I follow Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog pretty closely. In one of today's posts, Romm points to a situation in Kentucky where rural resident's house burned to the ground while the fire department watched and did nothing because the home owner had not paid his $75 annual assessment to secure such fire protection.
This situation presents two issues. One is that of the Republican agenda to cur or eliminate taxes… putting every thing on a fee for service basis. That is what the South Fulton government had done. However, in this case, the unchekced fire spread to the neighbor's house and he HAD PAID his assessment. Note: had the fire department fought the first fire, the second home would, in all likelihood, not have burned at all. Romm takes this on as a Progressive vs. Republican issue.
However, the 17th commenter, nom de blog of wag, expands the issue as a matter of whose rights are being affected... or as an Arkansan boss I once had, said "whose ox is being gored." I reposted wag's comments because it goes to the heart of all of the rhetoric on climate change and especially, here in CA, is just about the best argument that I have heard as to why defeating Prop 23 just might be the most important thing we can do in November... along with voting for Laura Wells.
wag says:
October 4, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Here’s the global warming lesson: It’s less to do with the firemen not putting out the fire, and more to do with the fact that the guy’s NEIGHBOR’s house caught on fire because he hadn’t paid his fire protection fee.
It’s a lesson on the limits of rugged individualism: you’re free to do whatever you want on your property, until the effects of whatever you’re doing spread onto my property (or into a commons like the atmosphere or ocean). And in today’s interconnected world, where we find ourselves increasingly at the mercy of actions taken by people we’ve never met, we’ve all got a bit more say in the risks others take, whether with fires, finance, or fossil fuels.
Like fires, pollution doesn’t stay put—and like a fire spreading from your house to mine, as soon as the pollution leaves your property, I have every right to tell you to stop.
If my neighbor’s house catches fire, it could spread to mine—meaning I have a right to make that neighbor to pay for fire protection. If an Arkansas farmer dumps his farm waste into the Mississippi River, it travels down to the Gulf where it fertilizes algae and starves fish of oxygen—meaning that those fishermen have a say in what the farmer does with his waste (or else they must be compensated). And if a utility decides to burn coal to save money, the CO2 gets into the atmosphere and wreaks havoc on the climate other people depend on—meaning that we have a say in the utility’s choice of fuel.
I’m basically a libertarian: do what you want, as long as you only hurt yourself. I would be fine with other people’s right to burn coal and drive Hummers if they were the only ones who had to live with the consequences of global warming. But that’s not the world we live in. No matter how energy conscious I am, no matter whether I live close to work and don’t drive, my responsible choices can’t protect me or my children from the pollution-intensive lifestyles of others.
Like it or not, we’re all in this together. As the Cranick family found out, we now live in such close connection to others that one person’s rugged individualism can set his neighbor’s house on fire, mortgage loans in California can bring down banks in New York, and Hummer-driving soccer moms in Kansas can affect monsoon seasons in Bangladesh. And as soon as the CO2 exits someone else’s tailpipe and enters my atmosphere, it absolutely becomes my business.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Peak Coal?
The idea of peak oil is not new news, but the idea of peak coal might be. No journalist covers the coal industry better than Ken Ward Jr. at the Charleston Gazette. This is how he covers peak coal. For Ward, it is the future of Appalachia. For us, it is tied to energy use. As utilities switch from coal to natural gas, even the cost of heating our homes will go up.
With the future of energy production in the US questionable, how can Greens best act to ensure that we all of a future? In my previous post, I commented on the absolute necessity to defeat Pro 23. This time, I am going to suggest that we take the issue to local government. What are they doing to prepare our communities for a new energy future? In my community of Morgan Hill, the Mayor and half of the city council are up for re-election. I am asking each of the candidates to be very specific about what they are willing to do and whether they are willing to spend local money on it. Then, I will use a column in the local newspaper to try and make this a defining issue for the city council.
I hope that Greens all over this state are going to do the same. The more people who are willing to vote primarily on the basis of a candidate's position on climate change and energy, the more certain our future.
With the future of energy production in the US questionable, how can Greens best act to ensure that we all of a future? In my previous post, I commented on the absolute necessity to defeat Pro 23. This time, I am going to suggest that we take the issue to local government. What are they doing to prepare our communities for a new energy future? In my community of Morgan Hill, the Mayor and half of the city council are up for re-election. I am asking each of the candidates to be very specific about what they are willing to do and whether they are willing to spend local money on it. Then, I will use a column in the local newspaper to try and make this a defining issue for the city council.
I hope that Greens all over this state are going to do the same. The more people who are willing to vote primarily on the basis of a candidate's position on climate change and energy, the more certain our future.
Monday, September 13, 2010
What to do about climate change?
It has been a long time since I posted to California Greening. That has given me time to think about a lot of things… more than I have time to write or you to read. But, I keep coming back to one question: Is climate change really the most important issue that faces the Green Party, America, mankind? I have come to the conclusion that the answer is “yes”. Now, what should we be doing about it?
It is pretty clear that the political right thinks that attacking the very idea of human caused global warming is good politics. David Roberts' recent Grist column outlines the denialist strategy. It is playing out here in California with the oil company backed proposition 23 on the November ballot.
The major Republican candidates, Whitman and Fiorina, dance around the subject, supporting Prop 23 while not being so silly as to deny that climate change is happening. They only say that we can't afford to do anything now since that would “be a job killer.” Of course, it has always been positioned as a job killer by those of a Libertarian bent and conservative ideologues. Taking action will never, ever be acceptable to them. So, the more they talk, the longer we wait until, eventually, it will be too late. Personally, I believe that eventually just about here.
It must be the prerogative of old people to tell the truth. So while many Republicans bow to the great god Reagan, his one time chief of staff and Sec. of State, George Schulz has some harsh words for the deniers and those like Fiorina for whom it is just a political ploy to garner a few more votes from the brain dead.
It is pretty clear that the political right thinks that attacking the very idea of human caused global warming is good politics. David Roberts' recent Grist column outlines the denialist strategy. It is playing out here in California with the oil company backed proposition 23 on the November ballot.
The major Republican candidates, Whitman and Fiorina, dance around the subject, supporting Prop 23 while not being so silly as to deny that climate change is happening. They only say that we can't afford to do anything now since that would “be a job killer.” Of course, it has always been positioned as a job killer by those of a Libertarian bent and conservative ideologues. Taking action will never, ever be acceptable to them. So, the more they talk, the longer we wait until, eventually, it will be too late. Personally, I believe that eventually just about here.
It must be the prerogative of old people to tell the truth. So while many Republicans bow to the great god Reagan, his one time chief of staff and Sec. of State, George Schulz has some harsh words for the deniers and those like Fiorina for whom it is just a political ploy to garner a few more votes from the brain dead.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Maude Barlow and Water as a Human Right
My problem with Maude Barlow's presentation is not the concept that water is a common resource. My issue is what would be the legal ramifications regarding allocations to rural areas versus urban areas when water is made a human right. It needs to be said that water allocations will invariably have a disproportional allocation to agricultural use. Disproportional only in the sense that greater quantities and less efficiencies are characteristic of agricultural use. Even after every efficiency measure is applied this will be the case.
California has large scale agricultural use on a scale that is not characteristic of NM. This creates its own political issue as diversions between regions North-South are frequently the source of water conflicts. California has water rights defined in a complex structure that inevitably creates more conflicts than common understandings. The state has been provided with extraordinary power to divert the water resource that has been exercised in numerous large scale aqueducts. The state legislature is the ultimate authority in these diversions and bonds are the source of such funding. One such bond that includes the peripheral canal from the Delta for increased allocations to the Central Valley is currently on the ballot. The Governor is attempting to get this measure off the ballot now. Greens are encouraged to vote NO if this issue makes it to the ballot.
To get back to Maude Barlow, her position of water as a human right is a projected model that appears to be based on models and existing law in underdeveloped nations. One thing I do not understand is her failure to address the fact that US law already classifies water in the state and federal laws as a common resource. The Federal government and the state governments already have authority in interstate streams and rivers. The issue raised in the US against the concept of water as a human right includes the issue of how this would impact on the issue of paramount rights for tribal lands and reserves. That is a distinct issue but such lands are predominately rural with small scale agricultural use. We have seen in NM that when the legal issue of quantification of rights gets put on the table, that pueblos inevitably respond with golf courses as a measure that assures this beneficial use that will be included in the litigation. I would ask how one would distinguish the "human right" through a quantified yardstick. Would this simply be used to expand greenfield development and increase urban use in the same way as the pueblos worked to increase use?
The urban exponential growth in population is not addressed in the issue of water as a human right. It has been addressed through the regional water planning of the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly (MRGWA) through the water budget and its Public Welfare Statement and recommendations. The shortcoming in the planning process has been the subordination of the structural political reforms needed to plan AND implement the regional plans themselves. Urban use can be argued to be more "efficient", and this was the debate often within Urban Users and Economic Development Advocates of the MRGWA in regards to quality of life vs. growth issues. (see page 17 of Executive Summary ) I see more support for the issue of human rights from those who are not users. The structure of political debates in this scenario inevitably repeat the classic urban-rural conflicts. That being the case I am reluctant to see it as a move forward in equitable allocations.
Grafting "water as a human right" onto the historical, statutory and constitutional structure of water management that will continue to exist does not legally guarantee clean water as is its claim. It will not end groundwater mining as is its claim. It will not provide the infrastructure needed to deliver water to users in remote regions or guarantee supplies for expanded urban areas. In terms of the character of the water issue in California, it should be noted that those reservoirs that Maude Barlow projected would go empty have been filled this year with the increased precipitation. Her characterization of a universal crisis is a projection of her political agenda not of the regional supplies available.
Missing in her discussion is the issue of population as a stressor on the carrying capacity of resource supplies. I, too have a political agenda. As a Green, I want us to structure our political entities based on common regional long-term planning. Maude speaks against urbanization but really promotes urban users. She mentions green spaces but fails to grasp the dynamics of aquifer recharge and presumes green spaces are inherently measures for such recharge that will demonstratively increase supplies. Planning will address that through the inclusion of the science in the process. Regional planning in NM demonstrated that it can address this and even resulted in a quantified flow model for the Middle Rio Grande region through the work of Sandia National Labs. The denial of the water resource in underdeveloped nations is a result of political structures weighted in favor of corporate interests as a key element of development. Bottled water is an issue where commercial interests from outside the region are provided access to regional supplies. It is not simply an issue of rich folks robbing poor folks but is fundamentally a product of "outside" users being given access to regional supplies. The West is filled with ghost towns, where gold mines once flourished. After extracting the resource the towns were abandoned. (think Intel here, where the town of Rio Rancho, NM grew exponentially as a result of the Intel chip plant that pumps an average of 3,000 acre-feet per year)
Maude Barlow's presumption that privatization is the underlying cause of water shortages fails to identify the failure of government to represent users as users and the failure to provide political representation in appropriate models to empower adaptive governance by stakeholders. The political issue is not the lack of entitlement or access for the poor, whether they are urban or rural to a common resource. That is primarily a pricing issue and Greens in Detroit have worked around the issue of water shutoffs to address the inequities that have resulted. In that regard, the argument is already presumed that water is a human need and denial of access, whether by private or municipal authorities, is an attack on the basic need for human survival.
The political issue is the failure to structure those entities responsible for water management in such a way as to be reflective of the region's water use. Maude Barlow fails to extrapolate her own critique of government to include its role in facilitating economic growth and increasing the exploitation of the resource. In our own planning process in the Middle Rio Grande, we saw how urban municipalities repeatedly worked to undermine the concept of balancing growth with renewable supplies. To predict a significant change of behavior by urban users and existing political entities based on codification of the concept of "water as a human right" is unrealistic and fails to present a significant change in the scenarios of the future.
California has large scale agricultural use on a scale that is not characteristic of NM. This creates its own political issue as diversions between regions North-South are frequently the source of water conflicts. California has water rights defined in a complex structure that inevitably creates more conflicts than common understandings. The state has been provided with extraordinary power to divert the water resource that has been exercised in numerous large scale aqueducts. The state legislature is the ultimate authority in these diversions and bonds are the source of such funding. One such bond that includes the peripheral canal from the Delta for increased allocations to the Central Valley is currently on the ballot. The Governor is attempting to get this measure off the ballot now. Greens are encouraged to vote NO if this issue makes it to the ballot.
To get back to Maude Barlow, her position of water as a human right is a projected model that appears to be based on models and existing law in underdeveloped nations. One thing I do not understand is her failure to address the fact that US law already classifies water in the state and federal laws as a common resource. The Federal government and the state governments already have authority in interstate streams and rivers. The issue raised in the US against the concept of water as a human right includes the issue of how this would impact on the issue of paramount rights for tribal lands and reserves. That is a distinct issue but such lands are predominately rural with small scale agricultural use. We have seen in NM that when the legal issue of quantification of rights gets put on the table, that pueblos inevitably respond with golf courses as a measure that assures this beneficial use that will be included in the litigation. I would ask how one would distinguish the "human right" through a quantified yardstick. Would this simply be used to expand greenfield development and increase urban use in the same way as the pueblos worked to increase use?
The urban exponential growth in population is not addressed in the issue of water as a human right. It has been addressed through the regional water planning of the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly (MRGWA) through the water budget and its Public Welfare Statement and recommendations. The shortcoming in the planning process has been the subordination of the structural political reforms needed to plan AND implement the regional plans themselves. Urban use can be argued to be more "efficient", and this was the debate often within Urban Users and Economic Development Advocates of the MRGWA in regards to quality of life vs. growth issues. (see page 17 of Executive Summary ) I see more support for the issue of human rights from those who are not users. The structure of political debates in this scenario inevitably repeat the classic urban-rural conflicts. That being the case I am reluctant to see it as a move forward in equitable allocations.
Grafting "water as a human right" onto the historical, statutory and constitutional structure of water management that will continue to exist does not legally guarantee clean water as is its claim. It will not end groundwater mining as is its claim. It will not provide the infrastructure needed to deliver water to users in remote regions or guarantee supplies for expanded urban areas. In terms of the character of the water issue in California, it should be noted that those reservoirs that Maude Barlow projected would go empty have been filled this year with the increased precipitation. Her characterization of a universal crisis is a projection of her political agenda not of the regional supplies available.
Missing in her discussion is the issue of population as a stressor on the carrying capacity of resource supplies. I, too have a political agenda. As a Green, I want us to structure our political entities based on common regional long-term planning. Maude speaks against urbanization but really promotes urban users. She mentions green spaces but fails to grasp the dynamics of aquifer recharge and presumes green spaces are inherently measures for such recharge that will demonstratively increase supplies. Planning will address that through the inclusion of the science in the process. Regional planning in NM demonstrated that it can address this and even resulted in a quantified flow model for the Middle Rio Grande region through the work of Sandia National Labs. The denial of the water resource in underdeveloped nations is a result of political structures weighted in favor of corporate interests as a key element of development. Bottled water is an issue where commercial interests from outside the region are provided access to regional supplies. It is not simply an issue of rich folks robbing poor folks but is fundamentally a product of "outside" users being given access to regional supplies. The West is filled with ghost towns, where gold mines once flourished. After extracting the resource the towns were abandoned. (think Intel here, where the town of Rio Rancho, NM grew exponentially as a result of the Intel chip plant that pumps an average of 3,000 acre-feet per year)
Maude Barlow's presumption that privatization is the underlying cause of water shortages fails to identify the failure of government to represent users as users and the failure to provide political representation in appropriate models to empower adaptive governance by stakeholders. The political issue is not the lack of entitlement or access for the poor, whether they are urban or rural to a common resource. That is primarily a pricing issue and Greens in Detroit have worked around the issue of water shutoffs to address the inequities that have resulted. In that regard, the argument is already presumed that water is a human need and denial of access, whether by private or municipal authorities, is an attack on the basic need for human survival.
The political issue is the failure to structure those entities responsible for water management in such a way as to be reflective of the region's water use. Maude Barlow fails to extrapolate her own critique of government to include its role in facilitating economic growth and increasing the exploitation of the resource. In our own planning process in the Middle Rio Grande, we saw how urban municipalities repeatedly worked to undermine the concept of balancing growth with renewable supplies. To predict a significant change of behavior by urban users and existing political entities based on codification of the concept of "water as a human right" is unrealistic and fails to present a significant change in the scenarios of the future.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Too Old for a Job, Too Young for Medicare
Editor's Note: Sometimes you find something posted on the Internet that tells your own story better than you could tell it yourself. A big thanks to my friend, Carole Hanisch for sending me the link to the article by Dave Johnson of Redwood City, California below. I was a professional computer programmer for twenty-two years in Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts before settling in California's so-called Silicon Valley just in time for the big crash of 2000. Only two things I can add. First, as an African-American with some 1960s consciousness, even during the boom years I was never seduced by that "USA! USA! We're Number 1 'cause the USA today is the best of all possible words!" baloney. Second, as a Green Party man I'm not blind to the political fact that so-called Silicon Valley is One-Party Democratic territory represented by Congresswomen Anna Eshoo (D-HP) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Cisco Systems) who could not care less and where two Silicon Valley big shots, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are running for high office as Republicans vowing to "get tough" with "lazy" Americans who don't want to work.
UPDATE: LIVELY DISCUSSION OF THIS ARTICLE
700+ Comments on Daily Kos
100+ Comments on Democratic Underground.com
700+ Comments on Daily Kos
100+ Comments on Democratic Underground.com
Alex Walker
Posted on Campaign for America's Future, July 7, 2010
Too Old For A Job, Too Young For Medicare Or Social Security
by Dave Johnson
Here is a fact: There. Are. No. Jobs. I'm in Silicon Valley where the official unemployment rate dipped in May to 11.2%. This dip was, of course, because of so many people just giving up trying to get a job, certainly not because of some wave of hiring. The underemployed figure, known as "U-6," is 21.7% in California, 16.7% nationally.
You have to know someone to get a humiliating job standing on a corner waving a sign. And if you are over 40, things are even worse than that. Don't give me any conservative Rush Limbaugh-Ayn Rand dehumanizing nonsense about parasitic lazy people who won't look—there are no jobs.
I know so many people here who are over 40, were laid off in the 2000-era dot com crash, still haven't found a regular job and aren't going to. They have had occasional "contract" positions—which means no benefits, no security, a 15% "self-employment" tax and no unemployment check when the job ends. And now, 10 years later they're a lot over 40 and are not going to find a job because so many employers here won't hire people over 40.
And now there are so many more who lost their jobs in the mass layoffs of 2008-2009 and can't find a job. So many of them are also over 40. In fact, many were laid off in obvious purges of over-40 workers, offered a small severance that they could only receive if they promised to take no age-discrimination action against the employer. (I don't say "company" because some of these worked at nonprofits.)
Most of these people will not find another job, but are too young for Medicare and Social Security.
One Person's Story
I ran into a friend this weekend who I hadn't seen for a couple of years. He had been a computer engineer who had been making 6 figures in the dot-com years. Laid off in the 2000 crash, he moved in with his parents back in the Midwest and worked in a bakery. He came back out here when things picked up a bit and worked in one "contract" job after another. (Contracting is just a scam to get around employment laws—but the government doesn't enforce the rules.) But now he just can't find anything. He managed to get unemployment but now that is running out. He has no health insurance. He can't afford a place to live; he "house sits" for people or visits friends, and doesn't know what he is going to do even two days from now.
What is he going to do? Can you tell me? He has gotten a few interviews, and when they are computer-related is always told he is way overqualified, doesn't seem energetic, probably won't be willing to work 20 hours a day, doesn't look like he is up to date on things that are happening with computers, etc. (How many ways can you say "too old?") He's about 45. If things pick up he will get another job. But people just a few years older will not.
Blatant Age Discrimination
Age discrimination is a thing with me because it is so blatant here. It's the culture here, some even say that for programmers it is "35 and out." At various times looking for work I've been told I "seemed tired" and things like that. I was even told once that I wouldn't be able to market some software because I "wouldn't be able to get my mind around" how it worked—when I had designed and written part of it in a previous life. One company here is said to have only 200 over-40 employees out of 20,000.
But it certainly is not a problem that only exists in Silicon Valley. Tell your own story in the comments, please, get this discussion going!
What are people supposed to do? You can't get Medicare until you are 65, and Social Security until 67. But it's near-impossible to get a job or health insurance if you are over 50. I wonder what the effect would be if the government started again enforcing its own rules on age discrimination and contracting.
Among other things Congress needs to get things going by passing the George Miller "Local Jobs for America Act."
Dave Johnson, a resident of Redwood City, California, is a Fellow at Campaign for America's Future, the Commonweal Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for the Renewal of the California Dream.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
San Jose Considers Water Privatization
A recent article in the San Jose Mercury News provides a good opportunity to review and discuss the issue of privatization of water utlities in a concrete context. The reason for the proposed sale is the budget of San Jose, like many municipalities in California, is facing rough times. There are many details that Greens need to address. One is whether the failure to gain this $50 million by the city will result in the loss of services. This is the current claim by the city. Details need to be provided to get a clearer picture of this. Can these funds be used for public schools? Greens should ask this and establish public education as THE priority during these difficult times.
The article raises other issues such as the possible layoffs of 40 municipal workers. This also is an issue that can be raised in the discussion on the deal. There would seem to be a way to establish a mechanism, consistent with seniority rights to include existing municipal workers in the enlarged private system. The issue of water rates could be phased in after a review of the existing rates for the San Jose Water Company (SJWC) with a possible moratorium on shutoffs for the first year.
Structurally, the SJWC will provide similar services without the same system of "public accountability". At issue is state law and existing city ordinances in regards to rates of private water services. The leverage in going ahead with the sale might be to improve the engagement of rate payers in pricing issues. The issue of Hetch-Hetchy water use begs to be addressed through regional long-term water planning to move towards sustainable water usage and the development of a water budget that defines allocations and prioritization of them. The premise of San Jose's entitlement to Hetch-Hetchy water is the role of the Santa Clara Water District's (SCWD) ability to review allocations and its role in representing the public welfare. Our questions as Greens need to be "How does the SCWD define the public interest in water allocations?" "What is the existing mechanism for users and stakeholders in the region in water administration and management?" "What are the current conflicts between users in the region in regards to allocations and what needs to be done in the future to address water supply issues?"
There is no new water supply here. Whether there is a sale or not will not impact on the supply issue. Likewise, it is not primarily an issue of fighting cutbacks, unless Greens can make it so in regards to education funding. The SCWD has already cut 25 employees from its payroll. It is worth saying that the SCWD is entering its third year without rate increases and this certainly should be included in the debate. SCWD has implemented the state law in regards to conservation measures. One interesting side note is "Santa Clara County's civil grand jury has accused the chairman of the countywide water district of flouting state ethics laws by promoting a series of district projects likely to increase the value of his family's land holdings in Alviso." If anything this reinforces our own position of the need for planning to be integrated with management and inclusion of users, the environment and the science. it also provides a glimpse into the gap between existing "public" regulation and what is in the public interest as determined by the region itself. Accountability requires engagement of diverse users. This prevents phoney numbers games in the supply issue and present a dialogue directly with those on the ground (or in the water as the case may be).
Our position in the California Green Party Water Planning Platform plank provides guidance for Greens in Santa Clara in addressing the issue with clarity. "Integrate land use with water use for urban planning decisions. Political bodies, such as municipal water authorities, need to be more inclusive in the representation of users, hydrologists, environmental health professionals, and environmental advocates in the region and address the issues affecting the regional supply and demand of the resource, as well as water quality. Presently, the interests and concerns of real estate and development interests have a disproportionate voice in new allocations." The road forward has to be based on sustainability and establishing the political entities capable of integrating Grassroots Democracy and Ecological Wisdom.
The article raises other issues such as the possible layoffs of 40 municipal workers. This also is an issue that can be raised in the discussion on the deal. There would seem to be a way to establish a mechanism, consistent with seniority rights to include existing municipal workers in the enlarged private system. The issue of water rates could be phased in after a review of the existing rates for the San Jose Water Company (SJWC) with a possible moratorium on shutoffs for the first year.
Structurally, the SJWC will provide similar services without the same system of "public accountability". At issue is state law and existing city ordinances in regards to rates of private water services. The leverage in going ahead with the sale might be to improve the engagement of rate payers in pricing issues. The issue of Hetch-Hetchy water use begs to be addressed through regional long-term water planning to move towards sustainable water usage and the development of a water budget that defines allocations and prioritization of them. The premise of San Jose's entitlement to Hetch-Hetchy water is the role of the Santa Clara Water District's (SCWD) ability to review allocations and its role in representing the public welfare. Our questions as Greens need to be "How does the SCWD define the public interest in water allocations?" "What is the existing mechanism for users and stakeholders in the region in water administration and management?" "What are the current conflicts between users in the region in regards to allocations and what needs to be done in the future to address water supply issues?"
There is no new water supply here. Whether there is a sale or not will not impact on the supply issue. Likewise, it is not primarily an issue of fighting cutbacks, unless Greens can make it so in regards to education funding. The SCWD has already cut 25 employees from its payroll. It is worth saying that the SCWD is entering its third year without rate increases and this certainly should be included in the debate. SCWD has implemented the state law in regards to conservation measures. One interesting side note is "Santa Clara County's civil grand jury has accused the chairman of the countywide water district of flouting state ethics laws by promoting a series of district projects likely to increase the value of his family's land holdings in Alviso." If anything this reinforces our own position of the need for planning to be integrated with management and inclusion of users, the environment and the science. it also provides a glimpse into the gap between existing "public" regulation and what is in the public interest as determined by the region itself. Accountability requires engagement of diverse users. This prevents phoney numbers games in the supply issue and present a dialogue directly with those on the ground (or in the water as the case may be).
Our position in the California Green Party Water Planning Platform plank provides guidance for Greens in Santa Clara in addressing the issue with clarity. "Integrate land use with water use for urban planning decisions. Political bodies, such as municipal water authorities, need to be more inclusive in the representation of users, hydrologists, environmental health professionals, and environmental advocates in the region and address the issues affecting the regional supply and demand of the resource, as well as water quality. Presently, the interests and concerns of real estate and development interests have a disproportionate voice in new allocations." The road forward has to be based on sustainability and establishing the political entities capable of integrating Grassroots Democracy and Ecological Wisdom.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Rescue the Gulf !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There is an axiom utilized by many people that if you don't have anything constructive to add politically just up the ante of your favorite political party or publicly posture your indignation and scream louder than everyone else. People who advocate nationalization of BP are folks who come to the disaster with their own preconceived notions of the importance of public (read "governmental") control and jump in at every opportunity to present the same solution for every social ill or disaster. These folks would do well to learn that priorities need to be addressed in resolving any given situation. They would also do better to learn from previous experiences in regards to their proposed agenda.
In the case of the BP deep water oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, it would benefit all to recall the example of the PEMEX gusher in the Gulf in 1979. This nationalized oil company has the current record for the worst pollution of the Gulf that the Deep Horizon is trying to surpass. No claims were paid by PEMEX for the damages done to coastal areas and aquatic life. Zero. We might also recall the PEMEX gasoline leak that exploded in Guadalajara in 1992. The explosions crushed to death 206 people; injured 1,460 people; damaged 1,148 buildings; and destroyed 350 businesses and 505 vehicles. Eight government officials were jailed. In 1984, 500 people were killed by a natural gas explosion at PEMEX facilities in Mexico City.
One thing we accept as Greens is that "Money cannot buy everything". It cannot buy dead zones in the Gulf and transform them. It cannot restore the tidal basin and marshland ecosystems. It cannot replace the dead flora and fauna and it cannot bring back the sea life that so many are dependent on for their livelihood. The point right now is to demonstrate the capability of cleanup NOW. The point is to utilize the resources of the world community and send a 9-1-1 for the Gulf. The point now is to stop the gusher.
Government regulation did not prevent the financial crisis or the housing bubble. Why is it presumed to be anymore effective in addressing the environmental problems? At issue are the U.S. energy policy and the abysmal failure of the Minerals Management Service in enforcing regulations already in place. The corporate domination of the government does not end the day the government seizes the corporations. Audrey Clement, co-chair of the Green Party's Eco-Action Committee has indicated: "The fact of the matter is that the U.S. government bears the most responsibility for the disaster, having granted BP a categorical exclusion (CE) that exempted it from filing an environmental impact statement on the controversial project entailing the drilling of a 30,000 foot well 5,000 feet under. Exempting BP from filing an EIS constitutes a blatant violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, but the blame lies with MME, not BP. After all BP just applied for the CE, but MME granted it."
Whether through fault or folly, the Obama administration remains lurching from one option to the next with no solutions in sight. The fact is that this is an international problem that impacts the entire planet and not just the fishermen of Louisiana or the resorts on the coast of Florida. As such, the resources needed to address the ongoing gusher's impacts on the Gulf's ecosystems need to be made the priority.
Our work is to establish the political mechanisms needed that recognize the inherent corruption of the governments in our states and the Federal government and establish ones that substantively address the issues of who is making the decisions and why. Our priority is to mobilize emergency responses that are effective and massive in scope and scale. The political issue is that the incrementalist approach towards energy transition will perpetually put us behind the eight-ball in situations like this. The structural reforms needed means transforming the administrative and political mechanisms that currently shape policy.
As stated before, we have seen the failure of "government regulation". We have seen the failure of "Drill, baby, drill!" What we have not seen are the political, administrative, technical and scientific resources of the world focused on our common problem. We have seen how Nigeria has failed to update pipelines to prevent spills and how this has impacted on the people and the environment. We have seen how oil was spilled into the Persian Gulf by Saddam Hussein and oil wells were blown up in the war for oil. We have seen how BP is unable to put the oil genie back in the bottle, as the worst case scenario becomes reality.
There are enough attorneys in the United States who will spend their time litigating and focusing on BP's culpability in the gusher. Our most overriding message is that the damage being done to the Gulf now is irreparable and our priority task is to stop the gusher and mobilize the kind of resources needed for cleanup, containment, animal rescue and capping the hole on the sea floor. The damage is ongoing and worsening. It cannot be "undone".
Setting up an eco-emergency response corps that includes state national Guards, state and federal labs, international cooperation and volunteers ready to pitch in is the spirit of being Green. The extent of the response of the Obama administration has not been sufficient to demonstrate any effectiveness. There needs to be demonstrated a national and international response that is commiserate to the task at hand. No studies but applied solutions. No promises but a demonstrated, effective effort in the tasks at hand.
As the scale of responses needed to respond to our dependence of oil escalate exponentially, our response needs to be predicated on making the hard decisions needed to transition to renewable energy sources. As a people, Americans are made empty promises daily by politicians and public officials. The day is past when these are sufficient given the scale and scope of problems that we are faced with in the future. We need to understand the many of the problems we face are the products of our own actions.
This is how Greens are distinguished from the duopoly parties. We already know the problems that we can anticipate in the future and are prepared to develop the mechanisms needed to maintain the earth's eco-systems. We present a distinct voice in the political arena of the United States. It’s time to listen, to learn and to act with decisiveness. Solutions won’t be any easier in the future, but at the least, we can work on them without the disproportional influence of the corporations shaping policies and tying the hands of public officials.
In the case of the BP deep water oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, it would benefit all to recall the example of the PEMEX gusher in the Gulf in 1979. This nationalized oil company has the current record for the worst pollution of the Gulf that the Deep Horizon is trying to surpass. No claims were paid by PEMEX for the damages done to coastal areas and aquatic life. Zero. We might also recall the PEMEX gasoline leak that exploded in Guadalajara in 1992. The explosions crushed to death 206 people; injured 1,460 people; damaged 1,148 buildings; and destroyed 350 businesses and 505 vehicles. Eight government officials were jailed. In 1984, 500 people were killed by a natural gas explosion at PEMEX facilities in Mexico City.
One thing we accept as Greens is that "Money cannot buy everything". It cannot buy dead zones in the Gulf and transform them. It cannot restore the tidal basin and marshland ecosystems. It cannot replace the dead flora and fauna and it cannot bring back the sea life that so many are dependent on for their livelihood. The point right now is to demonstrate the capability of cleanup NOW. The point is to utilize the resources of the world community and send a 9-1-1 for the Gulf. The point now is to stop the gusher.
Government regulation did not prevent the financial crisis or the housing bubble. Why is it presumed to be anymore effective in addressing the environmental problems? At issue are the U.S. energy policy and the abysmal failure of the Minerals Management Service in enforcing regulations already in place. The corporate domination of the government does not end the day the government seizes the corporations. Audrey Clement, co-chair of the Green Party's Eco-Action Committee has indicated: "The fact of the matter is that the U.S. government bears the most responsibility for the disaster, having granted BP a categorical exclusion (CE) that exempted it from filing an environmental impact statement on the controversial project entailing the drilling of a 30,000 foot well 5,000 feet under. Exempting BP from filing an EIS constitutes a blatant violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, but the blame lies with MME, not BP. After all BP just applied for the CE, but MME granted it."
Whether through fault or folly, the Obama administration remains lurching from one option to the next with no solutions in sight. The fact is that this is an international problem that impacts the entire planet and not just the fishermen of Louisiana or the resorts on the coast of Florida. As such, the resources needed to address the ongoing gusher's impacts on the Gulf's ecosystems need to be made the priority.
Our work is to establish the political mechanisms needed that recognize the inherent corruption of the governments in our states and the Federal government and establish ones that substantively address the issues of who is making the decisions and why. Our priority is to mobilize emergency responses that are effective and massive in scope and scale. The political issue is that the incrementalist approach towards energy transition will perpetually put us behind the eight-ball in situations like this. The structural reforms needed means transforming the administrative and political mechanisms that currently shape policy.
As stated before, we have seen the failure of "government regulation". We have seen the failure of "Drill, baby, drill!" What we have not seen are the political, administrative, technical and scientific resources of the world focused on our common problem. We have seen how Nigeria has failed to update pipelines to prevent spills and how this has impacted on the people and the environment. We have seen how oil was spilled into the Persian Gulf by Saddam Hussein and oil wells were blown up in the war for oil. We have seen how BP is unable to put the oil genie back in the bottle, as the worst case scenario becomes reality.
There are enough attorneys in the United States who will spend their time litigating and focusing on BP's culpability in the gusher. Our most overriding message is that the damage being done to the Gulf now is irreparable and our priority task is to stop the gusher and mobilize the kind of resources needed for cleanup, containment, animal rescue and capping the hole on the sea floor. The damage is ongoing and worsening. It cannot be "undone".
Setting up an eco-emergency response corps that includes state national Guards, state and federal labs, international cooperation and volunteers ready to pitch in is the spirit of being Green. The extent of the response of the Obama administration has not been sufficient to demonstrate any effectiveness. There needs to be demonstrated a national and international response that is commiserate to the task at hand. No studies but applied solutions. No promises but a demonstrated, effective effort in the tasks at hand.
As the scale of responses needed to respond to our dependence of oil escalate exponentially, our response needs to be predicated on making the hard decisions needed to transition to renewable energy sources. As a people, Americans are made empty promises daily by politicians and public officials. The day is past when these are sufficient given the scale and scope of problems that we are faced with in the future. We need to understand the many of the problems we face are the products of our own actions.
This is how Greens are distinguished from the duopoly parties. We already know the problems that we can anticipate in the future and are prepared to develop the mechanisms needed to maintain the earth's eco-systems. We present a distinct voice in the political arena of the United States. It’s time to listen, to learn and to act with decisiveness. Solutions won’t be any easier in the future, but at the least, we can work on them without the disproportional influence of the corporations shaping policies and tying the hands of public officials.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tea Party and CA Quality of Life Issues
When tea party folks speak out at an AARP meeting they are called "seniors". When they speak at a tea party meeting they are called "old white people". Oops. Is my Eurpean heritage showing? Oh, my, I have to cover that up.
There is much to be learned about the issues and concerns being raised by the tea party without taking the emotion as the same as the substantive concerns. Quality of life issues are becoming more important in the political arena. And political parties would do better to address them. San Francisco is a sanctuary city that has displaced its African-American population. Violence continues to plague the Bay Area and ethnic conflicts are increasingly seen as the cause. Just recently the Asian community made a visible presence at the Board of Superviors about the assaults on their elderly. Public schools in the city have experienced "white flight" due to their dysfunctionality.
Although immigrants are provided with sanctuary in some CA cities, immigrants often remain trapped in the drug subeconomy or the lowest paid jobs, due partly because there is no capability of integrating them and no transition based on their skill sets.
How does one address a migration which goes beyond the carrying capacity of resources and public infrastructure? Teaching has become a field for Teach America and AmeriCorps kids, so Spanish speaking children do not have the needed content instruction in Spanish nor the qualified ESL teachers to make the transition to English. People pitch tent cities in Fresno and Sacramento as homelessness takes a significant leap in its quantitative character. Water resources have become a regular urban vs. rural (Northern CA vs. southern CA) conflict as demand increases and overpopulation expand urban needs in the Central Valley and southern California. Again, quality of life issues.
Denying the problems is not the same as providing solutions to real concerns. Marginalizing people and ridiculing them allows public officials from ever addressing what people are trying to say and projects the Dem-Repug conflict as if it had real substance in the policy arena. That is my problem with the Arizona boycott that has such a following with municipal leaders in L.A., San Jose and San Francisco. It's easier to point to Arizona than for them to address the real impacts in their own cities. Posturing- it's the favorite pastime of the Urban Democratic Machine and enables them from addressing the consequences of their actions.
Greens need to be much more cognizant of the political manipulations of the duopoly. Repugs are trying to assimilate the tea party and align it with their corporate base. Dems are trying to discredit the tea party to mobilize their urban bases despite the rampant injustice that pervades urban communities. Greens can address the issues of concern raised by the tea party without promoting the ethnic divisions that certain leaders of the duopoly are using for their own gain. We don't need to try and make them into a "Green" tea party. But it is worth our while to listen to what they are trying to say.
Population is a Green concern. Social services and public education are Green concerns. Equal justice is a Green concern. Political representation is a Green concern. Let's demand accountability of public officials right where we are. Let's oppose laws that racially profile. Let's organize as if the people in America are not enemies to be feared but have something substantive to say that we need to listen to. And let's show people that real leadership means formulating sound policies that are just and deal with peoples' concerns. We are all Americans and our fate is intertwined.
There is much to be learned about the issues and concerns being raised by the tea party without taking the emotion as the same as the substantive concerns. Quality of life issues are becoming more important in the political arena. And political parties would do better to address them. San Francisco is a sanctuary city that has displaced its African-American population. Violence continues to plague the Bay Area and ethnic conflicts are increasingly seen as the cause. Just recently the Asian community made a visible presence at the Board of Superviors about the assaults on their elderly. Public schools in the city have experienced "white flight" due to their dysfunctionality.
Although immigrants are provided with sanctuary in some CA cities, immigrants often remain trapped in the drug subeconomy or the lowest paid jobs, due partly because there is no capability of integrating them and no transition based on their skill sets.
How does one address a migration which goes beyond the carrying capacity of resources and public infrastructure? Teaching has become a field for Teach America and AmeriCorps kids, so Spanish speaking children do not have the needed content instruction in Spanish nor the qualified ESL teachers to make the transition to English. People pitch tent cities in Fresno and Sacramento as homelessness takes a significant leap in its quantitative character. Water resources have become a regular urban vs. rural (Northern CA vs. southern CA) conflict as demand increases and overpopulation expand urban needs in the Central Valley and southern California. Again, quality of life issues.
Denying the problems is not the same as providing solutions to real concerns. Marginalizing people and ridiculing them allows public officials from ever addressing what people are trying to say and projects the Dem-Repug conflict as if it had real substance in the policy arena. That is my problem with the Arizona boycott that has such a following with municipal leaders in L.A., San Jose and San Francisco. It's easier to point to Arizona than for them to address the real impacts in their own cities. Posturing- it's the favorite pastime of the Urban Democratic Machine and enables them from addressing the consequences of their actions.
Greens need to be much more cognizant of the political manipulations of the duopoly. Repugs are trying to assimilate the tea party and align it with their corporate base. Dems are trying to discredit the tea party to mobilize their urban bases despite the rampant injustice that pervades urban communities. Greens can address the issues of concern raised by the tea party without promoting the ethnic divisions that certain leaders of the duopoly are using for their own gain. We don't need to try and make them into a "Green" tea party. But it is worth our while to listen to what they are trying to say.
Population is a Green concern. Social services and public education are Green concerns. Equal justice is a Green concern. Political representation is a Green concern. Let's demand accountability of public officials right where we are. Let's oppose laws that racially profile. Let's organize as if the people in America are not enemies to be feared but have something substantive to say that we need to listen to. And let's show people that real leadership means formulating sound policies that are just and deal with peoples' concerns. We are all Americans and our fate is intertwined.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Laura Wells, Green Candidate for Governor, Addresses Water Planning
Water Policy – Key Themes
•Better public understanding of the Myths and Facts
•More representative planning processes are needed
•Public benefit must trump water profiteering
Background
California has gone through three years of drought, and there is no assurance that the problems will end anytime soon. Massive media campaigns are mounted as each segment of our state anxiously attempts to secure more water for itself in any way possible, spreading blame recklessly, claiming all of the benefits for their own local use, and creating imaginary problems that Californians are asked to solve with our pocketbooks.
We need to separate facts from fiction, expose the water myths for what they are, and insist on sound planning for a sustainable future.
Water Myths: There are many who would place all of the blame for unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley on the lack of water for irrigation. This is misleading. There are many sources of unemployment but water reduction is not one of them.
There is the fable of the Delta Smelt, the little fish that everyone blames for shutting down the pumps. However, only about one-third of the cutback in water deliveries to Westlands Water district could be attributed to environmental actions. The rest is attributable to the drought, while districts on the East Side of the San Joaquin Valley have been receiving 100% of their deliveries.
If California is to have a sound, sustainable water policy, then we must put aside these political water myths and begin to deal with facts.
Water Facts: There is only a fixed amount of water on this planet. Most of it is salty. The freshwater we use falls as rain, or as snow in the Sierras. Building more dams will not increase the amount of water that we have. It could be an overly expensive action, since there is already not enough rain to fill California's reservoirs now, and climate change threatens an even drier future.
We don't know how much water is required to maintain the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta as a fresh water estuary. If we fail to answer this correctly, the salty water from San Francisco Bay will flood the estuary, ruining the farmlands there, and we will have to shut down the aqueducts to avoid sending that contaminated water to Southern California. That is an economic catastrophe that must be avoided.
For years, the taxpayers of California have been subsidizing the delivery of water for agricultural use. It is only in recent years that this publicly funded water intended for agriculture has, in turn, been re-sold for urban use at a significant profit. None of that profit was returned to the citizens of California.
The water that we pump from the ground needs to be replenished or the land will eventually sink. In some parts of the state, ground water pumping has left entire communities below sea level. Land subsidence due to ground water pumping has caused some parts of the San Joaquin Valley to sink over 20 ft. since records were initially kept. The Santa Clara County community of Alviso dropped below sea level and now must be protected by levees. Yet, California has never measured its ground water on a regular basis. We do not know how fast the aquifers are being depleted, or how much water is being pumped each year. Those who pump that water use all of their political might to make sure these measurements never happen.
What We Propose
Representative Water Planning
Planning for a sustainable water future for California requires that all interested parties have a seat at the table and come to a consensus as to what priorities will prevail and how they will be administered. Legislating solutions for the Delta water without involving those who live and work there will never accomplish this.
•California needs to change the way we plan for and manage our water supplies. The principle of bioregionalism - living within the means of a region's natural resources - should give direction to future water policies. It begins with the application of Green Values to water.
•California must develop regional water plans that assure public input into the state water plan that in turn must be based on sound science and on priorities that are in the public interest.
•Private profiteering must never be allowed from publicly subsidized water. If water secured at agricultural rates is re-sold at a profit for non-agricultural use, then the public must benefit -- not private profiteers.
•Environmental justice, ecological impact, and depletion of groundwater supplies need to be integrated with the ongoing process for approval of new water withdrawals.
•The legislature should re-work the 2010 Water Bond and improve it by revising the priorities, re-considering regional impacts, stripping out the special interests, and then re-submit it for public approval.
http://www.laurawells.org/platform/13-water-policy.html
•Better public understanding of the Myths and Facts
•More representative planning processes are needed
•Public benefit must trump water profiteering
Background
California has gone through three years of drought, and there is no assurance that the problems will end anytime soon. Massive media campaigns are mounted as each segment of our state anxiously attempts to secure more water for itself in any way possible, spreading blame recklessly, claiming all of the benefits for their own local use, and creating imaginary problems that Californians are asked to solve with our pocketbooks.
We need to separate facts from fiction, expose the water myths for what they are, and insist on sound planning for a sustainable future.
Water Myths: There are many who would place all of the blame for unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley on the lack of water for irrigation. This is misleading. There are many sources of unemployment but water reduction is not one of them.
There is the fable of the Delta Smelt, the little fish that everyone blames for shutting down the pumps. However, only about one-third of the cutback in water deliveries to Westlands Water district could be attributed to environmental actions. The rest is attributable to the drought, while districts on the East Side of the San Joaquin Valley have been receiving 100% of their deliveries.
If California is to have a sound, sustainable water policy, then we must put aside these political water myths and begin to deal with facts.
Water Facts: There is only a fixed amount of water on this planet. Most of it is salty. The freshwater we use falls as rain, or as snow in the Sierras. Building more dams will not increase the amount of water that we have. It could be an overly expensive action, since there is already not enough rain to fill California's reservoirs now, and climate change threatens an even drier future.
We don't know how much water is required to maintain the Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta as a fresh water estuary. If we fail to answer this correctly, the salty water from San Francisco Bay will flood the estuary, ruining the farmlands there, and we will have to shut down the aqueducts to avoid sending that contaminated water to Southern California. That is an economic catastrophe that must be avoided.
For years, the taxpayers of California have been subsidizing the delivery of water for agricultural use. It is only in recent years that this publicly funded water intended for agriculture has, in turn, been re-sold for urban use at a significant profit. None of that profit was returned to the citizens of California.
The water that we pump from the ground needs to be replenished or the land will eventually sink. In some parts of the state, ground water pumping has left entire communities below sea level. Land subsidence due to ground water pumping has caused some parts of the San Joaquin Valley to sink over 20 ft. since records were initially kept. The Santa Clara County community of Alviso dropped below sea level and now must be protected by levees. Yet, California has never measured its ground water on a regular basis. We do not know how fast the aquifers are being depleted, or how much water is being pumped each year. Those who pump that water use all of their political might to make sure these measurements never happen.
What We Propose
Representative Water Planning
Planning for a sustainable water future for California requires that all interested parties have a seat at the table and come to a consensus as to what priorities will prevail and how they will be administered. Legislating solutions for the Delta water without involving those who live and work there will never accomplish this.
•California needs to change the way we plan for and manage our water supplies. The principle of bioregionalism - living within the means of a region's natural resources - should give direction to future water policies. It begins with the application of Green Values to water.
•California must develop regional water plans that assure public input into the state water plan that in turn must be based on sound science and on priorities that are in the public interest.
•Private profiteering must never be allowed from publicly subsidized water. If water secured at agricultural rates is re-sold at a profit for non-agricultural use, then the public must benefit -- not private profiteers.
•Environmental justice, ecological impact, and depletion of groundwater supplies need to be integrated with the ongoing process for approval of new water withdrawals.
•The legislature should re-work the 2010 Water Bond and improve it by revising the priorities, re-considering regional impacts, stripping out the special interests, and then re-submit it for public approval.
http://www.laurawells.org/platform/13-water-policy.html
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Arizona State Legislature Provokes New "War Between the States"
It is nice for people to realize that we need not accept behavior that restricts the movement of American citizens. This is the problem with the Arizona law and the many Chicano and Native citizens who live in Arizona are as likely to be subjected to harassment as the individuals who have been smuggled in for profit.
The jails of California are filled with those who are unable to find employment or depend on the drug subeconomy. The agribusinesses that continue to promote the human trafficing have increased the stress on public health and education. The increased violence in communities and the assaults on the elderly remain a profound source of concern. Addressing the needs of the our society due to the migration need to be done without the platitudes of moral superiority. Solutions to infrastructure problems have not come from either side of the immigration issue to date.
I have lived in NM on the border region and am opposed to the idea of a wall as mere posturing and pork for those regions, rather than a real solution. That does not mean that things can remain as they are. Hospitals closing emergency rooms, the inability to provide education of children without English langauge skills and the poverty and living conditions have been seriously impacted on the infrastructure of all border states. The carrying capacity of our water resource systems are being taxed beyond their ability to function sustainably. State budgets cannot address the profound stresses that have resulted from increased population.
The focus of the debate needs to address real solutions to the consequences of the migration. The border with Mexico will inherently be porous and will be circumvented. The government of Mexico is no more concerned about addressing the migration than the government of the United States is. It remains their own social safety valve in addressing the poverty of their own citizens and a source for revenues that are sent to family members in Mexico. This is the international context of the issue. It extends beyond the impact of NAFTA and the maquiladoras. Those fleeing poverty and oppression in Mexico are not to blame for their willingness to risk their safety for a brighter future in America. But we cannot absorb the profound impacts based on existing policies or continued massive influxes of people.
The Arizona law is indeed bad law and will not contribute to the real tasks ahead. A real discussion needs to be based on what is not working and why, as well as how can we begin to provide workable solutions. Polarization of ethnic communities is sharpening and the Arizona law has increased it. It is worth our while to seek the foundations of the conflict, grasp how to increase our abilities to recognize the social conflicts that have arisen and provide some real assurances that public officials are beginning to address real concerns of people on all sides of the issues. Repealing the Arizona law would be the first step in recognizing the dramatic impact of it on perceptions among Hispanics in America.
The recent passage of a ban on ethnic studies curricula in Arizona will not solve the problems of high dropout rates in Arizona and California. It will not address the lack of achievement of students in the United States. It might be worth mentioning the failure of public education in both Arizona and California. This new law against Chicano studies will not decrease drop-outs, or improve the skills of non-English speaking students or provide technological education for the future economy. Priorities need to be made. This is not an instance of funding priorities, and for that reason and others I would not support this law. It is solely intended to polarize Arizona's people.
The fundamental issue remains the failure of American public education and the failures of American students to achieve up to grade level. It is curious though when this bill becomes such a focus of the media when compared to Prop 100 in Arizona which seeks to protect funding for public schools. The resulting boycotts from California cities is increasing the volatility of the issue. I guess if you can't do anything about improving public education, it is more effective for politicians to posture and point their fingers of disdain at the "bad dogs" in other states.
Our infrastructure in California is becoming critically overburdened. California public officials would do better to address our significant needs in education and address the budget and public infrastructure issues with a real sense of priorities for Californians.
The jails of California are filled with those who are unable to find employment or depend on the drug subeconomy. The agribusinesses that continue to promote the human trafficing have increased the stress on public health and education. The increased violence in communities and the assaults on the elderly remain a profound source of concern. Addressing the needs of the our society due to the migration need to be done without the platitudes of moral superiority. Solutions to infrastructure problems have not come from either side of the immigration issue to date.
I have lived in NM on the border region and am opposed to the idea of a wall as mere posturing and pork for those regions, rather than a real solution. That does not mean that things can remain as they are. Hospitals closing emergency rooms, the inability to provide education of children without English langauge skills and the poverty and living conditions have been seriously impacted on the infrastructure of all border states. The carrying capacity of our water resource systems are being taxed beyond their ability to function sustainably. State budgets cannot address the profound stresses that have resulted from increased population.
The focus of the debate needs to address real solutions to the consequences of the migration. The border with Mexico will inherently be porous and will be circumvented. The government of Mexico is no more concerned about addressing the migration than the government of the United States is. It remains their own social safety valve in addressing the poverty of their own citizens and a source for revenues that are sent to family members in Mexico. This is the international context of the issue. It extends beyond the impact of NAFTA and the maquiladoras. Those fleeing poverty and oppression in Mexico are not to blame for their willingness to risk their safety for a brighter future in America. But we cannot absorb the profound impacts based on existing policies or continued massive influxes of people.
The Arizona law is indeed bad law and will not contribute to the real tasks ahead. A real discussion needs to be based on what is not working and why, as well as how can we begin to provide workable solutions. Polarization of ethnic communities is sharpening and the Arizona law has increased it. It is worth our while to seek the foundations of the conflict, grasp how to increase our abilities to recognize the social conflicts that have arisen and provide some real assurances that public officials are beginning to address real concerns of people on all sides of the issues. Repealing the Arizona law would be the first step in recognizing the dramatic impact of it on perceptions among Hispanics in America.
The recent passage of a ban on ethnic studies curricula in Arizona will not solve the problems of high dropout rates in Arizona and California. It will not address the lack of achievement of students in the United States. It might be worth mentioning the failure of public education in both Arizona and California. This new law against Chicano studies will not decrease drop-outs, or improve the skills of non-English speaking students or provide technological education for the future economy. Priorities need to be made. This is not an instance of funding priorities, and for that reason and others I would not support this law. It is solely intended to polarize Arizona's people.
The fundamental issue remains the failure of American public education and the failures of American students to achieve up to grade level. It is curious though when this bill becomes such a focus of the media when compared to Prop 100 in Arizona which seeks to protect funding for public schools. The resulting boycotts from California cities is increasing the volatility of the issue. I guess if you can't do anything about improving public education, it is more effective for politicians to posture and point their fingers of disdain at the "bad dogs" in other states.
Our infrastructure in California is becoming critically overburdened. California public officials would do better to address our significant needs in education and address the budget and public infrastructure issues with a real sense of priorities for Californians.
Monday, May 03, 2010
5 Reasons to Vote 'NO' on Top 2 Primary 'Reform'
[Editor's Note: This commentary was originally posted on Green Change]
Published by Green Change, April 27, 2010
The top five reasons for Californians to reject Top Two Primaries
by Dave Schwab
On 8 June 2010, voters in California will decide the fate of Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act. If Top Two primaries are adopted, all candidates for Congress and state office in California will run in the June primary on a single ballot used by all voters. Then, only the two candidates who receive the two highest vote totals will be allowed to run in the general election.
Proponents of Top Two, aware that California voters rejected the idea in 2004, have been claiming that Top Two will fix California's government by reducing partisan gridlock. There is nothing from the experience of the states that use Top Two to support their claims. However, there is ample evidence that Top Two further entrenches incumbents and reduces voter choice. In fact, it's more than likely that Top Two would reinforce gridlock and entrench the same politicians who created it.
Close consideration shows not only that Top Two won't work, but also that it is unpopular, undemocratic, unconstitutional, and unnecessary. There are many good election reforms that deserve support, but Proposition 14 is not one of them. Let's explore the top five reasons for California voters to reject Top Two:
1. Top Two won't work.
Proponents claim that Top Two will reduce partisanship in elections, the supposed cause of dysfunction in California state government. There is nothing in the experience of the states that have used Top Two, Louisiana and Washington, to suggest that it reduces partisanship. To be honest, backers of Proposition 14 should be saying that Top Two entrenches incumbents. When Washington used Top Two for the first time in 2008, out of 123 state legislative races, 8 Congressional races, and 8 statewide races, only a single incumbent was defeated in the primary - a state legislator who had a personal scandal and would almost certainly have been defeated under any system.
The claim that Top Two will reduce gridlock in California's legislature is baseless. In the words of election law expert Richard Winger, "The real cause of gridlock in the California legislature is the rule that budgets can only be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature… The real solution to solve California's budget gridlock is to eliminate the rule that the budget can only be passed with two-thirds of the legislators in each house… We should let the majority party in the legislature govern. If the voters elect a majority party, let that majority party pass its budget. If we don't like that budget, we not only have recall, initiative or referendum, we can defeat the majority party in the next election and replace it."
Top Two would front-load the election season with an early, make-or-break primary. In the short season before the primary, the advantage to candidates with the money to bombard voters with advertising would be multiplied many times over. In an era where special interests and their front groups can funnel billions of dollars into political campaigns, independent candidates who run on good ideas and grassroots organizing will find it virtually impossible to compete with well-funded political insiders.
It's unrealistic, too, to expect that the press will counter this imbalance by providing the voters with fair and balanced coverage. The media already pays more attention to political horse races than to candidates' positions on the issues. If Top Two is passed, it's improbable that the media will suddenly make the extra effort to fully inform the voters about all their choices before the primary. More likely, media outlets will simply try to pick the likely Top Two winners based on how well known and well-funded they are, and largely ignore the other candidates.
The claim that Top Two will solve California's political problems has no factual basis. In fact, the evidence suggests that it could make existing problems worse. Perhaps most unrealistic is the idea that limiting voters' choices in the general election will somehow make politics better. Aside from incumbent politicians, who honestly believes that giving voters less choice in elections will improve anything?
2. Top Two is unpopular.
In 2004, California voters rejected Top Two by voting 54% against Proposition 62. In 2008, voters in nearby Oregon rejected Ballot Measure 65, which would have established a Top Two system, in a landslide of 66%.
On the other hand, instant runoff voting, an improved voting system that protects voter choice, has won approval from voters in San Francisco, Berkeley, Davis, and Oakland by margins of 56%, 72%, 55%, and 69%, respectively. Charter amendments authorizing use of instant runoff voting, or IRV, have passed in San Leandro and Santa Clara counties. After using IRV for the first time, 82% of San Francisco voters said they preferred IRV to the city's previous election system.
The numbers don't lie: instant runoff voting is as popular as Top Two is unpopular. So why are political insiders pushing for Top Two, which has recently been rejected by Californians and a full two-thirds of voters in Oregon?
3. Top Two is undemocratic.
By design, Top Two restricts voter choice. By cutting down the field of candidates in primary season, which is notoriously dominated by big-spending special interests and party bosses, Top Two guarantees that most independent and third-party candidates, as well as grassroots candidates in the major parties, will be out of the race before most voters and journalists are even paying attention. Opposition to Top Two from numerous election reform groups, as well as voices from across the political spectrum, demonstrates Americans' basic understanding that limiting voter choice runs counter to the idea of democracy. Voters should have the right to vote for the candidates and parties they agree with, and the public discourse suffers when independent voices are cut out of the debate.
Proponents of Top Two often claim that it won't hurt third parties and independents. Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, America's leading expert on ballot access laws, explains why this is false: "In practice, [Top Two] would eliminate minor party and independent candidates from the November ballot. We know this is true because Washington State tried the system for the first time in 2008, and that's what happened. Washington, for the first time since it became a state in 1889, had no minor party or independent candidates in November for any statewide state race or for any congressional race."
Top Two would effectively restrict voter choice to two parties - or one party in many districts. Although the Constitution makes no mention of political parties, the practical effect of Top Two would be to give the Democratic and Republican parties a monopoly on power. Which leads to the next problem with Top Two:
4. Top Two is unconstitutional.
Americans' First Amendment right to association gives us the right to support any political party we choose. The right of political parties to run candidates for office is violated when the electoral system is set up to make it easy for dominant parties to push everyone else off the ballot. If the Democratic and Whig parties had passed laws to protect incumbent politicians and ruling parties in the 19th century, we would probably never have had a President Abraham Lincoln or a Republican Party.
Proposition 14 would immediately disqualify the Libertarian and Peace and Freedom parties, further violating their members' First Amendment right to free association. America's founders warned that political parties could try to use their power to further their own narrow self-interest. What would they think about a proposed law that would give two parties a virtual stranglehold on elections?
5. Top Two is unnecessary.
Instant runoff voting, an improved voting system used in San Francisco and other California cities, actually delivers the benefits that Top Two is supposed to, without the drawbacks that make Top Two worse than the status quo. Even with more than two candidates on the ballot, instant runoff voting, or IRV, ensures that the candidate with the broadest support will be the winner.
Under IRV, voters rank the candidates in their order of preference - as election reform advocates say, "IRV is as easy as 1, 2, 3." If no candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and votes for the eliminated candidate are transferred to voters' next choices. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.
Instant runoff voting has several clear advantages. It eliminates the common problem of "spoiled elections", in which one candidate wins without majority support. In the same way, it eliminates the problem of similar candidates "splitting the vote", and actually encourages positive campaigning, since it creates an incentive for candidates to appeal to their rivals' supporters. Finally, since IRV produces a majority winner no matter how many candidates are on the ballot, it allows for an informative and broad debate during election season, with voters exposed to a range of views before making their decision.
Top Two is a deeply flawed system in comparison with instant runoff voting. With Top Two, vote-splitting will still be a problem in multi-candidate races. Negative campaigning will become the norm under Top Two: like a game of king of the mountain, candidates will throw each other in the mud in hopes of coming out on top.
Realistically, Top Two will not accomplish what its proponents claim, aside from producing false "majority winners" selected by a plurality of a minority of voters. In other words, when 10% of voters turn out for the Top Two primary and vote 40% for Candidate A and 35% for Candidate B, that doesn't mean that the other 92.5% of voters are going to feel that they have a satisfactory choice in either Candidate A or B.
If Top Two passes, the political discourse will suffer, because the period between June primaries and November elections, currently the most active time for public debate, will be purged of the independent, third party, and grassroots candidates who so often bring fresh, innovative ideas to politics. Instead, the range of opinions voters hear will be restricted to two, often coming from candidates in the same party.
Instead of front-loading the election cycle with a make-or-break Top Two primary, instant runoff voting would allow all candidates to compete in the general election, when the vast majority of voters actually turn out. Voters would get to hear and consider viewpoints from a wider range of candidates in the general election, not just two candidates who may well belong to the same party. After considering what all the candidates have to say, voters could get out their instant runoff ballots and support the candidates they agree with most, without fear of inadvertently helping the candidates they agree with least. Maybe that's why voters prefer IRV: instead of feeling pressured to support the lesser of two evils, they can support their favorite candidates - whether liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, American Independent, or just plain independent - and know that their vote won't be wasted.
Instant runoff voting produces winners with broad majority support more reliably than Top Two, and without the problems that make Top Two worse than no reform. Why should voters accept an unnecessary and flawed system, when a better system is already gaining ground throughout California?
The top five reasons to reject Top Two - plus one
To recapitulate, Top Two won't work - at least not like proponents claim it will. Top Two is unpopular - voters recently rejected it in California and Oregon. Top Two is undemocratic - it restricts voter choice and suppresses independent voices outside the two-party political establishment. Top Two is unconstitutional - it violates our civil rights by giving two parties an effective monopoly on power. Finally, Top Two is unnecessary, when instant runoff voting is better on all counts.
One last reason to vote against Proposition 14: Top Two is a top-down proposal. Ballot measures like Proposition 14 always seem to come from political insiders, usually with the backing of wealthy special interests to help advertise the alleged benefits of Top Two to a skeptical public. Indeed, Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot as part of a vote-trading deal by State Senator Abel Maldonado, who felt Top Two could help his ambitions for higher office. Governor Schwarzenegger has funneled $500,000 from his personal PAC into the campaign for Top Two, including money from corporations like Chevron, PG&E, and Wal-Mart. Corporations that have donated directly to the Proposition 14 effort include Hewlett Packard, Blue Shield of California, and Pacific Life Insurance Company. In the words of election reformer Christina Tobin, who is running as the Libertarian candidate for California Secretary of State, "It is safe to assume that large corporations regulated by the state want to have government in their pockets. They want to maintain the two-party status quo."
Instant runoff voting, on the other hand, always comes from the grassroots. Campaigns for IRV are led by active citizens, community organizers and voters' rights groups like FairVote, Californians for Electoral Reform, and the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (all of which are opposing Proposition 14). Referendum victories show that voters like the idea of IRV, and exit polls show that voters like how it works in practice. If the goal is to fix California's election system so that it will produce winners with majority support, why are Proposition 14's backers pushing the flawed, unpopular Top Two system instead of instant runoff voting?
All Californians who value democratic freedoms and sincerely want better elections should vote no on Proposition 14. Even members of the Republican and Democratic parties, if they heed the founders' warnings about political factions, should recognize the danger of cementing the Democratic-Republican monopoly on power and vote no. You don't have to be a libertarian to value the civil and political liberties of your fellow Americans. For supporters of electoral reform, Top Two is just a distraction from the real goals of instant runoff voting and other worthy reforms like proportional representation. We have better options than Top Two - options that we might not know about today, if Top Two had been in place earlier to stifle independent voices in the public arena.
Here's what you can do to help stop Top Two:
Published by Green Change, April 27, 2010
The top five reasons for Californians to reject Top Two Primaries
by Dave Schwab
On 8 June 2010, voters in California will decide the fate of Proposition 14, the Top Two Primaries Act. If Top Two primaries are adopted, all candidates for Congress and state office in California will run in the June primary on a single ballot used by all voters. Then, only the two candidates who receive the two highest vote totals will be allowed to run in the general election.
Proponents of Top Two, aware that California voters rejected the idea in 2004, have been claiming that Top Two will fix California's government by reducing partisan gridlock. There is nothing from the experience of the states that use Top Two to support their claims. However, there is ample evidence that Top Two further entrenches incumbents and reduces voter choice. In fact, it's more than likely that Top Two would reinforce gridlock and entrench the same politicians who created it.
- Top Two won't work.
- Top Two is unpopular.
- Two is undemocratic.
- Top Two is unconstitutional.
- Two is unecessary.
Close consideration shows not only that Top Two won't work, but also that it is unpopular, undemocratic, unconstitutional, and unnecessary. There are many good election reforms that deserve support, but Proposition 14 is not one of them. Let's explore the top five reasons for California voters to reject Top Two:
1. Top Two won't work.
Proponents claim that Top Two will reduce partisanship in elections, the supposed cause of dysfunction in California state government. There is nothing in the experience of the states that have used Top Two, Louisiana and Washington, to suggest that it reduces partisanship. To be honest, backers of Proposition 14 should be saying that Top Two entrenches incumbents. When Washington used Top Two for the first time in 2008, out of 123 state legislative races, 8 Congressional races, and 8 statewide races, only a single incumbent was defeated in the primary - a state legislator who had a personal scandal and would almost certainly have been defeated under any system.
The claim that Top Two will reduce gridlock in California's legislature is baseless. In the words of election law expert Richard Winger, "The real cause of gridlock in the California legislature is the rule that budgets can only be passed by a two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature… The real solution to solve California's budget gridlock is to eliminate the rule that the budget can only be passed with two-thirds of the legislators in each house… We should let the majority party in the legislature govern. If the voters elect a majority party, let that majority party pass its budget. If we don't like that budget, we not only have recall, initiative or referendum, we can defeat the majority party in the next election and replace it."
Top Two would front-load the election season with an early, make-or-break primary. In the short season before the primary, the advantage to candidates with the money to bombard voters with advertising would be multiplied many times over. In an era where special interests and their front groups can funnel billions of dollars into political campaigns, independent candidates who run on good ideas and grassroots organizing will find it virtually impossible to compete with well-funded political insiders.
It's unrealistic, too, to expect that the press will counter this imbalance by providing the voters with fair and balanced coverage. The media already pays more attention to political horse races than to candidates' positions on the issues. If Top Two is passed, it's improbable that the media will suddenly make the extra effort to fully inform the voters about all their choices before the primary. More likely, media outlets will simply try to pick the likely Top Two winners based on how well known and well-funded they are, and largely ignore the other candidates.
The claim that Top Two will solve California's political problems has no factual basis. In fact, the evidence suggests that it could make existing problems worse. Perhaps most unrealistic is the idea that limiting voters' choices in the general election will somehow make politics better. Aside from incumbent politicians, who honestly believes that giving voters less choice in elections will improve anything?
2. Top Two is unpopular.
In 2004, California voters rejected Top Two by voting 54% against Proposition 62. In 2008, voters in nearby Oregon rejected Ballot Measure 65, which would have established a Top Two system, in a landslide of 66%.
On the other hand, instant runoff voting, an improved voting system that protects voter choice, has won approval from voters in San Francisco, Berkeley, Davis, and Oakland by margins of 56%, 72%, 55%, and 69%, respectively. Charter amendments authorizing use of instant runoff voting, or IRV, have passed in San Leandro and Santa Clara counties. After using IRV for the first time, 82% of San Francisco voters said they preferred IRV to the city's previous election system.
The numbers don't lie: instant runoff voting is as popular as Top Two is unpopular. So why are political insiders pushing for Top Two, which has recently been rejected by Californians and a full two-thirds of voters in Oregon?
3. Top Two is undemocratic.
By design, Top Two restricts voter choice. By cutting down the field of candidates in primary season, which is notoriously dominated by big-spending special interests and party bosses, Top Two guarantees that most independent and third-party candidates, as well as grassroots candidates in the major parties, will be out of the race before most voters and journalists are even paying attention. Opposition to Top Two from numerous election reform groups, as well as voices from across the political spectrum, demonstrates Americans' basic understanding that limiting voter choice runs counter to the idea of democracy. Voters should have the right to vote for the candidates and parties they agree with, and the public discourse suffers when independent voices are cut out of the debate.
Proponents of Top Two often claim that it won't hurt third parties and independents. Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, America's leading expert on ballot access laws, explains why this is false: "In practice, [Top Two] would eliminate minor party and independent candidates from the November ballot. We know this is true because Washington State tried the system for the first time in 2008, and that's what happened. Washington, for the first time since it became a state in 1889, had no minor party or independent candidates in November for any statewide state race or for any congressional race."
Top Two would effectively restrict voter choice to two parties - or one party in many districts. Although the Constitution makes no mention of political parties, the practical effect of Top Two would be to give the Democratic and Republican parties a monopoly on power. Which leads to the next problem with Top Two:
4. Top Two is unconstitutional.
Americans' First Amendment right to association gives us the right to support any political party we choose. The right of political parties to run candidates for office is violated when the electoral system is set up to make it easy for dominant parties to push everyone else off the ballot. If the Democratic and Whig parties had passed laws to protect incumbent politicians and ruling parties in the 19th century, we would probably never have had a President Abraham Lincoln or a Republican Party.
Proposition 14 would immediately disqualify the Libertarian and Peace and Freedom parties, further violating their members' First Amendment right to free association. America's founders warned that political parties could try to use their power to further their own narrow self-interest. What would they think about a proposed law that would give two parties a virtual stranglehold on elections?
5. Top Two is unnecessary.
Instant runoff voting, an improved voting system used in San Francisco and other California cities, actually delivers the benefits that Top Two is supposed to, without the drawbacks that make Top Two worse than the status quo. Even with more than two candidates on the ballot, instant runoff voting, or IRV, ensures that the candidate with the broadest support will be the winner.
Under IRV, voters rank the candidates in their order of preference - as election reform advocates say, "IRV is as easy as 1, 2, 3." If no candidate receives a majority of first-place votes, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and votes for the eliminated candidate are transferred to voters' next choices. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.
Instant runoff voting has several clear advantages. It eliminates the common problem of "spoiled elections", in which one candidate wins without majority support. In the same way, it eliminates the problem of similar candidates "splitting the vote", and actually encourages positive campaigning, since it creates an incentive for candidates to appeal to their rivals' supporters. Finally, since IRV produces a majority winner no matter how many candidates are on the ballot, it allows for an informative and broad debate during election season, with voters exposed to a range of views before making their decision.
Top Two is a deeply flawed system in comparison with instant runoff voting. With Top Two, vote-splitting will still be a problem in multi-candidate races. Negative campaigning will become the norm under Top Two: like a game of king of the mountain, candidates will throw each other in the mud in hopes of coming out on top.
Realistically, Top Two will not accomplish what its proponents claim, aside from producing false "majority winners" selected by a plurality of a minority of voters. In other words, when 10% of voters turn out for the Top Two primary and vote 40% for Candidate A and 35% for Candidate B, that doesn't mean that the other 92.5% of voters are going to feel that they have a satisfactory choice in either Candidate A or B.
If Top Two passes, the political discourse will suffer, because the period between June primaries and November elections, currently the most active time for public debate, will be purged of the independent, third party, and grassroots candidates who so often bring fresh, innovative ideas to politics. Instead, the range of opinions voters hear will be restricted to two, often coming from candidates in the same party.
Instead of front-loading the election cycle with a make-or-break Top Two primary, instant runoff voting would allow all candidates to compete in the general election, when the vast majority of voters actually turn out. Voters would get to hear and consider viewpoints from a wider range of candidates in the general election, not just two candidates who may well belong to the same party. After considering what all the candidates have to say, voters could get out their instant runoff ballots and support the candidates they agree with most, without fear of inadvertently helping the candidates they agree with least. Maybe that's why voters prefer IRV: instead of feeling pressured to support the lesser of two evils, they can support their favorite candidates - whether liberal, conservative, moderate, Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, American Independent, or just plain independent - and know that their vote won't be wasted.
Instant runoff voting produces winners with broad majority support more reliably than Top Two, and without the problems that make Top Two worse than no reform. Why should voters accept an unnecessary and flawed system, when a better system is already gaining ground throughout California?
The top five reasons to reject Top Two - plus one
To recapitulate, Top Two won't work - at least not like proponents claim it will. Top Two is unpopular - voters recently rejected it in California and Oregon. Top Two is undemocratic - it restricts voter choice and suppresses independent voices outside the two-party political establishment. Top Two is unconstitutional - it violates our civil rights by giving two parties an effective monopoly on power. Finally, Top Two is unnecessary, when instant runoff voting is better on all counts.
One last reason to vote against Proposition 14: Top Two is a top-down proposal. Ballot measures like Proposition 14 always seem to come from political insiders, usually with the backing of wealthy special interests to help advertise the alleged benefits of Top Two to a skeptical public. Indeed, Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot as part of a vote-trading deal by State Senator Abel Maldonado, who felt Top Two could help his ambitions for higher office. Governor Schwarzenegger has funneled $500,000 from his personal PAC into the campaign for Top Two, including money from corporations like Chevron, PG&E, and Wal-Mart. Corporations that have donated directly to the Proposition 14 effort include Hewlett Packard, Blue Shield of California, and Pacific Life Insurance Company. In the words of election reformer Christina Tobin, who is running as the Libertarian candidate for California Secretary of State, "It is safe to assume that large corporations regulated by the state want to have government in their pockets. They want to maintain the two-party status quo."
Instant runoff voting, on the other hand, always comes from the grassroots. Campaigns for IRV are led by active citizens, community organizers and voters' rights groups like FairVote, Californians for Electoral Reform, and the Coalition for Free and Open Elections (all of which are opposing Proposition 14). Referendum victories show that voters like the idea of IRV, and exit polls show that voters like how it works in practice. If the goal is to fix California's election system so that it will produce winners with majority support, why are Proposition 14's backers pushing the flawed, unpopular Top Two system instead of instant runoff voting?
All Californians who value democratic freedoms and sincerely want better elections should vote no on Proposition 14. Even members of the Republican and Democratic parties, if they heed the founders' warnings about political factions, should recognize the danger of cementing the Democratic-Republican monopoly on power and vote no. You don't have to be a libertarian to value the civil and political liberties of your fellow Americans. For supporters of electoral reform, Top Two is just a distraction from the real goals of instant runoff voting and other worthy reforms like proportional representation. We have better options than Top Two - options that we might not know about today, if Top Two had been in place earlier to stifle independent voices in the public arena.
Here's what you can do to help stop Top Two:
- Share this article with your friends and family.
- Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper explaining why you oppose Proposition 14.
- Volunteer with Green Change to help stop Top Two.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
A New Look at Owens Lake
Massive diversions of water in northern California have attained the status of “best practice” in water management. This practice runs contrary to sustainability as an underlying principle of water allocations. Water politics in this state is focused in a state legislature that is not reflective of the needs of users. Looking at the ecological changes around Owens Lake may not be as important as looking at the ramifications of the diversion of Owens Lake to Los Angeles. The series of articles at the website http://m.ammoth.us/blog/2010/04/owens-lake/ are updates of the current status on the ecosystems surrounding Owens Lake and the changing relation between urban and rural ecosystems.
Not mentioned in this narrative (Wyoming is in Los Angeles) is the battle waged by agricultural and ranching users in the Owens Valley region that reached the level of armed conflict. Unless a new model, based on adaptive governance and regional water planning, is adopted throughout the state of California, the political influences of southern users will continue to have their way.
States, such as Texas, have demonstrated the effectiveness of regional water plans and have increased the ability of local users to construct plans based on regional supplies. The issue is how can we establish processes that protect the the needs and concerns of local users, address the hydrological and environmental ramifications of decisions when others are free to come in and open the spigot for others. At what point do decisions that rob one region of the water resource for the benefit of others reach the level of being arbitrary and capricious? Why are voters throughout the state empowered to make the decisions that will not impact on their lives?
Underlying the questions is how we try to learn the lessons from the Owens Valley experience. It’s all very good for us to aesthetically gaze on the remarkable changes in Owens Lake ecosystem. It’s another thing to incorporate the reasonable concerns of users who are robbed of their needed resource as a vital component before decisions concerning diversions are made.
Reply
rholmes says:
April 27, 2010 at 9:06 amThanks for the comment, Martin.
The last thing we would want to do is merely “aesthetically gaze” on Owens Lake! Though I won’t deny that mammoth has a bit of fascination with weird and broken ecologies, our fascination has as much to do with the histories, functions, and futures of those ecologies as it does to do with their aesthetic properties.
It is quite true that this post skipped over the Water Wars and the ethical ramifications of the diversion of water which collects in the Owens Valley to Los Angeles, but it should be noted that a discussion of both the history of conflict over water rights in Owens Valley and of the contentious future of southern California’s demands for water is part of the text which we are reading, so the issue has by no means escaped our notice.
You raise a very interesting and difficult question, which is how best to balance the water needs of a distant majority with the obvious economic and environmental water interests of the localities that they obtain their water from.
I’m curious what your proscription for resolving that tension would be — it seems to me that you feel the decision-making process is rigged in a way that disadvantages the Owens Valley (which, historically, is obviously accurate), but what does a more just allocation look like to you?
I’m not familiar with Texan regional water plans, but I’d be quite curious to learn more, particularly if those plans do demonstrate a more equitable resolution of this tension. Can you point us towards a source that discusses them?
Reply
Martin Zehr says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:35 amThank you for your response.
As a participant in the Middle Rio Grande regional planning process, I spent close to ten years working in a model of ecological democracy in the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho region of NM. I would point you to the website of the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly as a specific model in which I was engaged. The website is: http://www.waterassembly.org The plan is accessible on the Home page.
My reference to the Texas plan is a result of the frequent news articles that have appeared in regards to the updates that are ongoing in Texas. Also, as good as the process was in the Middle Rio Grande, it failed in the implementation stage because municipalities failed to utilize its recommendations and overview. Despite the fact that governmental entities, irrigator associations, county commissions and flood control agencies signed off on the plan before it was submitted to the Interstate Stream Commission, the Bernalillo County Commission was the only entity to reference the plan in its water conservation ordinance.
As a Green urban user, I spent much time on the Urban Users and Economic Development Advocates’ committee that was represented on Action Committee. As a member of that committee, I represented Green [Party] urban users and sought to integrate quality of life issues with the plan’s recommendations and preferred scenario.
The reason for this is a political issue. As users in California know, those making the decisions are not those impacted the most by them. The planning process in California is top-down and has little real authority in regards to establishing regional water budgets or Public Welfare statements. Its advisory character is directed towards a state plan that remains weak and undirected in regards to regional users, the science and the environment. Furthermore, the state legislature continues to undermine regional planning through inter-regional diversions to both urban and rural users in southern California. Likewise, the oveerlapping jurisdictions and conflicting agencies continue to make water management and administration a Gordian knot if we were to establish adaptive governance and regional planning as the underlying principles.
Reply
Martin Zehr says:
April 27, 2010 at 2:18 pm“if we were to establish adaptive governance and regional planning as the underlying principles.”
should read “UNTIL we slice through it by establishing adaptive governance and regional planning…”
The planning template provided to the 16 planning regions in NM by the Interstate Stream Commission included a stipulation for regions to provide a plan that was not dependent on transfers from other regions in order to be balanced.
The goals of the MRG plan included a stipulation to “balance growth with renewable supplies” that was opposed by the WRB of the Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments thereby making an administrative body of the local municipalities a significant obstacle in the implementation of the regional plan. (see section 1.3.3 of the plan )
Reply
rholmes says:
April 28, 2010 at 9:51 amThanks, Martin. We appreciate you taking the time to relay your experiences and providing us with a first-hand account of the politics of hydrology, attesting to the importance of good, responsive governance and transparent planning processes (through what sounds like their unfortunate absence).
From the executive summary, it looks like the Middle Rio Grande plan was a very reasonable document.
These are exactly the sorts of issues which architects and landscape architects need to be able to negotiate successfully and publicly (and ethically!), if we’re going to contribute to the planning, design, and re-design of large-scale infrastructures.
Reply
Not mentioned in this narrative (Wyoming is in Los Angeles) is the battle waged by agricultural and ranching users in the Owens Valley region that reached the level of armed conflict. Unless a new model, based on adaptive governance and regional water planning, is adopted throughout the state of California, the political influences of southern users will continue to have their way.
States, such as Texas, have demonstrated the effectiveness of regional water plans and have increased the ability of local users to construct plans based on regional supplies. The issue is how can we establish processes that protect the the needs and concerns of local users, address the hydrological and environmental ramifications of decisions when others are free to come in and open the spigot for others. At what point do decisions that rob one region of the water resource for the benefit of others reach the level of being arbitrary and capricious? Why are voters throughout the state empowered to make the decisions that will not impact on their lives?
Underlying the questions is how we try to learn the lessons from the Owens Valley experience. It’s all very good for us to aesthetically gaze on the remarkable changes in Owens Lake ecosystem. It’s another thing to incorporate the reasonable concerns of users who are robbed of their needed resource as a vital component before decisions concerning diversions are made.
Reply
rholmes says:
April 27, 2010 at 9:06 amThanks for the comment, Martin.
The last thing we would want to do is merely “aesthetically gaze” on Owens Lake! Though I won’t deny that mammoth has a bit of fascination with weird and broken ecologies, our fascination has as much to do with the histories, functions, and futures of those ecologies as it does to do with their aesthetic properties.
It is quite true that this post skipped over the Water Wars and the ethical ramifications of the diversion of water which collects in the Owens Valley to Los Angeles, but it should be noted that a discussion of both the history of conflict over water rights in Owens Valley and of the contentious future of southern California’s demands for water is part of the text which we are reading, so the issue has by no means escaped our notice.
You raise a very interesting and difficult question, which is how best to balance the water needs of a distant majority with the obvious economic and environmental water interests of the localities that they obtain their water from.
I’m curious what your proscription for resolving that tension would be — it seems to me that you feel the decision-making process is rigged in a way that disadvantages the Owens Valley (which, historically, is obviously accurate), but what does a more just allocation look like to you?
I’m not familiar with Texan regional water plans, but I’d be quite curious to learn more, particularly if those plans do demonstrate a more equitable resolution of this tension. Can you point us towards a source that discusses them?
Reply
Martin Zehr says:
April 27, 2010 at 10:35 amThank you for your response.
As a participant in the Middle Rio Grande regional planning process, I spent close to ten years working in a model of ecological democracy in the Albuquerque-Rio Rancho region of NM. I would point you to the website of the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly as a specific model in which I was engaged. The website is: http://www.waterassembly.org The plan is accessible on the Home page.
My reference to the Texas plan is a result of the frequent news articles that have appeared in regards to the updates that are ongoing in Texas. Also, as good as the process was in the Middle Rio Grande, it failed in the implementation stage because municipalities failed to utilize its recommendations and overview. Despite the fact that governmental entities, irrigator associations, county commissions and flood control agencies signed off on the plan before it was submitted to the Interstate Stream Commission, the Bernalillo County Commission was the only entity to reference the plan in its water conservation ordinance.
As a Green urban user, I spent much time on the Urban Users and Economic Development Advocates’ committee that was represented on Action Committee. As a member of that committee, I represented Green [Party] urban users and sought to integrate quality of life issues with the plan’s recommendations and preferred scenario.
The reason for this is a political issue. As users in California know, those making the decisions are not those impacted the most by them. The planning process in California is top-down and has little real authority in regards to establishing regional water budgets or Public Welfare statements. Its advisory character is directed towards a state plan that remains weak and undirected in regards to regional users, the science and the environment. Furthermore, the state legislature continues to undermine regional planning through inter-regional diversions to both urban and rural users in southern California. Likewise, the oveerlapping jurisdictions and conflicting agencies continue to make water management and administration a Gordian knot if we were to establish adaptive governance and regional planning as the underlying principles.
Reply
Martin Zehr says:
April 27, 2010 at 2:18 pm“if we were to establish adaptive governance and regional planning as the underlying principles.”
should read “UNTIL we slice through it by establishing adaptive governance and regional planning…”
The planning template provided to the 16 planning regions in NM by the Interstate Stream Commission included a stipulation for regions to provide a plan that was not dependent on transfers from other regions in order to be balanced.
The goals of the MRG plan included a stipulation to “balance growth with renewable supplies” that was opposed by the WRB of the Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments thereby making an administrative body of the local municipalities a significant obstacle in the implementation of the regional plan. (see section 1.3.3 of the plan )
Reply
rholmes says:
April 28, 2010 at 9:51 amThanks, Martin. We appreciate you taking the time to relay your experiences and providing us with a first-hand account of the politics of hydrology, attesting to the importance of good, responsive governance and transparent planning processes (through what sounds like their unfortunate absence).
From the executive summary, it looks like the Middle Rio Grande plan was a very reasonable document.
These are exactly the sorts of issues which architects and landscape architects need to be able to negotiate successfully and publicly (and ethically!), if we’re going to contribute to the planning, design, and re-design of large-scale infrastructures.
Reply
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Arizona's New "Anti-Immigrant" Law
Let's get to the heart of the problem. The proposed method of the "immigrant crackdown" is aimed at American citizens through a massive system of stopping, demanding papers and incarcerating or charging Americans without the approriate identification. This is a fundamental assumption of powers reminiscent of dictatorships in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. You can't be where you "don't belong" unless you can justify it. Having lived in NM, I have gone through many immigration checkpoints. Going into Mexico with Peace and Dignity and coming back again we had our vehicles searched. But all these are point of entry procedures. This on the other hand establishes a distinct class of individuals within the United States who are subject to public harrassment that include large numbers of American citizens. It not only won't work but is a restriction on the personal liberties of individuals, establishes restrictions on travel and movement and fundamentally alters the assumption of "reasonable suspicion" required for law enforcement officials.
It does absolutely nothing in addressing the profound impacts of the migration on public infrastructure in the US. Nor does it address the failure of the Mexican government to address the issue from its end better. It is critical for Greens to begin to wake up and address the massive impacts on the Carrying Capacity of our resource management, our public health services and our public educational systems. The political discussion to be held is not one that seeks to increase the police powers of our states or the Federal Government. Neither can it be focused on the agendas of posturing politicians promoting a new "iron curtain" on the border.
We cannot simply assume that we can address the circumstances that have arisen without new political structures and improved investments in public infrastructure. The United States alone accounts for 37.1% of the world's net immigration total. We do no one a favor when we simply disregard the impact of massive increases of people on our institutions. Plans for naturalization or amnesty need to address current impacts of the profound increases in population on our urban and rural communities. The duopoly political parties have disregarded the fundamental denials of education and health care that has resulted when emergency rooms are shut down or schools are not equipped to address the needs of the 44% of students in the state of California who speak a langauge other than English at home. The Green Party has the credentials, as a "green" party, to address these issues and remove the attempts to deny the rights and liberties of Americans.
The California Green Party candidates and Platform need to address the impacts of the continued population increases without contributing to xenophobic rhetoric. We need to be wary of simply echoing others and begin to find our own ways that reflect the valid concerns and worries of the California electorate and all the people of California. New solutions require better methods of addressing problems and not simply forcing draconian measures that attack our liberties. We certainly cannot leave the solutions to those with their own interests in maintaining the status quo or making the situation more divisive and repressive.
It does absolutely nothing in addressing the profound impacts of the migration on public infrastructure in the US. Nor does it address the failure of the Mexican government to address the issue from its end better. It is critical for Greens to begin to wake up and address the massive impacts on the Carrying Capacity of our resource management, our public health services and our public educational systems. The political discussion to be held is not one that seeks to increase the police powers of our states or the Federal Government. Neither can it be focused on the agendas of posturing politicians promoting a new "iron curtain" on the border.
We cannot simply assume that we can address the circumstances that have arisen without new political structures and improved investments in public infrastructure. The United States alone accounts for 37.1% of the world's net immigration total. We do no one a favor when we simply disregard the impact of massive increases of people on our institutions. Plans for naturalization or amnesty need to address current impacts of the profound increases in population on our urban and rural communities. The duopoly political parties have disregarded the fundamental denials of education and health care that has resulted when emergency rooms are shut down or schools are not equipped to address the needs of the 44% of students in the state of California who speak a langauge other than English at home. The Green Party has the credentials, as a "green" party, to address these issues and remove the attempts to deny the rights and liberties of Americans.
The California Green Party candidates and Platform need to address the impacts of the continued population increases without contributing to xenophobic rhetoric. We need to be wary of simply echoing others and begin to find our own ways that reflect the valid concerns and worries of the California electorate and all the people of California. New solutions require better methods of addressing problems and not simply forcing draconian measures that attack our liberties. We certainly cannot leave the solutions to those with their own interests in maintaining the status quo or making the situation more divisive and repressive.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Cal Democratic Convention: Winograd vs. Harman
Originally Posted on Dick & Sharon's LA Progressive, April 19, 2010
"Clearly the Party Leadership Circled the Wagons"
by Caitlin Frazier
To many attending the California Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles last weekend, the vote to approve or object to the endorsement of Rep. Jane Harman (CA/36), was too close to call – certainly not reflective of a frenzied convention tabulation Party Chair John Burton delivered with the qualifier, “No one was bribed.”After over a thousand votes were counted in just a few minutes, congressional challenger Marcy Winograd questioned the validity of the approximately 60-40% vote count to endorse Harman. Said Winograd, “I saw a sea of objections to Harman’s endorsement. I don’t know who had the majority of the floor, but I suspect the reported tally was way off. Delegations overlooked by the counters had to scream to get counted.”
To push the vote to the floor, a hundred Winograd for Congress supporters gathered at the convention Saturday night to collect nearly 500 delegate objections in four hours to Harman’s pre-endorsement by the local caucus, composed of mostly elected officials and their appointees.
On the floor of the convention, Party leadership tried to cut off debate, then had officers leave the stage to argue for Harman’s endorsement on the floor because Harman herself did not even show up. “Clearly the leadership was taken aback at the strength of our challenge and circled the wagons,” said Winograd.
In her speech, Winograd told fellow delegates, “Brothers and sisters, rank and file Democrats, this is a struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Are we for jobs or wars, homes or big banks, our street or Wall Street? You have the power to change the course of history.”
With the endorsement process over, Winograd will concentrate on reaching the voters directly with her message of grassroots empowerment. “It is time to end the corporate stranglehold on Congress and usher in a new day for working families,” said Winograd.
Caitlin Frazier is Press Secretary for Marcy Winograd
Photo by Ralph Oden
"Clearly the Party Leadership Circled the Wagons"
by Caitlin Frazier
To many attending the California Democratic Party convention in Los Angeles last weekend, the vote to approve or object to the endorsement of Rep. Jane Harman (CA/36), was too close to call – certainly not reflective of a frenzied convention tabulation Party Chair John Burton delivered with the qualifier, “No one was bribed.”After over a thousand votes were counted in just a few minutes, congressional challenger Marcy Winograd questioned the validity of the approximately 60-40% vote count to endorse Harman. Said Winograd, “I saw a sea of objections to Harman’s endorsement. I don’t know who had the majority of the floor, but I suspect the reported tally was way off. Delegations overlooked by the counters had to scream to get counted.”
To push the vote to the floor, a hundred Winograd for Congress supporters gathered at the convention Saturday night to collect nearly 500 delegate objections in four hours to Harman’s pre-endorsement by the local caucus, composed of mostly elected officials and their appointees.
On the floor of the convention, Party leadership tried to cut off debate, then had officers leave the stage to argue for Harman’s endorsement on the floor because Harman herself did not even show up. “Clearly the leadership was taken aback at the strength of our challenge and circled the wagons,” said Winograd.
In her speech, Winograd told fellow delegates, “Brothers and sisters, rank and file Democrats, this is a struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Are we for jobs or wars, homes or big banks, our street or Wall Street? You have the power to change the course of history.”
With the endorsement process over, Winograd will concentrate on reaching the voters directly with her message of grassroots empowerment. “It is time to end the corporate stranglehold on Congress and usher in a new day for working families,” said Winograd.
Caitlin Frazier is Press Secretary for Marcy Winograd
Photo by Ralph Oden
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Thin Green Line
Last night, I was fortunate enough to watch Nature on PBS. The episode was entitled Frogs: The Thin Green Line.
One of the featured segments dealt with the effects of agriculture on frogs. In particular, it focused on the work that Tyrone Hayes (UC Berkeley) has done regarding the hormonal effects of the pesticide atrazine on amphibians. It turns frogs with male DNA into females, capable of laying eggs. That is scary.
I had heard of the work of Dr. Hayes before, but had not ever seen it so well laid out for the general public.
You might ask why this is so important. Atrazine is the most widely used pesticide on some major crops in the US (e.g. corn) and it's effects on humans have also been described, such as the low sperm count identified here.
In the comments to the section on the agricultural effects on amphibians, Dr. Hayes commented:
tyrone hayes says:
April 7, 2009 at 8:36 am
You can support the ban on atrazine by writing to Congress:
Keith Ellison MN05EllisonKeith@mail.house.gov
A form letter is available at http://atrazinelovers.com/a2.html
Every email counts and moves us in a forward direction to protect wildlife and human health.
I am asking you to do just that. Mark Twain's Jumping Frog of Calaveras County deserves to live.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
GREEN POLITICS IN THE 21ST CENTURY
The passage of Resolution 380 on water being a priority and the passage of the Water Planning plank of the California Green Party Platform were steps taken away from the foundation funded advocacy groups and directs our Party's work towards eco-issues and related voter blocs. They introduce the concept of formulating local strategies and tactics that are ecologically-based and focused. As a political party, we have stepped into an arena of the ballot as a third party. Few in the U.S. Greens have been willing or able to successfully establish consistent constituencies or stable cores of leadership capable of navigating the turbulent waters of electoral politics.
We have seen the importance of a stable leadership and the consequences for constant internal bickering. We have learned that we can appeal to voters outside of the Democratic/progressives’ spheres of influence. We have learned that expected progressive constituencies do not inherently deliver the sound base needed for campaigns and candidates. We have seen the failings of our own candidates in expanding the scope of our message in a way that is inclusive of broad sections of the American public and engaging them to identify with the Green vision.
The intent of the water resolutions and the water plank was to provide some political review of the tasks ahead and to shape it based on the work of Greens. For too long some Greens have taken their cue from writers, academics and professional critics and defined our priorities and policies without a review of election results and review of the demographics of Green Party support at the ballot box.
Deconstructionism has failed to establish a political agenda because it is at heart anti-political in its program of action. Activists who work outside the political system and advocacy groups continue to see alternative societies as the solution to issues of social justice and environmental restoration. Naomi Klein illustrated her anti-electoral approach with her summary on C-SPAN that the failure of activists lay with those who invested their focus on electoral work around Obama. Naomi’s real blindspot lies in her inability to grasp the significance of electoral political work. Green electoral work remains outside of Naomi’s realm of review and consideration. Such critics have been more then willing to criticize the presence of Green candidates when the GP can significantly impact election results. Many would rather be in the streets then in the legislatures and when push comes to shove go running back to the Democratic Party.
Structural reform of governmental entities is always the last thing on the agenda of the advocacy giants. The Green Party has stepped into the arena of water politics at the planning level. It has found a much broader base for sustainability politics then simply that defined by the rigorously stratified constituencies of the Democratic/Urban and Republican /Rural Parties. The emergence of ecological democracy and adaptive governance has the potential to re-shape traditional political definitions of party allegiance. If strategy was linked to priorities, campaigns and policies, this would be addressed. It is unfortunate that the new alignment of potential supporters has been grasped by so few of the Green Party and as a result few state parties have worked to promote political campaigns centered on land and water use, regional planning and urban development.
It is important to connect the Platforms of the state Green Parties with the campaigns and the candidates. It is critical to understand who we are speaking to and what we have to say that is important to voters. If we are to grow, we need to localize our message, pinpoint those who share common concerns and interests and recruit candidates with credentials and local support of their own. Platforms are statements of our political agenda in the society we live in. People will grasp what most relates to their lives and when the organization demonstrates its own organizational viability they will add to our understanding of the concerns of voters.
Brian Tokar presented a succinct review of US Green Party progress and problems, “THE GREENS AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT: VALUES AND CONFLICTS “Greens have contested the norm of US politics as largely an elite activity, and raised the important question of whether a political party in the US can aspire to act as an expression of a broader social movement. This is often taken for granted in Europe, with its history of political parties rooted in organized labor, but explicitly contradicts the managerial pragmatism that dominates politics in the United States – and increasingly in the European Union as well. Whether there is room in the American political landscape for a multi-issue, ecologically based social movement seeking an explicitly political expression still remains to be seen. But the twenty year history of the US Greens raises the hope that this may one day be realized, along with a host of valuable lessons for those who will most certainly keep trying.”
We have seen the importance of a stable leadership and the consequences for constant internal bickering. We have learned that we can appeal to voters outside of the Democratic/progressives’ spheres of influence. We have learned that expected progressive constituencies do not inherently deliver the sound base needed for campaigns and candidates. We have seen the failings of our own candidates in expanding the scope of our message in a way that is inclusive of broad sections of the American public and engaging them to identify with the Green vision.
The intent of the water resolutions and the water plank was to provide some political review of the tasks ahead and to shape it based on the work of Greens. For too long some Greens have taken their cue from writers, academics and professional critics and defined our priorities and policies without a review of election results and review of the demographics of Green Party support at the ballot box.
Deconstructionism has failed to establish a political agenda because it is at heart anti-political in its program of action. Activists who work outside the political system and advocacy groups continue to see alternative societies as the solution to issues of social justice and environmental restoration. Naomi Klein illustrated her anti-electoral approach with her summary on C-SPAN that the failure of activists lay with those who invested their focus on electoral work around Obama. Naomi’s real blindspot lies in her inability to grasp the significance of electoral political work. Green electoral work remains outside of Naomi’s realm of review and consideration. Such critics have been more then willing to criticize the presence of Green candidates when the GP can significantly impact election results. Many would rather be in the streets then in the legislatures and when push comes to shove go running back to the Democratic Party.
Structural reform of governmental entities is always the last thing on the agenda of the advocacy giants. The Green Party has stepped into the arena of water politics at the planning level. It has found a much broader base for sustainability politics then simply that defined by the rigorously stratified constituencies of the Democratic/Urban and Republican /Rural Parties. The emergence of ecological democracy and adaptive governance has the potential to re-shape traditional political definitions of party allegiance. If strategy was linked to priorities, campaigns and policies, this would be addressed. It is unfortunate that the new alignment of potential supporters has been grasped by so few of the Green Party and as a result few state parties have worked to promote political campaigns centered on land and water use, regional planning and urban development.
It is important to connect the Platforms of the state Green Parties with the campaigns and the candidates. It is critical to understand who we are speaking to and what we have to say that is important to voters. If we are to grow, we need to localize our message, pinpoint those who share common concerns and interests and recruit candidates with credentials and local support of their own. Platforms are statements of our political agenda in the society we live in. People will grasp what most relates to their lives and when the organization demonstrates its own organizational viability they will add to our understanding of the concerns of voters.
Brian Tokar presented a succinct review of US Green Party progress and problems, “THE GREENS AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT: VALUES AND CONFLICTS “Greens have contested the norm of US politics as largely an elite activity, and raised the important question of whether a political party in the US can aspire to act as an expression of a broader social movement. This is often taken for granted in Europe, with its history of political parties rooted in organized labor, but explicitly contradicts the managerial pragmatism that dominates politics in the United States – and increasingly in the European Union as well. Whether there is room in the American political landscape for a multi-issue, ecologically based social movement seeking an explicitly political expression still remains to be seen. But the twenty year history of the US Greens raises the hope that this may one day be realized, along with a host of valuable lessons for those who will most certainly keep trying.”
Thursday, April 08, 2010
9to5 Leadership Conference in San Jose
It's been become a cliché to say the U.S.A. in general, and California in particular, are in an unprecedented crisis. Unfortunately, this is one political cliché that happens to be true. Know something else? Low-income working people, especially working women struggling to balance work and family, are the first to get thrown under the political campaign bus. Progressives are constantly bombarded by appeals from high-powered groups to "get involved" in worthy causes around the world, but we must never forget the need to "take care of business" right here. Middle-class and low-wage working people did not create this crisis, but they are the ones being kicked in the teeth. It's clear nobody, neither "conservative" Republicans nor "liberal" Democrats are going to organize to fight for us. Therefore, we must organize to fight for ourselves.
| Event: | 9to5 California -- National Association of Working Women 6th Annual Regional Leadership Conference "Changing the Workplace, Changing the World" |
| Date: | Saturday, April 10, 2010 |
| Place: | 2302 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA 95131 |
| Time: | 9:00 AM -- 2:00 PM |
"CHANGING THE WORKPLACE, CHANGING THE WORLD"
Panel Discussion with Workshop Breakouts:
 | CalWORKS/State Budget Fight Back Sally Lieber, Former Speaker Pro Tem, CA State Assembly |
 | Wage Theft and Equal Pay Action Ethel Long-Scott, Director, Women's Economic Agenda Project (WEAP) Oakland, CA |
 | Universal, Single Payer Health Care in California Joan Goddard, Legislative Director, 9to5 California San Jose, CA |
Luncheon with Honored Guests:
 | Cindy Chavez, South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council |
 | Jim Beall,, California State Assembly |
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Policy Action Days
9to5 joins California Partnership Coalition in Sacramento
- Monday, April 26th -- Advocacy and Training
- Tuesday, April 27th -- Visits with Local Legislators
Carpool from San Jose on Monday, 8:00 AM.
You may register online at:
www.9to5california.org
Sunday, April 04, 2010
Jimi Castillo for Lt. Governor
Jimi Castillo is now officially in the race for Lt. Governor and, without any primary oppostion, his position is secured on the November ballot. This gives me an opportunity to ask a few pertinent questions.
This past weekend, the Service Employees International Union (S.E.I.U.) held a statewide video conference candidate endorsement session. They called it "Rebuild California." The television coverage of that event focused on the Lt. Governor's race, seen by the S.E.I.U. as between LA City Councilwoman Janice Hahn and San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Newsom was especially careful to make talk about how he wanted to re-define the role of the Lt. Governor… a key requirement since he had dissed the position while he was still in the race for Governor.
The S.E.I.U. seems to send us a message saying "don't bother."
The town hall was open to all workers represented by S.E.I.U. and is part of an inclusive, democratic process that gives S.E.I.U. members a direct role and voice in the political decisions of their union.They are really saying that an inclusive democratic process will let their members hear from those candidates pre-selected by the union leadership.
I am sure that they would have been pleasantly surprised by hearing from Jimi. It would not have been the stirring language of self promotion that flows so easily from Newsom. I am sure the contrast would have made an impression, had he been there to present. Jimi is, after all, a union man and has been his entire working life.
Now, I have contacted the S.E.I.U. and they said that they did not know Jimi was interested in being considered. I wonder if Janice or Gavin needed to come to the union and ask to please let me talk to your people.
Leeland Yee versus Sarah Palin?
I find it interesting that State Senator Leeland Yee is busy making headlines in his criticisms of the Stanislaus Foundation for refusing to disclose the speaker fees for Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin has been scheduled for a fundraiser at Cal State University- Stanislaus. Needless to say many have jumped on Leeland’s bandwagon because it involves Sarah Palin.
In the interest of public disclosure, I should preface this article with the links to a three part article that I posted during the 2008 Presidential campaign about Sarah Palin and Alaska Natives. They can be found on GreenPartyWatch.org Part one is here. Part two is here. And part three is here. The purpose of the article was to demonstrate that Sarah Palin was clearly in over her head in addressing the numerous issues impacting Alaskan Natives in her role as Governor. It is worth noting that I even stated in the article: “Governor Palin has NOT shown herself up to the task of Governor and has failed to focus on defending Alaska’s natural resources, preserving its unique environment or protecting and enhancing the democratic rights of Native Alaskans. Most of the problems have NOT been of her making, but neither has she demonstrated the ability to ‘think outside the box’ of the powerful economic interests seeking to come into the state for their own short-term profits.”
From this point on, I want to take issue with the kind of politics that seeks to garner headlines while disregarding the consequences of actions by the state government. Let me begin by saying that the Stanislaus Foundation has very specific obligations under the California Public Records Act. The Act can be found in its entirety. It should be noted that legal action is stipulated for both the public and the District Attorneys. Section 6263 states:”A state or local agency shall allow an inspection or copying of any public record or class of public records not exempted by this chapter when requested by a district attorney.” This is the nuclear option of the California Public Records Law. It provides the ultimate mechanism for ending ceaseless back-and-forth public disputes of what is and what is not open to disclosure. Senator Yee currently has a proposal on the table to include public foundations in the public records law.
Not being an attorney, I am neither qualified nor intend to propose a legal opinion in regards to the current applicability of the California Public Records Law to the matter in question. As to the purpose of fundraising for CSU-Stanislaus, it has been noted in a Fresno Bee article that ”The foundation's 2008 tax return shows it raised $4.1 million and distributed close to $3 million in scholarships and assistance to the school.”
As to the politics of the issue, there is no question that State Senator Yee has been actively engaged in the past on issues in regards to state universities and city colleges in regards to disclosure practices. The current issues are being wrapped around the personality of Sarah Palin. It is worth asking the question as to whether the case that is being made can be handled under existing law or if State Senator Yee’s visibility is directed towards amending the California Public Records Law. In either event, the issue of Sarah Palin being the speaker should be taken out of the discussion.
State Senator Yee has chosen to make the speaker the issue. On his Facebook page he has chosen to raise the cancellation of a proposed FOX NEWS interview with him to substantiate his case. Fortunately for Americans, FOX NEWS editorial decisions have no bearing on the enforcement of California state law.
The Stanislaus Foundation has not disclosed the speaker’s fee because of a non-disclosure clause in her contract. The case for open disclosure is obvious to all and is important in maintaining the accountability of public institutions. Can a case be made for fundraisers who have agreed with speakers not to reveal the speakers’ fees? It should be said that Sarah Palin is not the only speaker to require a non-disclosure fee in the contracts made for appearances.
It is worth discussing before changes are made whether we want to restrict the options for fundraising at a time when state budgets have been cut. Non-disclosure clauses are not new and reflect the desire of the speakers to define the conditions for their appearance. The Stanislaus Foundation was free at the time of negotiating the contract to reject Sarah Palin’s non-disclosure clause. If their agreement to inclusion of the non-disclosure clause was a violation of the California Public Records Law, then it is clearly a matter for a District Attorney. It is entirely possible that the Foundation’s legal review of the contract might have missed something required under the Public Records Law. For this there are procedures included in the Public Records Law.
State Senator Yee is more familiar with the law then I am. I grant his expertise on the Law as he has actively sought to expand its applicability as cases were brought to light in the state higher education system. I do not challenge his personal motives in this regard. I am wary of efforts that are pinpointed towards “unpopular” opinions as they are seen here in San Francisco. I am concerned about the impact of increased disclosures on the ability to raise funds for higher education. I do not cling to it as something that cannot be amended as needed. I simply want fundraisers to be provided with options to raise funds for the schools so they can benefit present and future students. It is clear that the Governor and the California State Legislature have not lived up to their obligations to fully fund state higher educational institutions.
This goes well beyond the message that Sarah Palin could conceivably present at her speaking engagement. It goes well beyond my own political disagreements with Sarah Palin. It goes well beyond the particulars of FOX NEWS coverage. When it comes to open disclosure, I support increasing it as possible and relevant to the oversight of public records. There is no argument that there are plenty of people in the Stanislaus area who would pay $500/head to see her. I’m not one of those. But, I am not at all threatened by the views of Sarah Palin or the movement among middle class Americans known as the Tea Party. These folks include family members of mine who have no sublimated racist or fascist tendencies. I have always had disagreements with my family since the Vietnam War. I don’t expect that to change now. But I have never seen them aggressively act to deprive others of their Constitutional or legal rights.
Respect for diversity of views has always been important in this state and throughout the U.S. The Green Party has been subjected to many efforts initiated by Democratic Parties in states to restrict our ballot access. We know that they have been no less inclined then the Republican Party to play the game that restricts political representation by marginalizing third parties. The Tea Party movement will find this out for itself and Sarah Palin will be the main proponent of staying within the Republican Party. My word of advice to them is to realize what Libertarians and Greens learned a long time ago: there are no friends in the duopoly Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to forming parties that represent a distinct political agenda removed from their control.
In the interest of public disclosure, I should preface this article with the links to a three part article that I posted during the 2008 Presidential campaign about Sarah Palin and Alaska Natives. They can be found on GreenPartyWatch.org Part one is here. Part two is here. And part three is here. The purpose of the article was to demonstrate that Sarah Palin was clearly in over her head in addressing the numerous issues impacting Alaskan Natives in her role as Governor. It is worth noting that I even stated in the article: “Governor Palin has NOT shown herself up to the task of Governor and has failed to focus on defending Alaska’s natural resources, preserving its unique environment or protecting and enhancing the democratic rights of Native Alaskans. Most of the problems have NOT been of her making, but neither has she demonstrated the ability to ‘think outside the box’ of the powerful economic interests seeking to come into the state for their own short-term profits.”
From this point on, I want to take issue with the kind of politics that seeks to garner headlines while disregarding the consequences of actions by the state government. Let me begin by saying that the Stanislaus Foundation has very specific obligations under the California Public Records Act. The Act can be found in its entirety. It should be noted that legal action is stipulated for both the public and the District Attorneys. Section 6263 states:”A state or local agency shall allow an inspection or copying of any public record or class of public records not exempted by this chapter when requested by a district attorney.” This is the nuclear option of the California Public Records Law. It provides the ultimate mechanism for ending ceaseless back-and-forth public disputes of what is and what is not open to disclosure. Senator Yee currently has a proposal on the table to include public foundations in the public records law.
Not being an attorney, I am neither qualified nor intend to propose a legal opinion in regards to the current applicability of the California Public Records Law to the matter in question. As to the purpose of fundraising for CSU-Stanislaus, it has been noted in a Fresno Bee article that ”The foundation's 2008 tax return shows it raised $4.1 million and distributed close to $3 million in scholarships and assistance to the school.”
As to the politics of the issue, there is no question that State Senator Yee has been actively engaged in the past on issues in regards to state universities and city colleges in regards to disclosure practices. The current issues are being wrapped around the personality of Sarah Palin. It is worth asking the question as to whether the case that is being made can be handled under existing law or if State Senator Yee’s visibility is directed towards amending the California Public Records Law. In either event, the issue of Sarah Palin being the speaker should be taken out of the discussion.
State Senator Yee has chosen to make the speaker the issue. On his Facebook page he has chosen to raise the cancellation of a proposed FOX NEWS interview with him to substantiate his case. Fortunately for Americans, FOX NEWS editorial decisions have no bearing on the enforcement of California state law.
The Stanislaus Foundation has not disclosed the speaker’s fee because of a non-disclosure clause in her contract. The case for open disclosure is obvious to all and is important in maintaining the accountability of public institutions. Can a case be made for fundraisers who have agreed with speakers not to reveal the speakers’ fees? It should be said that Sarah Palin is not the only speaker to require a non-disclosure fee in the contracts made for appearances.
It is worth discussing before changes are made whether we want to restrict the options for fundraising at a time when state budgets have been cut. Non-disclosure clauses are not new and reflect the desire of the speakers to define the conditions for their appearance. The Stanislaus Foundation was free at the time of negotiating the contract to reject Sarah Palin’s non-disclosure clause. If their agreement to inclusion of the non-disclosure clause was a violation of the California Public Records Law, then it is clearly a matter for a District Attorney. It is entirely possible that the Foundation’s legal review of the contract might have missed something required under the Public Records Law. For this there are procedures included in the Public Records Law.
State Senator Yee is more familiar with the law then I am. I grant his expertise on the Law as he has actively sought to expand its applicability as cases were brought to light in the state higher education system. I do not challenge his personal motives in this regard. I am wary of efforts that are pinpointed towards “unpopular” opinions as they are seen here in San Francisco. I am concerned about the impact of increased disclosures on the ability to raise funds for higher education. I do not cling to it as something that cannot be amended as needed. I simply want fundraisers to be provided with options to raise funds for the schools so they can benefit present and future students. It is clear that the Governor and the California State Legislature have not lived up to their obligations to fully fund state higher educational institutions.
This goes well beyond the message that Sarah Palin could conceivably present at her speaking engagement. It goes well beyond my own political disagreements with Sarah Palin. It goes well beyond the particulars of FOX NEWS coverage. When it comes to open disclosure, I support increasing it as possible and relevant to the oversight of public records. There is no argument that there are plenty of people in the Stanislaus area who would pay $500/head to see her. I’m not one of those. But, I am not at all threatened by the views of Sarah Palin or the movement among middle class Americans known as the Tea Party. These folks include family members of mine who have no sublimated racist or fascist tendencies. I have always had disagreements with my family since the Vietnam War. I don’t expect that to change now. But I have never seen them aggressively act to deprive others of their Constitutional or legal rights.
Respect for diversity of views has always been important in this state and throughout the U.S. The Green Party has been subjected to many efforts initiated by Democratic Parties in states to restrict our ballot access. We know that they have been no less inclined then the Republican Party to play the game that restricts political representation by marginalizing third parties. The Tea Party movement will find this out for itself and Sarah Palin will be the main proponent of staying within the Republican Party. My word of advice to them is to realize what Libertarians and Greens learned a long time ago: there are no friends in the duopoly Democratic and Republican parties when it comes to forming parties that represent a distinct political agenda removed from their control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)