by voters. Three-and-a-quarter billion dollars were dedicated to land conservation.
In Florida, for example, President George W. Bush won at least 60 percent of the vote in Lake, Indian River and Collier Counties. On the same ballot, more than two-thirds of the voters in each of those counties approved local park bonds worth $126 million, by margins as high as 73 percent. In Gallatin County, Mont., where the president beat John Kerry by 56 percent to 41 percent, 63 percent of voters approved $10 million in bonds to buy conservation easements to preserve ranchlands. In Chesterfield County, Va., which Mr. Bush carried 63 percent to 37 percent, voters passed a $20 million park bond by 76 percent to 24 percent.
It was the same in the states where Mr. Kerry prevailed. In Massachusetts, 10 townships approved extra taxes to support conservation and historic preservation. In Los Angeles, which Mr. Kerry won by 73 percent to 26 percent, 76 percent of voters approved a $500 million water-quality bond that included $100 million for conservation. And in both Burlington, Vt., where Mr. Kerry won 75 percent of the vote, and in Kendall County, Tex., where the president won 81 percent of the vote, voters approved $5 million to protect open spaces.</blockquote>
Among whites, put the environment on the front burner. -- Yoshie
* Critical Montages: <http://montages.blogspot.com/> * Greens for Nader: <http://greensfornader.net/> * Bring Them Home Now! <http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/> * OSU-GESO: <http://www.osu-geso.org/> * Calendars of Events in Columbus: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/calendar.html>, <http://www.freepress.org/calendar.php>, & <http://www.cpanews.org/> * Student International Forum: <http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osudivest.org/> * Al-Awda-Ohio: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Al-Awda-Ohio> * Solidarity: <http://www.solidarity-us.org/>