Capital Crimes

I am not sure how many of you might have watched Bill Moyers program last night, Capitol Crimes. If you didn't, I suggest that you spend some time on the PBS site at the link above.

Moyers does his normally thorough job of disecting the issues surrounding Jack Abramoff and everything that he managed to accomplish to line his own bank account and consolidate his power. Some very specific points became abundantly clear.

Ralph Reed was a hypocrit of the highest order. For someone to stand up as a leader of the "Christian Coalition" and fund his lying efforts from gambling money while using an anti-gambling message to help keep down the competition is pure hypocrisy.

The power driven excesses of Tom DeLay, feeding a lavish life style and a retirement plan for Mrs. Delay (among other things) in exchange for passing (or killing) legislation is bad. Then, to stand there and refer to people seeing Christ in his posture as he resigned from the House puts DeLay ahead of even Reed in being a hypocrit.

Then, to come to Ed Buckham, who made his money building up a Christian non-profit that acted to launder money for the Abramoff / Delay machine, all the while praying with his pastor whom he had duped into heading the US Family Network. Thank you, Pastor Gleeson. for having the will to appear on Moyers's program.

After watching this, I went to the PBS site and find that they ask a simple question: After Abramoff, do you trust your Rep? Most people do.

The conslusion was interesting. A simple discussion with Moyers, historian Thomas Frank and journalist Norman Ornstein, both of who have recent books on the subject and both of whom a pessimistic about short range solutions to the problem because BOTH PARTIES (Nader was right on this) have a vested interest in the status quo. Moyers even cited on Democratic Fund raiser who was going to financial institutions to solicit money on the basis of the fact that "Democrats may control the new congress."

Ornstein probably hit the nail on the head. "We will get the reform when they (Congress) believe that we will have the tar cooking and the feathers waiting if they don't do reform."

The current Administration has lost it's moral authority to lead in world politics. The current Congress has lost it's moral authority to lead in American politics.

Greens in California should be taking this message to the people and offering themselves as an alternative. There is no organization so dedicated to the principles of grassroots advocacy and so much against the power of corporate money. As Green Alex Walker frequently complains, where is the outrage?

Too long gone

I have been gone too long from this venue. But, it has been worth it. Having Bush doing a fund raiser for my favorite target, Richard Pombo, is one indication of how exciting this race is getting. Hank Shaw of the Stockton Record provides the another with this story on the latest polling. Jerry McNerney 48%, Richard Pombo 46%. Undecided 6%. That is a low undecided number for this time in an election cycle.

As Hank wrote me in an email today, "This is shaping up to be a good one. Hang on!" I can't imagine anything that excites a political reporter more than a good, tight race, one that has tinges of sex scandals, charges of corruption, vast differences in policies, quickly changing demographics in the district and a lot of lazy media dealing us the conventional wisdom without looking at the facts.

In all of this, I have learned a lot about how to run a campaign and I can't wait to get started on the next one. It is great watching some masters (Pete McCloskey for one) at work.

Global Warming / Local Action

I just received a post re: last night's session of the Pasadena, CA City Council. The City Council established Global Warming Standard for Pasadena. According to Pasadena City Utility Commissioner, Roger Gray (also a Green blogger) they changed the name of that commission to "the Environmental Commission and tasked with Enviro oversight in Pasadena.

If this can happen in a City supposedly known to be arch conservative, it can happen anywhere.

Tie this to Al Gore's speech at NYU yesterday and you have coast-to-coast action re Global Warming.

Of rights, risks and relocation

Yesterday, I posted a quotation (George Kennan) that came to me from Helen McCloskey. I would like to amplify the issue today with a reference to the August 30 column of Mike Fitzgerald in the Stockton Record. He takes the essence of Kennan's quotation and shows us that it is something that we need to be concerned about right now, today, as the war on terror begets our unique brand of xenophobic terrorism.

Where Kennan warns us about becoming "intolerant, secretive, suspicious, cruel, and terrified of internal dissension because we have lost our own belief in ourselves and in the power of our ideals" Fitzgerald tells us that we already have. He is writing about the issue of suspected Islamic "fascist" terrorism in Lodi, CA.

The latest wrinkle: Federal authorities won't allow two Pakistani-Americans related to Lodi terror convict Hamid Hayat to come home from an extended stay in Pakistan until they take a lie-detector test.

Muhammad Ismail, 45, and his son, Jaber Ismail, 18, are U.S. citizens. They are charged with no crime. No U.S. official publicly has alleged any wrongdoing on their part.

But their constitutional rights seem to have done a Houdini.

Fitzgerald asks whether we have learned anything. "The people with badges got the Japanese relocation tragically wrong. What have we learned? How are we better?" I think that the answer is clear. Those in power will use any means possible to retain power and the easiest method is to unite against a common enemy. "We have met the enemy and he is us. "

I think that I would like to see out Senatorial Candidate in Lodi, holding a news conference. If anyone is going to speak out on this issue, it should be Chretien.

The power of our ideals

Helen McCloskey, wife of one time Congressman Pete McCloskey, sent out a short, but very pertinent email this AM. I would like to pass it on because it is so appropriate in America today.

Fifty years ago, George Kennan, one of the keenest strategists against the Communist threat, hastened to warn that "something may occur in our own minds and souls which will make us no longer like the persons by whose efforts this republic was founded and held together, but rather like representatives of that very power we are trying to combat: intolerant, secretive, suspicious, cruel, and terrified of internal dissension because we have lost our own belief in ourselves and in the power of our ideals."

Careless GMO use cost rice farmers big bucks

The following is from a blog entry by Carl Pope today.

For years the Sierra Club, biologists, and government analysts have warned that the rules regulating genetically modified crops were too weak, that the idea that these varieties could be as controlled in the field as they can in the laboratory was reckless in the extreme, and that genetic contamination was the almost certain outcome. Now, genetically modified rice, produced by Bayer CropScience, has contaminated America's rice crop, in spite of the fact that it has never been approved for human consumption! In response, Japan suspended imports of long-grained rice from the U.S. a week ago, and the European Union followed suit Wednesday. Yesterday, rice farmers in California, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas sued for loss of the export opportunities for the $1.81 billion rice crop.

While the industry in the US will swear that there is no harm to humans from consumption of this rice, there is a great deal of harm to the US rice industry.

This comes just when California State Senate is deciding on what to do with SB 1056. I can not think of any greater reason to let this bill die a quiet death.

This is not going to make the US media, consumed as it is with Jon Benet Ramsey. However, it did make it on to Reuters..
Call a Senator today and tell them to stop this bill. It is bad for American Agriculture, as well as our health.

Other links on this story:

• 
  Organic Consumers Association
  
• Californians for GE-Free Agriculture
  
• City of Santa Cruz
  

SB 1056

I wrote before about the insidious nature of SB 1056. In some circles, it is called the "Monsanto Bill." Now, it has passed the Assembly and the hope is that we can stop it in the State Senate.

I had another good link for further information on SB 1056. It is at a site called Environmental Commons and makes the flat statement that "SB1056 is "stealing a fundamental right of our communities to protect our families' health and shape our own future."

I need to thank Jean Comfort for sending this and also for sending out an alert on SB 1056, contacting your State Senators and voice a strong opposition to the bill. I called mine today, Abel Maldonado (Rep. Dist 15), whom I really expect to be a strong supporter of the bill. I did make the point that I write for a local paper in his district and that this will come up in my writing.

Among all of the other things that we have to take a position on, I urge Greens to stand up for the right of local government to make their own decisions on how best to protect their citizens.

Things are not what they seem.

That admonition is especially true in the wild west world of California Initiatives. One only has to watch the advertisements for or against any given initiative to gain that understanding.

Probably the most insidious of the current set of Propositions is Prop. 90.

Bars state and local governments from condemning or damaging private property to promote other private projects, uses. Limits government’s authority to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer, environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve public health or safety. Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions. Defines “just compensation.” Government must occupy condemned property or lease property for public use. Condemned private property must be offered for resale to prior owner or owner’s heir at current fair market value if government abandons condemnation’s objective. Exempts certain governmental actions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown, but potentially significant major future costs for state and local governments to pay damages and/or modify regulatory or other policies to conform to the measure’s provisions. Unknown, potentially major changes in governmental costs to acquire property for public purposes. (SA2005RF0146.)

This will probably be advertised as a method to end abuses of the eminent domain processes made famous in the Kelo v. New London case recently decided by the Supreme Court. That case expands the use of eminent domain to cover cases where the property will be given back to private enterprise and the only benefit to the local government would be additional tax revenue. The July 24, 2006 edition of High Country News reveals that this is just a cover for a well funded, major effort in which "property-rights advocated have exploited Kelo to advance a broader anti-government agenda."

California's Proposition 90 would have serious consequences for all environmental regulation, all restrictive zoning regulation, even on home owners associations who collectively may attempt to restrict the nature of development.

I urge everyone to read High Country News' feature article by Ray King. Taking Liberties does more than outline the scope of this Grover Norquist - Wise Use Movement effort. King provides insights from lengthy interview with one of the signature gatherers who considers himself a "proud libertarian." He also shows both sides of the ongoing discussion in Oregon, where Measure 37 was approved by the voters in 2004 and has resulted in a bonanza for land use lawyers and almost none of the promised benefits.

If you think that it is great for California that over 30,000 new homes have been built in the flood plain of the San Joaquin River since the last major flood (1997) and that the levee system has been labeled a disaster waiting to happen that could surpass Katrina's flooding of New Orleans in scope, this is what Proposition 90 would encourage. If, on the other hand, you think that government should restrict development in flood plains and ensure that the average tax payer is not saddled with the financial obligation to bail out this un-wise use of the land, then Greens all over the state should be strongly opposing Proposition 90.

In this corner, Paul Krugman

The entire question "spoiler" or some other version of that is going to become even harder to deal with as the November general election approaches. The latest salvo in this battle was the OpEd in the August 4 NY Times by Paul Krugman. In typical NY Times fashion, you have to be a paying subscriber to read the following link. Entitled "Centrism is for suckers" it attacks the Sierra Club as being a "useful idiot" for their endorsement of long time environmental advocate Lincoln Chaffee (RI) for the senate.

This is one more call that says you can only be a Democrat or a Republican and that no other option is acceptible. Karl Rove would love this arrangement, because he is confident that the Republicans will win that battle in the long run. This is exactly what Grover Norquist (room mate and associate of Jack Abramoff) dreams about.

This is a case where issues mean absolutely nothing. Moral values mean nothing. It is only about naked power for it's own sake, Your are with us our you are against us.

It would be enough to make one throw up except that is takes away your appetite for much.

There are some who will not join the fray on Krugman's terms. Thankfully, the Sierra Club's Carl Pope is one of them. Pope has released two statements addressing the Krugman charge since yesterday. In one, he provides a reasoned defense of the Chaffee endorsement. In the second post, he addresses more generally the question of the parlimentary government (party vs. party) and specifially the role of the Senate in blocking such unwholsome partisanship.

There is an increasing call for a third party, a party of the center, grounded in principles rather than politics, but one that has the scope and size to have professional staffs rather than activist volunteers doing the work.

Could this be the Green Party. To the extent that Greens build themselves as the voice of an illdefined progressive left, then answer is "no." If successful, the Democrats, with all of their own addiction to big corporate money, become the Centrist Party . To the extent that Greens define themselves in terms of a solid committment to the full range of key values of this party, the answer is "maybe."

It is important to note that the original Progressive Party was founded by Republicans, T. Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette, etc. The third way is neither right nor left but Green. This is the time. There has not recently been a moment when the issue of the Green Party have been more important or more a part of the national debate than now. Now is the time for Greens everywhere, at all levels, to speak out with solid Green plans for accomplishing that which the corporate parties refuse to do.

We must not let the words of Paul Krugman define our reality for us. "We’re living in an age of one-letter politics, in which a politician’s partisan affiliation is almost always far more important than his or her personal beliefs."

PA Politics

We still judge things by east coast politics, don'g we. First the Democrats are looking so hard at the Lamont - Lieberman race in Connecticut. Now, Greens are arguing about Carl Romanelli's effort to run for the US Senate Seat held by Republican Rick Santorum.

The first sign that I see is the way that "progressive" Greens and Democrats on the blogosphere are vilifying Romanelli for accepting Republican money to finance a signature gathering drive. While the Republican motives may not be pure, that should not reflect on Romanelli.

There is nothing so farcial as the pompous self-righteousness of some progressives. It is on the same level as Pat Robertson using the 700 club to call for the assignation of Hugo Chavez, an act for which he later apologized to the public, if not to God.

The first lesson of mind control and mob psychology is to get the masses to think of everyone lese as somehow different. As long as you can consider them as "the other" and vilify them at will, then you are safely within the protective fold of your own self-righteousness. Take the example of Marcos Zuninga's vilivication of Carl Pope and the Sierry Club for endorsing Republican Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island. Chaffee, almost single handedly stopped the Richard Pombo led effort to eviscerate the Endangered Species Act. He has been a staunch supporter of environmental issue for his entire career. For the the Sierra Club to have turned their backs on Chaffee just because he was wearing a Red State Tie would have been an act of betrayal, putting party purity above issues and ethics. That is the first step toward the totalitarianism of the left, as opposed to the fascism being engineered now by Dick Cheney and the Republican House leadership.

Here is another question: Should Republican Pete McCloskey, have refused Democratic money in his primary race against Richard Pombo? As a Green, I worked my ass off for Pete, who (by the way) authored the original Endangered Species Act and was the Republican Coordinaotor for the very first Earth Day.

Influencing everything you can.

I am one who "volunteered" to be part of the non-rigorous ABC-7 (KGO-SF) polls. Today, they asked for questions we would want to have specific candidates answer in a debate. For the Secretary of State office, I said "Dr. Forrest Hill has a rational redistricting plan to improve democracy in California. Do you support his plan, and if not, explaing why?"

I don't expect anyone to actually ask that question, but maybe it will trigger a reporter to actually call Forrest and ask a question. If it does, I did my job.

Green Involvement in the GMO question

While there does not seem to be a lot of official action by the Green Party on GMOs, there is a lot that California Greens should be doing.

There is a non-profit group called Californians for GE-Free Agriculture. This is a coalition of many organizations who recognize the dangers inherent in releasing the genetic material from Monsanto and its cousins into our environment, which un-regulated GE use will surely do. Make yourself familiar with this group and pay close attention to the ACTION page.

The second is to find an support those who would highlight this issue and to defeat the proponents of un-regulated GMO use in Agriculture. This includes the following sponsors of California SB 1056.

Principle Authors: Assembley Members Matthews (AD 17, Tracy) and Maze (AD 34, Visalia)

Co-authors:
Senators Cedillo (SD 22 - LA) and Denham (SD-12 Modet0)

Coauthors:
Assembly Members Arambula (AD 31, Fresno), Calderon (AD 58, Montebello) , Canciamilla (AD 11, Martinez), Cogdill (AD 25m, Madera) , Garcia (AD 80, El Centro), La Malfa (AD 2, Redding), Negrete McLeod (AD 61, Ontario), Parra (AD 30, Bakersfield), Plescia (AD 75, San Escondido), Salinas (AD-238, Salinas) , Torrico (AD 20 Fremont), and Villines (AD 29, Fresno)

What strikes me as unusual about this is the number of Hispanic legislators from districtes without substantial agricultural interests, who have signed on as co-authors. I don't see any with an active Green opposition other than Maze, who is being challenged by David Silva this term.

Politics of Enforcement

Legislatures make laws. Executive branches of government should enforce them. That is, unless there is a political reason not to. That seems to be the case with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

The Center for Food Safety has filed a law suit charging the Food and Drug Administration for failing to carry out it's legally required duty of ensuring the safey of out nation's food supply. In a press release dated June 7, 2006 (I AM behind) they articulate the rationale for taking this path.

"For too long, the FDA has let biotech companies set the table for deregulation of GE food," said Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director for the Center for Food Safety. "Over six years ago, we challenged the agency to come up with a scientific defense for their lax approach to GE foods. Their failure to respond demonstrates the lack of science behind their GE foods policy."

This should be a fundamental issue for Greens all over the country. It is given lip service, but does not carry with it the daily video images that challenge us regarding the War in Iraq, or even Immigration. Still, at the Ventura Plenary of the GPCA, GMO's made a list of other planks that may need revision. But it will not be considered this year and SG 1056 seems likely to pass before then unless given significant opposition.

I thank Erica Martenson (author of the previous GMO material posted here) for reminding me of the action from the Center for Food Safety.

Pete McCloskey on Development

Pete McCloskey lost the Republican Primary to Richard Pombo. Then, he turned around and endorsed the Democratic candidate, Jerry McNerney. At least, this has created a national buzz in the blogosphere. The Huffington Post is one place, but not the only one. Frequent contributor, Dave Johnson has a long letter from McCloskey. This is a good letter, but the nation-wide public reaction is even more interesting. The usual Red State Trolls did not post. McCloskey was almost universally praised.

You can read a lot about the even in these comments, of which I quote one, posted by nom de blog "davefoc"

copy of the email I sent to local Orange, County, CA Republican party:

I have voted Republican almost exclusively all my life. I have entered semi-retirement and had even considered doing some volunteer work for the Republican party.

The Republican Party no longer is an entity that I intend to support in anyway on the national level. It is my intention to vote for Democrats until at least they have obtained control of the house and the senate.

I was never a social conservative and just accepted that part of the Republican Party because I believed in the basic ideas of limited government that the Republican Party seemed to stand for. Now that the Republican Party has abandoned economic conservatism for a system of legislation by legalized kickbacks from various interest groups it is beyond me why any American should continue to support the criminal organization that the GOP has become.

I offer you this article as just a tiny example of what I am talking about:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2...

Do Republican legislators even fantasize any more that they are serving their country? Or has the entire party been taken over by cynical politicians that only glory in service to their own self-interest?

By: davefoc on July 28, 2006 at 07:30pm

In today's Lodi New-Sentinal, McCloske wrote an OpEd that tell us all a lot about the district. Lodi is relevant for a couple of reasons. First, it is the location of a well publicized Islamic Militant trial. Second, this is the town where McCloskey moved so that he could run against Pombo. His normal residence had been in Yolo County. As McCloskey recaps the events of the primary, he tells the real story of the San Joaquin Valley and the hold that developers have on the political structure.

His conclusion is pessimistic. "Citizen apathy remains our greatest failure in our own privileged government of the people, for the people, and by the people." It is really very much worth everyone's reading this piece. Having been involved in many discussions during this race, I have the same concern as Pete. I have seen the same things that he sees. I also see that the urban, coastal population is viewed as the enemy, as a group of people who just don't get it, as people that you should not trust, but it is ok to sell them a house.

I started the blog partly because I was convinced that the future meaningful conflicts in California will be played out in the Central Valley. I am more convinced of that than ever.

A hot time in California

Just some thoughts that came to me over the past week while the heat came near to frying my brain. Since last Saturday 114, 113, 111, 109. Now, if I were from Fresno, I might find that normal, but we aren't used to it here. That was a disclaimer in case the rest of this does not make sense.

Whil Global Warming is a major new event (or was until the Isreal - Lebanon thing started) I don't see that it makes much difference to the Green Party candidates. Even Jay Leno was quipping "Ok, Al, your win. Just make it stop."

Some activists are discussing the pros and cons of a carbon tax, or even carbon rationing. Sorry, the latter was not an activist, it was a UK government official.

While there are practical, every day things that can be done, it is apparent that no one thinks this is an issue on which anyone can get elected. They may be right. Even Peter Camejo's issues reponse is a two year old statement on Solar Power based on the previous gubernatorial debates. Still, one would think that the Green Party of California would find a state issue, such as preparedness of our infrastructure for global warming.

The party of the people.

When Hank Chapot copied Sam Smith's Rafting Down America's Real Mainstream to an email list today, I had to admit that I did not know Sam Smith from Samuel Adams. However, after reading it, I have to say that it says a number of things that I feel, but he is much more direct and clear about it.

It is common rhetoric these days to talk of two americas, as does Smith.

There are two Americas: the televised America, known and hated by the world, and the rest of us. The former is a factitious creation whose strange gods include HBO, accentless TV anchor people, Dick Cheney, reruns of Friends, and the National Endowment for Democracy.

Maybe is is leftover rhetoric from a John Edwards speech. Still, everyone can understand that as long as you can see youself in the good one.

It is also common to talk about the fact that many people have given up voting. Smith does it.

"But there's a big America out there without any party that gives a damn about its concerns. Many of these Americans have given up voting."

So does Christine Todd Whitman in an essay written for the Hall Institue of Public Policy.

The great majority of voters is dissatisfied with the direction of the country and is skeptical of either party’s ability to provide positive, ethical, and effective leadership. Faced constantly with ideologically sensitive issues such as, immigration and gay marriage, many voters are losing faith in their government, and even more are simply “tuning out.”

One thing that I am concerned about as a Green is the fact that that there seems to be an effort to position the Greens to the left, progressive side of the Democrats. Note, I did not say liberal, since that has become a life-style rather than a political philosophy. In any case, this is exactly what the Democrats would like to see; a small, vocal party of the far left, so that they can position the Republicans to the far right and have the middle ground all to themselves. Were that to become the reality, then the Greens would no longer serve any useful purpose other than to perpetuate the ties between big corporate America and politics as usual.

GMO's

I have just posted three articles by Erica Martenson that previously appeared in the Napa Sentinel who were gracious enough to give their permission to reproduce them in their entirety. Well, not really their entirety, as I changed the titles a bit.

These are here for a reason. Senate Bill 1056 is under consideration right now in Sacramento and requires a truly G(g)reen response. Yes, I don't care whether you use Green with a capital or a small letter. The response is required and hopefully some of our candidates can take this on.

SB 1056 would bring all root stock and agricultural seeds under state-wide controls. According to Deborah Rich in the SF Chronicle...

Mendocino, Marin and Trinity counties and the cities of Arcata and Point Arena already have bans or moratoriums on genetically engineered crops. If Florez's bill passes as amended, other local governments in California will lose their right to pass similar ordinances unless they do so within the year.

The vote in the Agriculture Committee was 8 - 0. There were no objections.

As Erica Martenson pointed out in her second article, there are risks for farmers, but as a group, the agricultural lobby in California is behind this, or at least the Farm Bureau is.

An initiative that would ban biotechnology in Sonoma County would have a devastating affect on agriculture and potentially shortchange farmers on future advances that could improve their lives and the lives of others, according to American Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman.

The general view is that this is not just about farming, but about our future. I could not agree more. We have the right to have a voice in our future and Monsanto and the other big ag corporations want to take that away from us.

While this bill is very specfic about the ability to actually use genetically modified organisms in agriculture, it is just one part of an overall plan by big ag to remove all controls on their operation. Each of these is targeted at some level of government that can best be counted on to fold when corporate money is around.

The key issue on GMO's is really labeling and this is being fought on two fronts. As Martenson pointed out, Dennis Kucinich keeps introducing bill that would require the labeling of foods with genetically engineered ingredients. This bill never gets out of committee in Congress. However, in case you think that it might be a good idea for the State of California to require the labeling of such foods, they have a plan for that too. In early March, the SF Chronicle reported that "The House voted Wednesday to strip many warnings from food labels, potentially affecting alerts about arsenic in bottled water, lead in candy and allergy-causing sulfites, among others." So much for Federalism.

I am not done with my list becaue there is currently a bill in Congress that would do the same with toxic pesticides used in Agriculture. Again, in a July 13 story in the Chronicle we find that

House Republicans are pushing new legislation that could wipe out the ability of California and other states to ban or strictly limit the use of pesticides and toxic industrial chemicals that can jeopardize human health.

The measure, approved by a House committee Wednesday on a mostly party line vote, is the latest effort by the Republican-led Congress to block states from enacting environmental, public health or consumer protections that are more stringent than federal standards.

It does not take long to see the emerging pattern. So, what does that have to do with GMOs and SB 1056? It is simply that, without proper labeling, consumers will never know what they are buying. Besides the ABC polls quoted by Martenson, Rutgers University has done some polling that indicated that 88% the American Public favors such labeling.

Martenson has done a very good job of defining the dangers of uncontrolled use of ge material in agriculture. The instances of abuse are far too common to need repeating. Simply put, pollen does not know what a fence or property line means and there is no way to control the release of genetic material into the environment.

If this bill passes, the only winners will be Monsanto and the other producers of GMO agriculture. This is a gigantic field trial and we are the test subjects. If there were ever a time when we had a convergence of Green values: sustainability, ecological wisdom, community based economics, decentralizaion, personal and global responsibility.

Wes

Pharm crops and world hunger

Article No. 3
by Erica Martenson, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

Articles in the last two issues of the Sentinel described the lack of government regulation of genetically modified (GM) food crops and outlined four bills Congressman Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced into the House of Representatives to require that GM foods be tested for safety and labeled, and to protect farmers from any liability created by this new technology by shifting that liability onto the developer, namely the biotech corporations. The final two bills in Kucinich’s “Genetically Engineered Regulatory Framework” focus on regulating pharmaceutical and industrial crops, and addressing the problem of world hunger.

Would you like to drink beer with human genes? How about cooking with human genes in your safflower oil? Pharmaceutical and industrial crops are plants that have been genetically altered to produce an experimental drug or industrial chemical. For example, Washington State University secretly grew barley injected with human genes to produce artificial proteins that could have medical applications. In addition, SemBioSys, a Canadian company, plans to blast human genes into safflower to produce experimental insulin, and a drug for heart attacks and strokes. While these tests are supposed to be highly regulated, a recent report by the Inspector General of the US Department of Agriculture found that this department did not follow through with field site inspections and sometimes did not even know where the field tests were being conducted.

While proponents say that “biopharming” could produce drugs much more cheaply than current production methods, a recent article titled, “Are There Human Genes in Your Food?” written by Trudy Bialic and published in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, reports that the contamination of our food crops would be inevitable. The article states, “The National Academy of Science, a nongovernmental body of scientists and professionals, has warned in two reports that it is virtually impossible to keep biopharms (pharmaceutical crops) out of the food supply, if food crops are used to grow them. Insects, birds, animals, wind, storms, trucks, trains, and human error see to that.” In his floor statements before Congress, Kucinich said, “These substances are not intended to be incorporated in food or to be spread into the environment. That would be equivalent to allowing a prescription drug in the food supply.”

Genetic engineering has been used to develop treatments for many medical conditions from diabetes to cancer. However, scientists have developed these medicines in laboratories under secure conditions, and the medicines created do not replicate themselves. For example, currently insulin is produced in bacteria in a lab, and the resulting product cannot reproduce and self-replicate. Biopharming is different. For instance, if safflower grown in open fields is used as a “factory” to produce insulin, not only can it contaminate and get mixed in with safflower that is used to make safflower oil for cooking but once unleashed into the environment, it will reseed itself and can never be recalled. “Growing genetically modified crops in an open-air environment is truly a Pandora’s Box,” stated Shawn Rau, a microbiologist with ECS Group, a local environmental consulting firm. “Once introduced, the gene pool will be changed forever, and the effects are immeasurable.”

Kucinich’s bill, “The Genetically Engineered Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crop Safety Act” (H.R. 5267), aims to protect our food supply from becoming contaminated by pharmaceutical and industrial crops, which would create an environmental problem, pose a health risk to consumers, and result in an economic loss, due to product recalls and lost domestic and foreign markets. This bill would place a permanent ban on the planting of pharmaceutical and industrial crops in open fields, and on using commonly eaten foods to produce pharmaceuticals and chemicals. In addition, it would place a temporary ban on growing them in a contained environment until the US Department of Agriculture “has a tracking system to regulate [their growth], handling, transportation, and disposal” and until the National Academy of Sciences has had an opportunity to explore and report to Congress other options for developing pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, coined the expression, “Food is thy medicine” over two thousand years ago; however, pharm crops were not what he had in mind. Kucinich’s bill would help keep that line drawn between food and drugs.

The last bill in Kucinich’s framework to regulate GM foods is the “Real Solutions to World Hunger Act” (H.R. 5270). Why did Kucinich introduce a bill to address the issue of world hunger as part of a package of bills to regulate GMOs? What do GMOs have to do with world hunger? As part of its marketing campaign, the biotech industry has touted that genetically engineered crops are the answer to world hunger. However, many organizations and individuals have pointed out that conventional agriculture produces more than enough food to feed the world without the potential health, environmental, and economic risks associated with GMOs. Production is not the problem, distribution is. According to Miguel A. Altieri of UC Berkeley and Peter Rosset of Food First, “The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before… Enough is available to provide 4.3 pounds per person everyday. The real causes of hunger are poverty, inequality, and lack of access. Too many people are too poor to buy the food that is available (but often poorly distributed) or lack the land and resources to grow it themselves.

What about the biotech industry’s claim that it would genetically alter food to increase its nutritional quality? In a recent NY Times article called, “Biotech’s Sparse Harvest,” Andrew Pollack wrote that while “scientists were envisioning all sorts of healthier and tastier foods,” after a decade of genetic engineering, commercialized GM crops have only been modified for herbicide and pest resistance, which is a short-term convenience to farmers but provides no benefits to consumers. Moreover, scientists around the world have expressed concerns about health risks associated with GM crops, including potential allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistance, and cancer. As a result, not only have consumers around the world refused to buy GM crops, but many humanitarian organizations and foreign governments have also refused to accept it as food aid. To protect developing countries’ rights, Kucinich’s bill states that the developing country must consent to the importation of U.S. approved genetically altered crops.

Michele Laubscher of the Alliance, a coalition of Swiss charities, states that encouraging developing nations to plant their own genetically modified crops “only increases the difficulties faced by small farmers by making them dependent on the agrichemical business.” The Alliance points out that genetically modified seeds are more expensive than conventional seeds due to patenting and licensing fees. Kucinich has repeated this same idea: “Economics remain the significant barrier to a consistent food supply, and the development of expensive genetically engineered foods may only exacerbate this trend.”

GM seeds also carry technological risks that farmers in third world nations cannot afford to take. The Sentinel reported last week that Texas cotton farmers sued Monsanto, because the GM cotton it developed to withstand Roundup applications failed. While these types of crop failures have certainly created a financial hardship for American farmers, they have been even more detrimental to poor, developing countries, such as India. While soy, canola, corn, and cotton have all been genetically altered to resist the weed killer, Roundup, corn and cotton have also been genetically modified to produce their own insecticide called Bt. Cotton has long been the backbone of India’s economy, and the decision to plant Bt cotton has had a devastating effect on its farmers, resulting in farmer suicides. This year, a NDTV broadcast covered the story of cotton farmers in the Andhra Pradesh region of India who had planted Monsanto’s expensive Bt cotton with the hope of greater yields. However, the Bt cotton produced much lower crop yields than their conventional cotton, resulting in huge debts and farmer suicides. “Bt cotton is hardly useful. They (Monsanto) had said it would yield ten to twelve or even fifteen quintals, but I only got three quintals,” said Devaiah, an Indian cotton farmer. “It has not significantly reduced pesticide use. It has not reduced cultivation cost. It has, in fact, increased cultivation cost.” “There’s no high yield. Farmers have suffered negative returns. That is why the first Bt cotton suicides have started to be reported,” said P V Satheesh of the organization, South Against Genetic Engineering. Due to all of the various risks associated with planting GM crops, Kucinich’s bill calls for increased international research into organic and sustainable agricultural practices funded through a small tax on the biotech industry’s profits.

Although there is mounting evidence that genetic engineering is not a panacea for world hunger and may actually make the problem worse, many people doubt that the biotech corporations have such an altruistic motive in the first place. For instance, if Monsanto, the leader in biotechnology, was concerned about preventing world hunger, why has the corporation developed “Terminator Technology” to produce sterile seeds, preventing farmers from saving and reusing seed from year to year and forcing them to buy new seed annually? Back in 1998, the magazine, the Ecologist, asked another question: “The giant Monsanto Corporation tells us that genetic engineering is all about feeding the hungry, about protecting the environment. But this is the company that brought us Agent Orange, PCBs, and Bovine Growth Hormone: the same company that produces Roundup…and the highly questionable ‘Terminator Technology’…Can we allow corporations like Monsanto to gamble with the very future of life on Earth?”

David Sirota, author of the book, Hostile Takeover, doesn’t expect corporations to have altruistic motives. However, he does expect the U.S. government to prevent corporations from hurting people both here and abroad. He wrote, “Corporations exist for one reason and one reason only: the relentless, single-minded pursuit of profits no matter who gets shafted…But in our country, corporations aren’t supposed to be allowed to pursue this purpose in a vacuum, unchecked, unregulated, unopposed. There is supposed to be a counterweight, a government separate from Big Business whose job is to prevent corporate profit motive from destroying society…But that government, as we all know, is long gone.”

Since first world countries around the world have rejected genetically modified crops, leaving American farmers with a surplus, is the United States trying to find another outlet for these products by “dumping” them on people starving in third world countries, as the organization, Food First, suggests on its website? Is it fair to make poor countries choose between starvation and food that is untested, unlabeled, unwanted, and potentially unsafe? What is the biotech industry’s motivation—altruism or profit? And will the U.S. government step in to protect citizens here and abroad, and risk alienating the biotech industry, a powerful lobby? Or is Sirota correct when he says that government is long gone?

GMOs: Risks and Liabilities for Farmers

Article No. 2
by Erica Martenson, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

Last week, the Napa Sentinel reported on two bills that Congressman Kucinich recently reintroduced into the House of Representatives—one to mandate the labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods and the other to require the Food and Drug Administration to perform safety tests on GM foods before they are released onto the market. Two other bills he introduced to regulate GMOs are aimed at protecting farmers from the risks and liabilities of this experimental and controversial technology.

Last year, when the ballot initiative was put forth to place a ten-year moratorium on the planting of genetically modified crops in Sonoma County, those in opposition spent a half a million dollars to make the initiative seem “anti-farmer.” The reality is that farmers were split on the issue with farmers committed to sustainable and organic agricultural practices and those concerned about the integrity of Sonoma’s agriculture supporting the temporary ban and conventional farmers who believed the technology beneficial opposed. What did not come out in the fierce campaign battle in which proponents and opponents were limited to ten-second sound bites and a few words on a billboard, was that many farmers have been hurt by this technology and more could be hurt in the future, so much so that Kucinich wrote two bills specifically to protect farmers’ rights in relation to GMOs.

According to Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception, the biotech industry spends about $50 million each year marketing this technology to the community at large but especially to farmers and producers. This aggressive marketing campaign, combined with a media that has been silenced due to industry threats of libel lawsuits and loss of advertising, has resulted in a public that is aware of the potential benefits but almost completely unaware of the possible risks (Smith, pgs. 183-229). One of the provisions in Kucinich’s “Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Farmer Protection Act” (H.R. 5266) requires companies selling GMOs to disclose all known risks.

Perhaps the largest risk to farmers is a decrease in profits. Studies have shown that U.S. farmers growing GM crops have lost billions of dollars due to lost exports, lower crop prices, and product recalls. Government subsidies have increased about $3 to 5 billion annually to keep these farmers afloat (Smith, pg. 154). Farmers have lost so much money as a result of GM crops that 200 organizations representing farmers and the organic movement successfully banded together to prevent the introduction of a new GM crop onto the market—wheat (www.psrast.org). Why is the U.S. government continuing to subsidize a technology that is unprofitable? Consumer demand for organics grew 30% last year and has been one of the fastest growing food sectors (www.businesweek.com). Why doesn’t the U.S. government shift its focus away from GM crops, which consumers clearly don’t want, and instead subsidize farmers wanting to convert over to organic and sustainable practices, which would be more profitable, better for the environment, and doesn’t carry the health risks of GMOs?

Another potential risk for farmers is that the technology can fail. For example, most of the GM crops already on the market have been genetically modified by Monsanto Corporation to resist Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup. By blasting a gene from a bacterium that is resistant to Roundup into the cells of soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton, farmers can indiscriminately spray these crops with Roundup, killing weeds but not their crop. However, there have been cases of the technology failing. For instance, this year, more than ninety Texas cotton farmers sued Monsanto, stating that “Monsanto's ‘Roundup Ready’ cotton did not tolerate applications of Monsanto's Roundup weed killer as it has been genetically altered to do. The farmers claim there is evidence that the promoter gene inserted into the cotton seeds in the genetic modification process does not work as designed in extreme high heat and drought conditions, allowing herbicide to eat into plant tissue, leading to boll deformity, shedding, and reduced yields. The plaintiffs claim Monsanto knew this but did not disclose it, so the farmers would continue to buy and use Monsanto's Roundup herbicide” (Gillam, Reuters). Kucinich’s bill would not only require the developer, in this case, Monsanto, to disclose such information, it would confirm that farmers have the right to seek compensation for their loss.

Another provision in this same bill would give farmers the right to reuse seeds and would prevent biotech corporations from developing sterile seeds. Farmers have been saving and reusing seed from year to year since the beginning of agriculture. This practice is especially important in poor, developing countries that cannot afford to buy new seed each year. However, biotech corporations patent their genetically modified seeds and can dictate that the seed only be used once. Monsanto has even developed the technology to produce sterile seeds, which guarantees that the farmer can only use the seed one time and must buy new seed annually. Monsanto has patented these “terminator” or “suicide” seeds but has not been able to release them onto the market, because the United Nations has intervened and prevented them from doing so (www.gmfreeze.org). Biotech corporations have been buying up natural seed companies and retiring them (Smith, pg. 2). Meanwhile, they are developing more and more varieties of GM seeds. In 1999, when Monsanto’s executives were asked what their view of the “ideal future” would be, they replied, “A world with 100% of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented” (Smith, pg. 1). For many, the idea of a few biotech corporations gaining ownership and control over our food supply is a frightening thought.

Finally, the “Genetically Engineered Organism Liability Act” (H.R. 5271) places all liability for any negative impacts caused by GMOs onto the developer, instead of the farmer or producer. In his speech before the House of Representatives, Kucinich stated, “Biotech companies are selling a technology that is being commercialized far in advance of the new and unknown science of genetic engineering. Farmers may suffer from crop failures, neighboring farmers may suffer from cross pollination [of GM pollen], increased insect resistance, and unwanted 'volunteer' genetically engineered plants, and consumers may suffer from health and environmental impacts. Therefore, biotech companies should be found liable for the failures of genetically engineered crops. This bill ensures that the creator of the technology assumes all liability.”

Biotech corporations being held liable for the contamination of non-GM crops with GM pollen is the opposite of what has taken place thus far. Monsanto has sued and taken to court hundreds of small farmers whose non-GM crops have been contaminated by GM pollen, stating they have violated its patent rights. For example, Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer whose conventional canola was contaminated by pollen from nearby Roundup Ready canola. According to Schmeiser, "I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract. If I would go to St. Louis (Monsanto Headquarters) and contaminate their plots, destroy what they have worked on for forty years, I think I would be put in jail and the key thrown away" (www.organicconsumers.org). The Canadian Supreme Court decided that it did not matter how the GM canola got there, and Percy Schmeiser lost the case.

So, what would these two bills mean to our local area? During the debate on the ballot initiative in Sonoma, it came out that a few farmers in Sonoma are growing Roundup Ready corn used mainly for animal feed. Currently, those farmers can be held liable for any negative impacts their corn causes to people’s health, the environment, or neighboring farmers, if their conventional or organic corn were to become contaminated through cross-pollination, which has occurred as far away as fifty miles. Here in Napa, Grandpa Jack’s Farm grows certified organic produce, including organic corn. They invest a lot of time and money to get their organic certification, and their corn commands a higher price as a result. What financial hardship would that create for them, if their corn was to become contaminated with GM pollen, and they could no longer sell it as “organic?” How would they know which farmers’ GM corn contaminated their crop? Who would they sue for compensation? Would Monsanto sue them for violating its patent rights? Kucinich’s bill would make it clear that Monsanto would be liable for their financial loss; however, it still doesn’t address the problem of contamination itself. How can we prevent birds, bees, and wind from cross-pollinating non-GM crops with GM pollen? Over time, will there even be a non-GM or organic option, if this trend continues? Such problems have yet to be addressed, which is why cities, counties, states, and countries around the world have called for temporary bans on the planting of GM crops, until such issues are resolved, if they can even be resolved.

GMOs: Testing and Labeling

This is the first of a series of articles written by Erica Martenson and printed in the Napa Sentinel. There are reprinted in this post and the following two with permission of the Sentinel.

__

by Erica Martenson, SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

What do genetically modified (GM) foods have to do with democracy? According to Frances Moore Lappé, author of the book, Hope’s Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet, “Everything.” She wrote, “Think about it: None of us called for the genetic manipulation of seeds. Not one of us said, yes, this new technology will benefit me, my family and my community...No citizens were asked to weigh the risks of GMOs against possible gains. Yet today most of us are eating them, while kept completely in the dark as to the hazards we may be facing-- for ourselves, our children, and the farming ecosystems on which our lives depend."

Not only have the American people been left out of the decision-making process with respect to genetically engineered foods and beverages, but also due to a lack of labeling, Americans are eating them on a regular basis without their knowledge and without their consent. Polls consistently show that year after year about 90% of Americans want the federal government to require the labeling of GM foods, so they can choose whether or not they wish to consume them. Given that statistic, why hasn’t the U.S. government already mandated the labeling of GM products, giving American consumers the same right as people in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, and other countries, all of which have already passed such legislation?

According to Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the best-selling book on genetically engineered foods called, Seeds of Deception, in one year alone, the biotech industry spent $142 million lobbying the government. It’s not surprising the biotech industry has been lobbying so hard to prevent labeling laws, since surveys show that 57% of Americans would prefer to avoid GM food, and studies also show that the more people learn about GM foods, the less they trust them. The labeling of GM foods in the United States would likely lead to their demise, if what happened in other countries is any indication.

In countries that have required GM foods to be labeled, lack of consumer demand has led food manufacturers to remove GM ingredients from their products and grocery stores to pull GM foods off store shelves. Up to this point, here in the U.S., the federal government has protected the biotech industry by not requiring that GM products be labeled, which gives rise to a few questions: Will the U.S. government continue that same policy? Or will it reflect the will of 90% of Americans? Are we still truly a representative democracy and a capitalist society in which consumer choice and consumer demand drive the economy? We shall soon see…

On May 2nd, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio) introduced six bills into the House of Representatives to regulate genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are currently unregulated and unmonitored by the Food and Drug Administration, even though the agency’s own scientists have expressed concerns about possible health risks, including potential allergies, toxins, antibiotic resistance, and nutritional problems. The six bills are known collectively as the, “Genetically Engineered Regulatory Framework.”

One of the bills Kucinich introduced called, “The Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act” (H.R. 5269) would require food manufacturers to label any products that have been genetically modified and would also allow companies to market their products as being “GM-Free.” Another bill named, “The Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act” (H. R. 5268) would require the Food and Drug Administration to perform safety tests on genetically altered foods to make sure they are safe for human consumption, using the same testing standards they utilize to approve new food additives. In letters to his constituents on this issue, Representative Mike Thompson states that he believes that genetically modified foods should be tested for safety and clearly labeled; however, according to the current Congressional record, he has not yet co-sponsored either of these bills. These bills can be seen as a litmus test. How the House of Representatives eventually votes will give insight into whom they really represent—the American people or a handful of biotech corporations.

In his remarks to the House of Representatives when introducing the six bills, Kucinich stated, “These bills will protect our food, environment, and health. They are a common-sense precaution to ensure genetically engineered foods do no harm…Current laws, such as our food safety and environmental laws, were not written with this technology in mind. Clearer laws are necessary to ensure that these new scientific capabilities and associated impacts are closely monitored.”

And how do the issues of safety testing and labeling of GM products relate to the genetically modified wine yeast the Napa Sentinel reported on last week? In his research article titled, “Genetically Modified Wine Now Being Sold,” Dr. Joseph Cummins, Genetics Professor at the University of Western Ontario, commented on the fact that there was no evidence that the developer of the GM yeast performed any animal feeding studies to test for toxicity, even though genetically altering wine yeasts “can lead to unexpected toxicity in the final product.” In addition, this GM wine yeast has only been approved in North America, where GMOs are unregulated, and since American wines using it would not currently be labeled as such, he says, “It is only prudent to avoid all U.S. wines,” except perhaps those labeled “organic.”

“This is a current crisis. This is about the food we eat. What are we willing to risk? On what limited information? Are we willing to run across railroad tracks blindfolded with our children tied to us with a train coming down the track?” questioned Lowell Downey of the Napa County Green Party.

Tom Brocaw explains Global Warming

In the middle of the Vietnam War, Walter Cronkite used his position at CBS news to take a stand and to explain more than the government was pleased with. LBJ was quoted as having said, ""If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost Middle America". Well, Brokaw does not have Cronkite's stature, but he is Middle America, small town S. Dakota and maybe his spending two hours on Discovery channel last night will give the issue some legitimacy.

It was, at least, of enough concern that OK Senator James Imhofe had The Environment and Public Works attack Brokaw even before the program aired. They slammed him for bias and his biggest sin was to quote from scientists who had voted for John Kerry.

From another viewpoint, here is a review from an Susan L. Smith, Professor of Enviornmental Law at Willamette University School of Law. Smith screened the Brokaw program and saw Al Gore's movie, An Inconveniente Truth on the same day.

This AM, I sent the following to the editor of the Stockton Record, the major paper in the district of Richard Pombo. If they publish it, that will be the first time.

__
After watching Tom Brocaw on the Discovery Channel last night, I became convince that Richard Pombo is conducting a great experiment in public policy. At a time when the consenseus of scientific opinion is that global warming is really happening and that the major cause is the carbon dioxide produced by man, Pombo continues to insist that there is not enough scientific data on which to base public policy. With that one statement, he is telling us that he will base his policies on something other than the best set of facts that we have. Pombo's great experiment is to see how long we can last if we ignore the facts of global warming. Let me outline three examples.

Pombo has built his career on the support of private property rights, especially when they might be limited by the regulations of the Endangered Species Act. If you are forced to accept the facts that global warming is real, then you have to ask what does that mean for the survivability of species on this planet. NASA's Dr. James Hansen, perhaps the leading developer of computer models of the climate, has estimated that as many as 50% of the species on this planet may not survive, being unable to adapt to the rate at which earth's climate is changing. Maybe that is what Pombo wants and this is part of his grand experiment.

The two leading sources of increased carbon dioxide in the air are vehicluar exhaust and electric power generation. Pombo's policies involve increased exploitation of oil and natural gas as well as the increased use of coal fired power generation plants. Both of these are pouring tons of carbon into the air on an increasing basis. Rather than putting a maximum effort into finding solutions to our energy needs that do not require the burning of fossil fuels, Pombo is saying that we must burnmore , develop more sources, more quickly and make this a question of national security. Is it not a question of national security to deal with the major threat to the way we live?

The most dramatic effect of global warming is the melting of the waters locked up in ice, in Antarctica, the Arctic ice cap and in Greenland. These three areas contain enough fresh water to raise the level of the ocean by many feet. We have seen what happens when a city built below sea level is faced with the power of a major hurricane. Do we have to wait until Stockton is the next New Orleans? There is a push on right now to rebuild the levees in the Delta. How high are the new levees being built? Are they 3 feet higher? Will three feet be enough when as the oceans rise? Why then, would Richard Pombo be so concerned about our Federal Government releasing new flood plain maps for the Delta. The FEMA maps are based on historical data and the concept of a 200 year flood diaster. They do not yet consider the effects of global warming, and still Pombo does not want to let us see them.

The normal cycles of climate change happen relatively slowly. This man made climate change is happening at an increasing pace. As Pombo's grand experiment in ignoring facts plays out, remember, it is our lives that he is playing with. Our children will have to live in the world that he is making. This is all a question of how we use our resources. Pombo chairs the House Committee on Resources and he is playing a game with our future.

Telling the right story.

I recently listened to linguist Geoffrey Nunberg talk about political narrative This was a long segment on FORUM, KQED, San Francisco. If you want to listen to it all, it is a 23 m-byte MP3 file. But, I listened live, and then downloaded it so that I can listen again.

Nunberg is the author of a recen book, "Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism Into A Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show." That is why Liberals are now so afraid of the L-word that they call themselves progressives.

Nunbers makes two key points. The Republicans have gotten the story down to such a simple tale that even such a bland, boring, non-personality as Bill Frist can tell it well. Maybe the best characterization of the story comes from a simple quote from George W. Bush: "I am glad to be here in middle America where people still respect simple values."

Progressives, I mean Liberals, like to get angry at and make fun of Bush. He has been elected twice. As the host on Forums state, Liberals in Wisconsin made fun of Tommy Thompson, and he was elected four times. That line from Bush is a divisive statement, that positions a member of the oil rich, East Coast elite as just one of the boys down at the drug store.

On the other hand, Clinton had a different narrative. "I am tired of seeing people who work hard and play be the rules get the shaft." Simple, easy to understand, and you knew whatever came next, he was on your side.

I would suggest that all Green Party activists, especially our candidates, listen to Nunberg's session, or go read his book. I think that we have lost our narrative in a plethora of programs.

We should be for the middle class trying to make it as a homeowner while corporations get big subsidies.

We should be for the small businessman trying to keep his business going and pay his workers a fair wage in the face of increasing health insurance costs.

We should not allow the right to turn ecological policy into a property rights issue, because air and water and all those creatures don't know where my property ends your property starts.

This is not a matter of "framing" the debate correctly. It is a matter of knowing what story you are telling. The Green story is a wonderful one. Just start telling it.

Immigration

One group of Greens has realized that the Immigration Plank of the GPCA platform is very far out of date and have taken steps to fix the problem. The current plank is old enough to call for the "repeal of Proposition 187."

The most recent campaign appeal from Peter Camejo includes the following:

Reform our immigration policies, legalize those already here and fight to set a legalized immigration level from Mexico to one person per hundred Californias every four years. End the "Exclued Mexicans" laws perprated by the Democratic and Republican parties.

This is the first time that I have seen GPCA propose a verson of a quota system on immigration. I wonder if this addresses only the symptoms, the size of the economic migration, and not the causes.

The immigration plank is under development, and it has been chaning almost daily. You can read the current proposal text in pdf format. The plank text is...

Proposed Immigration plank.

The Green Party supports policies (as advocated by Cesar Chavez) which seek to integrate, rather than alienate, immigrant labor. We should acknowledge and celebrate the influence of diverse cultures in the mosaic that is the unique California culture

• International borders should be recognized as areas of bi-nationalinterdependence. International borders would create authentic fair-trade zoneswhere people are free to travel across borders for work, shopping or recreation.


• Barrier walls between countries are ineffective. Thus, walls along the U.S-Mexican border should be destroyed and their construction should be halted


• Reduce private and public militarization of U.S.-Mexican border


• The Green Party supports the creation of a multinational labor union that establishes consistent policies in each country which ensure a living wage, health benefits and safe working conditions.


• In order to create compliance with the principles of fair trade, the Green Party supports the renegotiation of: international trade agreements such as CAFTA and NAFTA; policies of IMF, World Bank and other international banking institutions; and of terms and conditions of contracts with multinational corporations.


• All immigrant workers in the U.S. must be subject to U.S. wage, tax and labor laws including workplace health and safety standards as well as worker’s compensation, disability and unemployment insurance benefits.


• Legalization programs which provide immigrants with the ability to obtain Permanent Residency status should provide reasonable time frames to complete the process and should be fair, simplified, transparent, and affordable.


• Immigration quotas based on race, class and ideology should be abandoned for immigration policies that promote fairness, non-discrimination and family reunification. Particular attention should be given to immigrants who are political
  exiles and refugees.

The Green Party supports policies that restore and guarantee basic human rights to all persons residing in the United States

• We oppose the continuing legislative trend of reducing and / or denying services to immigrants that are available to all other workers.
• We advocate voting rights for permanent residents, as was the law prior to World War 1.


• All immigrants, regardless of status, have the right to receive medical care, education, housing and access to all available public benefits and services.


• Interpreters should be available in emergency rooms, hospitals and health care clinics.


• All immigrants, regardless of status have the right to apply for a driver’s license without immigration status notification or restriction.

The Green Party supports policies that restore and guarantee the civil rights provided for under the Constitution of the United States which specifically states that the rights apply to all persons residing in the United States.

• All immigrants, regardless of status, have 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech, and the freedom of assembly and association.


• For all civil and criminal hearing, all immigrants have due process rights to beinformed of the charges brought against them, to confront their accusers, to have competent legal representation and to have a speedy trial. All immigrants have the right to free interpreter assistance for al legal proceedings. These rights mustapply to the deportation internment and hearing process.


• The use of force or torture or other means to compel testimony against themselves or to obtain confessions must be banned.


• All immigrants have the right to be secure in their houses, and protected against unreasonable search and seizure.


• All immigrants must be protected against arbitrary arrest or detention based on racial or cultural profiling.


• All immigrants have the right to be protected against intimidation by public officials or private individuals. Enforcement of immigration laws is the responsibility of the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Requiring local law enforcement agencies to serve as adjunct immigration agents of the Federal Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency is to be banned.

Hope Dance

I would like to call your attention to the current issue of Hope Dance, a regional publication edited by Green Bob Banner. This issue is dedicated to money and livelihood. It is worth spending a few minutes online, or getting in print. We need to Use our Dollars to Change the World -- title of Banner's editorial comment.

What are we talking about.

I received an interesting note today from Alex Walker, through two different California Green Party elists. It was based on the current fact that the mayor of the 10th largest city in the US, San Jose, has been indicted on a range of charges including bribery. To quote from the note:

I want to know what Greens think about what is happening here. To date I have not seen or heard a single comment by any of my Northern California Green Party comrades. Instead, I read e-mails about tedious plenary minutiae and, frankly, meaningless resolutions to impeach President Bush.

I agree with Alex on this issue. One of my frustrations is that there is so much energy that goes into process, or rejustifying one's position vis-a-vis Cobb or Nader that, if redirected to current events, could produce growth in this party rather than declining numbers.

Maybe what we lack right now is relavance. I have some degree of vindication in the fact that I saw some very glaring weaknesses in the Green Party Platform re: agriculture, and then did something about it. One person, with initiative, was able to acquire enough support that, even though I was not at the plenary, the new platfrom wording was adopted. That is the power of initiative.

It is also the power of good arguement, since the one piece of information that I hid is the fact that this is exactly the public postion of George W. Bush. Had we mentioned that, it might not have passed since anti-Bush emotion might have turned people off and they might not have looked at the issue on the merits.

Be that as it may, it is really not very relavant unless this party is going to make some effort to organize and recruite members throughout the Central and Imperial Valleys. What is much more relevant is the campaign of David M. Silva for assembly in the 34th AD. Here, in the middle of Big Ag country, Silva is bringing forth a very relevant solution of part of the San Joaquin Valley's air quality problems.

The way that the Green Party supported the South Central Farm was relevant. It was also a big plus for Greens.

One person, One vote

The entire discussion of internal democracy in the Green Party has some aspects that are troubling for me. They are easily stated.

The current organizational structure or the Green Party of Californian (GPCA) allows decisions ato be made by a representative body, either the General Assembly or the Coordinating Committee. We choose rep;resentatives on the basis of the the concept that those representatives have a brain and know how to use. Well, actually we choose representative to the GA on the basis that they have the time, finances and initiative to attend and we hope that they know how to use their brain.

There have been a number of situations in which there have been a claim of disenfranchisement of one group or another. The most recent involves the discussion of whether on County (or local) of the party is entitled to have as many votes as they send delegates, or as many votes as they are alloted delegates. Where one county does not have it's full complement of delegates, the decision was made to limit their votes to the number of delegates in actual attendance, even though these delegates had been entrusted with the power to act for all.

One of the answers to this problem was the suggestion to use electronic voting in a form of direct democracy. This eliminates the problem of self-selection in which outcomes are determined by those with the time and money to travel to meetings around the state. Direct democracy, with a true vote by all members, sort of an extension of the town meeting, would not necessarily disenfranchise anyone other than the disinterested.

In any version of direct democracy where all decisions are made by individuals at the lowest level, there are set of real problems that none of the the proponents of "one person, one vote" have even begun to talk about.

It is my observation that in all political parties there are a significant majority who do not put political activism at the top of their list of personal priorities. They never real the email lists. They don't browse the pertinent web site. In our case, they may never have even looked at the GPCA web site. Still, they are registered Greens and deserve a vote.

But, the best example to use against the implementation of an electronic vote, direct democracy, even in the Green Party internal decision making, is the California initiative process. This is as participatory as it gets. What is better than allowing the people of California to make their own laws, to decide for themselves what should be in the constitution. But the reality is that it concentrates power in the hands of those with money: money to pay signature gatherers, to advertise on appropriate media. It would be one of the unintended (I hope) consequences.

I would also caution against the tyranny of the majority, especially in situations where the power of money can warp public opinion. This concern is not new. De Toqueville wrote:

A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach?

Maybe I am a cynic, but one of my observations is that the only immutable law of politics is the Law of Unintended Consequences.

The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people—and especially of government—always have effects that are unanticipated or "unintended." Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it.

If the GPCA were to go down this path, then we need to have some recognition that there are over-riding considerations that must necessarily thwart the will of the majority. De Toqueville suggests that there is always an appeal from the will of majority to the general will of mankind. In the United States, there is a Constitution that is intended to protect the individual and minorities from the will of the majority. In the Green Party, there are a set of values that belong to us all, but we have no mechanisms to decide whether the will of the majority has violated one of those values. Maybe we should.

Plenary Press Release

News Advisory
          THE GREEN PARTY OF CALIFORNIA       www.cagreens.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Contact: Sara Amir, spokesperson, 310.270-7106 saraamir@earthlink.net
     Pat Driscoll, spokesperson, 916.320-6430 patp@sonicfrog.com 
     Susan King, spokesperson, 415.823-5524 funking@mindspring.com
     Cres Vellucci, press secretary, 916.996-9710 civillib@cwnet.com


Green Party of California delegates at state convention vote to impeach Bush and others for roles in Iraq war, attacks on civil liberties at home

MOORPARK, Ca. (June 27, 2006) – The Green Party of California General Assembly, meeting here over the weekend at its state convention, overwhelming voted to approve a resolution calling for the impeachment of Pres. George W. Bush, and other members of his administration, for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Green delegates also endorsed their statewide candidate slate for November, headed by gubernatorial candidate Peter Camejo, and approved two new planks – one strengthening support for "Democratic Unionism" and another calling for an end to "agricultural dumping" of U.S. products that weaken agricultural economies of other countries.

The impeachment resolution calls for impeaching and removing from office of Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Most of the reasons cited in the resolution directly involved the war in Iraq, including the "deception" by the Bush Administration employed to start the war, the use of illegal chemical and biological weapons by the U.S., the targeting of civilians with military weapons, the torture of prisoners and violation of international treaties prohibiting those actions.

The resolution also condemns the increasing attacks on civil liberties in the U.S., specifically citing warrantless searches – including recent revelations of NSA spying on citizens, and the use of "indefinite detentions" of U.S. citizens without the right to a speedy and public trial.

The resolution specifically noted that the Bush Administration used "deliberate deceptions (by) repeatedly, consciously, and with forethought, lying to the American people and the U.S. Congress by providing false and deceptive rationales for an unjustified and illegal war in Iraq."

Finally, the GPCA added two more counties to its roster, officially recognizing county delegations from San Benito and Kern counties.
-30-

Plenary

It may have been fitting that the Plenary was in Southern California this time. The feedback that I have heard sounds like a Beach Boys hit: Good Vibrations. That is great news.

One of my county's delegates has reported back that both Kern County and San Benito County were formally approved at this GA. After the tone of the Kern Count discussion, this is also goodness. It is difficult to grow this party in rural areas, so adding two new basically rural counties is goodness. We can look on San Benito County as a signal of things to come. Daniel Weintraub of the Sacramento Bee uses San Benito County "as the bellwether for election results watchers. As San Benito goes, so goes the state. " Maybe it is time for the state to go green.

Other accomplishments were, I have been told, were:

• the adoption of a new agriculture plank for the platform,
• ERWG authorized to move forward on trying to get a legislative sponsor for the draft Elections Code Sections.
• All GPCA nominees for partisan office endorsed by acclamation of the delegates. GPCA budget approved after minor changes.

Is there any additional feedback? Open Comments.

How Green is the Valley

I have just updated the blog for the Rural Green Caucus with information with a Califronia Connection. It contains a series of reports on the generation of electricity from green manure sources, a major problem with the dairy industry. There are a number of linked reports from both farm operations (Strauss Family Creamery) and the National Dairy Environmental Stewardship Council (yes, there is really an organization with that name.)

Eve of the Plenary

It is the eve of the plenary. I won't be there, but here are a few things that I would like to see happen.

• Seat the Kern County delegates without a floor fight.
• Pass the revision to the agriculture plank. It is time for the Green Party to have some view of agriculture other than just don't use pesticides or gmo's.
• We can find a way to get behind the most electable candidates and concentrate resources on them.
• Get everyone behind Forrest Hill's plans for electoral reform.
• Find a way to introduce and approve a goal to have a million registered Greens by November, 2008, and then make it happen. That is 7 new greens for every currently registered one, less than one per month.
  

Water, water, everywhere Nor any drop to drink.

That oft quoted line from Coleriges's Rime of the Ancient Mariner seems to describe what is going on right now in California's San Joaquin Valley. The problems seem to be too big for local governments to handle and there is a lot of money involved A good starting point for understanding just what is happening is a recent article in the Stockton Record, detailing the background of an 8 million gallon spill of partially treated sewage into the San Joaquin River, a spill that took 10 hours to identify and 3 days before the public was informed.

The key point is that this involves a private company that was given a contract to operate the water system for the City of Stockton. The company, OMI / Thames, is gaining such contracts all over the West, even though it has a long record of sloppy operations and allowing the facilities to run down while they pocket the profits.

You may ask what drove the City of Stockton to privatize the operation of their water system? It was the high cost of trying to purify water that is filled with pesticides, animal feces and other agricultural runoff. Again, turning to the Stockton Record, we find that the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board had given a three (3) year waiver to the farmers of the valley from having to meet Federal Clean Water regulations.

Today, the Record reports that the Board has just given the Farmers a five year extension, even though there was stiff opposition from environmental and fishing groups. No one will stand up to the economic power of agricultural interests in the valley. This is another example where someone tried self policing with no system of accountability. From today's article by environmental reporter, Warren Lutz:

Some experts believe farm runoff is the Central Valley's biggest source of water pollution, as waters seeped in pesticides, animal feces and sediment drain into waterways, the Delta and underground basins.

A 2001 state law made farmers subject to the Clean Water Act. But the board's so-called waiver program lets farmers avoid strict wastewater discharge requirements and monitor their own runoff by joining special coalitions.

Part of the problem is that there is no reporting and no accountability. Farmers could sign up into a coalition, do nothing, and no-one would know.

I am writing about it on a statewide list since +20,000,000 Californians drink the water that comes out the San Joaquin River Delta and pay for the costs of cleaning it up to be potable. It appears to me that every person who drinks water might want to pay attention to what is happening.

Anyone with a green or Green conscience should be looking at what their local water district or municipal water department is doing and making sure that they are not carrying the costs for cleaning up the San Joaquin River water.

A potential good source of information is the Planning and Conservation Leagues publication: Investment Strategy for California Water.

The Progressive Party

Sometimes, you learn things by doing some linguistic analysis. I basically support everything that Forrest Hill has listed as issues for his campaign. In fact, his redistricting plan for California is brilliant. His newsletters are very much focused on those things that a Secretary of State can and should manage well. However, they are also focused on the positioning of his stance as Progressive, not as being Green. Here is a comparative Count of the use of the words Progressive and Green in the four newsletters that I still have in my inbox.

Green: Newsletter 5 (2), Newsletter 6(0), Newsletter 7(0), Newsletter 8 (1)

Progressive: Newsletter 5 (2), Newsletter 6(2), Newsletter 7(1) Newsletter 8 (0)

Total: 5 uses of the word progressive, 3 uses of the word Green.

It is just as illustrative to see how the words are used:

• Newsletter 5, talks of progressive politics, and list Progressive Democrats, Independents and Greens as examples.
• Newsletter 6, talks of Building a Progressive Future, no mention of the Green Party.
• Newsletter 7, talks of the great progressive struggles, no mention of the Green Party..
• Newsletter 8, mentions the Green Party to indicate support for Todd Chretien as the Green Party candidate

It might be better that the party were re-named the Progressive Party, as there is nothing that Forrest has produced which tightly associates him with the Green Party or green values. While, as I said, those things that he says that he would do: IRV, sensible redistricting plan, immigrant voting in local elections, proportional representation, make sense, I get no feeling from reading his material that these arise from the values of the Green Party, but rather that the Green Party is a convenient place from which to carry forward his progressive agenda. In other words, I feel that there is nothing in these newsletters that even clearly associates Forrest with the Green Party, that would help attract people to the Green Party among voters who happen to agree with his positions.

Maybe this is just one more sign of a trend toward people not aligning with any party, not believing that a specific party has earned the right to their allegiance. Yet, there is an underlying assumption that Republicans are all evil. "progressive politics has become heavily orientated toward a single short term goal - defeating the Republicans at any cost." That obsession, is what cause such consternation among bloggers like Kos of Daily Kos when the Sierra Club endorsed the candidacy of long time environmental advocate Republican Lincoln Chaffee.

As someone who has no allegiance to the progressive movement, but a strong belief in the key values of the Green Party, I would love to see the candidates of the Green Party convey the sense that they arrived at their positions as an embodiment of Green Party principles but that seems not to be the case

Post Primary Depression

I was greatly disappointed in the results of the primary election. Partly I think that it was a reaction to the very low turn out. Any effort to try and anticipate what this means for the future will probably fail.

The following comment in an email to helpful volunteers from Helen McCloskey gives you the candidate's sense of what happened.

The real loser in these elections is the sense of commitment to voting among the electorate. Daily, we faced apathy, weariness and a sense of not making a difference among average citizens a mile deep and a mile wide. Truth and challenges to the status quo made few gains into this abyss of the psyche.

If we are to succeed, we need to find a way to return some sense of passion for the future into our message. Maybe I grew up in a time when Lawrence Ferlinghetti was at City Lights writing of the Dog that walked freely in the streets, when college students hung out in coffee houses where Joan Baez and Bob Dylan were the fresh new voices of truth. I even watched Glenn Ford and Sydney Poitier in the first run of Blackboard Jungle. How little has changed.

Somehow, all of our passion these days seems to be more manufactured as part of a smart media campaign. Where the enthusiasm is real, as at the South Central Farms in LA right now, it is a struggle to become a part of the media story when every day they could be featuring some protest somewhere and after all, what does it mean Bush and Rumsfeld can claim we killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That, and the fact that the story sounds like something we have heard before.

So, we have to become more innovative in ways to carry forward our message. I like the idea that David Silva will be making a proposal for innovation in Green agriculture a part of his Assembly Campaign. I like most of what Bill Paparian is doing with his Congressional Campaign, and agree with all of his "No More" points. But I would ask what else he brings to the table other than opposition.

Newt Gingrich arrived on the Reublican Scene at a crucial time. The Democratic Leadership, especially in the House of Representatives, was collapsing under a series of scandals: postal violations by Speaker Rostenkowski, a banking scandal that caught many members of both parties, but mostly Democrats, and a long time, too cosy relationship between Democratic Committees and the lobby industry. He attacked all of that, but along with it, offered a new vision for America. In fact, he called it a Contract with America. Whatever you may think about the intent of that contract, its very truthfulness, it was a powerful tool for Gingrich and his followers. Not only was he pointing out the abuses of those currently in power, he offered an innovative alternative vision of a Great American Future.

I believe that we need a great symbolic alternative to what is going on in American Politics now. We have a Republican Party that has lost it's moral compss and a Democratic Party that has lost its rudder. It is not a wonder that this ship of state is floundering, losing the moral high ground in world opinion.

It is my fervent hope that or candidates find a way to articulate a vision for a future to go along with our exposing of the problems with the present. Give the electorate a real reason to vote FOR us and not just to vote AGAINST the current power. To do only the latter is to motivate us by fear. To do both is to give us hope.

Recruiting Republicans

Over the last 5 months, I have actively supported the campaign of Republican Pete McCloskey for Congress. There are no Greens running in this district (CA-11) and the incumbent Republican, Richard Pombo, is a big, fat target.

Over the last 2 days, the campaign has gotten really ugly, with Pombo campaign telephone calls to Republicans smearing McCloskey for accepting a campaign contribution from a person with an Islamic surname who was linked to an FBI investigation of Al Qaeda. The same person also contributed to the Republican National Committee, but Pombo did not mention that. McCloskey returned the contribution, the Republican National Committee, to my knowledge, has not.

There are a significant number of Republicans in the 11th CD who are fed up with corruption, fed up with a congressman who is viewed as being more for his corporate sponsors than for those who live in his district. I think that this is a group of people who are ripe for a major recruiting effort to bring them into the Green Party. I will be working to get that message into as many local media outlets as I can immediately after the primary results are announced.

As I do this, I also am rather intrigued with Assembly Candidate David Silva's campaign slogan propsal "Tool Up America". David mentioned this on the GrassRoots Organizing WorkingGroup email list.

Tool Up America, now that Greens are in so many races and getting so much attention even befoer the primary let us get clear on what we are asking the voter to support. I think the phrase, "Tool Up" speaks well to the future focus we have for transformation of our economic engine to sustainable energy, elegant technology and participatory management of a new post-industrial economic base.

Tool Up California, now that it is established by the luke warm, lowest common denominator compromise between Swartznegger and the Dems to actually plan more than just a few years on building infrastructure, it is up to the Greens to make sure that this new spirit of fture focus includes alternative energy, mass transportation and telecommuting organized labor.

That should also play well for attracting those disaffected Republican into the third option. As Thomas Friedman said "Green is the new Red, White and Blue."