To address your point about motives: MUCC has been planning a bottle bill drive for at least two years.
They spear-headed the initiative in the 70s and want to update the law to reflect the current state of beverage consumption as it relates to recycling efforts and efficiency.
In my book, that's not a PR move; that's solid conservation work.
Senior Regional Communications Manager
National Wildlife Federation - Great Lakes Office
213 West Liberty, Suite 200 | Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Phone: 734-887-7109 | Fax: 734-887-7199 | Cell: 734-904-1589
NWF's mission is to inspire Americans to protect wildlife for our children's future. www.nwf.org/news/
Working to restore the Great Lakes by offering solutions to sewage contamination, invasive species and other threats. www.healthylakes.org
>>> James Lang <firstname.lastname@example.org> 6/25/2008 10:47 AM >>>
Craig: Forgive me for skipping over your questions, but they assume a legitimacy that DM's bottle deposit campaign doesn't deserve. This campaign is nothing more than a publicity stunt. There was a flurry of criticism of DM and MUCC that spiked in mid-June about their involvement with Taylor and Nestle. Then suddenly, less than two weeks before the deadline, out comes the plea to support what might otherwise be a noble cause, and it requires a 75 per cent vote! DOA! If there is a justification for the last-minute rush, why weren't we told on E-M what it is?
Craig, you've taken the position that there's something to be said for both sides of this controversy. If that's true, why aren't we hearing from DM? As far as I'm aware, DM hasn't publicly disputed a single fact alleged by his critics. Cat got his tongue? Why are his friends and associates silent? Is it incumbent on his critics to imagine his defense and state it for him? Of course not.
The only reaction to the criticism that I've seen is the announcement of a 12 day, helter-skelter lobbying blitz for a bottle deposit amendment which looks to some of us like an effort at damage control or image refurbishing.
For the sake of its members and the environmental community and the public, MUCC has to define itself better. Right wing? Left wing? Elements of both? If the latter, the two factions don't balance the act to create a centrist organization. If there are two principal factions, left and right wing, and the leadership is right wing, then the organization is right wing. Why don't they say so? Why don't they brag about it? Maybe it's because their membership is falling like a rock, and they can't afford to be candid about their ideology. Nevertheless, flying a false flag is a shabby way to run an organization.
-- Jim Lang