I want to know what Greens think about what is happening here. To date I have not seen or heard a single comment by any of my Northern California Green Party comrades. Instead, I read e-mails about tedious plenary minutiae and, frankly, meaningless resolutions to impeach President Bush.
I agree with Alex on this issue. One of my frustrations is that there is so much energy that goes into process, or rejustifying one's position vis-a-vis Cobb or Nader that, if redirected to current events, could produce growth in this party rather than declining numbers.
Maybe what we lack right now is relavance. I have some degree of vindication in the fact that I saw some very glaring weaknesses in the Green Party Platform re: agriculture, and then did something about it. One person, with initiative, was able to acquire enough support that, even though I was not at the plenary, the new platfrom wording was adopted. That is the power of initiative.
It is also the power of good arguement, since the one piece of information that I hid is the fact that this is exactly the public postion of George W. Bush. Had we mentioned that, it might not have passed since anti-Bush emotion might have turned people off and they might not have looked at the issue on the merits.
Be that as it may, it is really not very relavant unless this party is going to make some effort to organize and recruite members throughout the Central and Imperial Valleys. What is much more relevant is the campaign of David M. Silva for assembly in the 34th AD. Here, in the middle of Big Ag country, Silva is bringing forth a very relevant solution of part of the San Joaquin Valley's air quality problems.
The way that the Green Party supported the South Central Farm was relevant. It was also a big plus for Greens.