Doing the Little Things

We all know that the Green Party is pro-Environment, but most people then label them as tree-huggers or extremists and discount them for having crazy ideas. However, the reason why the green party tries to stay so grass-roots in their campaigning is not because the style sounds greener, but its because we truly believe that every individual doing something small can create a huge difference, and each individual should be listened to for any good ideas. That being said, it is not a requirement of the party to believe that Global Warming is real, but rather our goal is to have everyone take notice that humans are effecting the environment in some way. Regardless of your belief about climate change, there must be some spark of recognition that we are negatively effecting the environment. We only want every person to do small things that help out. This is why we cannot pass Proposition 23. Those for passing Prop 23 consider progress as regressing back into the industrial revolution and the sight of smokestacks spewing black gas into the air is a sign of progress. However, this means that they feel that making our country more like China, where the air is so poor quality and thick that you could almost cut it with a knife, is the best symbol for progress even though our nation has already been through this part of our economic growth. Thus, the best showing of progress is technological progression, and technological progression means better efficiency, which means better environmental protection. Thus, maintaining environmental protection and furthering technology in any industry that we can, instead of maintaining not just the status quo, but a reactionary position, is truly the best position for our economy. This will prove we are still the forward moving nation we always have been and California will lead this forward movement as the best state in the greatest nation. We need to focus on forward progression, and this progression needs to come in the form of helping the environment and making the world a better place to live for all living things.

Money Money Money

With today’s pessimistic views of the government, people have been ranting about voting for the “lesser of two evils” in this election. It’s deafening listening to all these people droning on and begging for a “none of the above” option on the ballot because neither Jerry Brown nor Meg Whitman could possibly solve our problems, right? Wrong. In preparation for the big election next week, the Democrat and Republican parties held conventions to parade their candidates in front of enthusiastic supporters. The parties reiterated the beliefs and policies that they wish to bring to Sacramento. And after listening to the Gubernatorial candidates from both parties, I can honestly say that I am giving this one to the republicans. Meg Whitman is not just the lesser of two evils – her plans actually make sense and just may be successful enough to revitalize California’s economy and make it a thriving state once more.
Now the most important issue during this election centers around the future of the economy. After all, everything comes down to money. All of the restrictions and regulations placed on businesses are choking the life out of the economy. Why do businesses stay in California when there are places that have a more favorable business climate? The answer is that they don’t. The businesses are running out of California to places where they can actually make a profit. The solution to this problem would be to make it so the businesses DON’T want to leave California. Whitman advocates for more tax cuts and less regulations on business. The small business start up tax prevents the growth of new businesses and the factory tax is preventing manufacturing jobs from being created in California. I could not have put it better than when Ms. Whitman said, “Excessive taxation starves the economy.” Cutting these taxes can create jobs and grow businesses; this is the double whammy of reforms that can get California back on track. It is a lot more effective for the government to help businesses create jobs than to create jobs from thin air. Installing a high-speed rail way would be mighty convenient, but those employees still have to get paid, and it is not the taxpayers’ job to provide the money when these funds could be better used else where. We should let the businesses that can afford to pay more salaries create the jobs, so the government has more money for other services that will benefit all of the taxpayers.
Remaining stagnant in the ever-changing world is proving to be disastrous for every aspect of the government. We need to change California for the better and making targeted tax cuts will foster job growth and can spark the change that we need. The conservative side of this issue has it right. We should be pleasing the businesses because it might be a hard pill to swallow, but the fact is that our economy depends on them and we would do well to not drive them away or smother them with regulations.

A Realistic Take on the Issues

The Tea Party has something to say. This past week has seen a lot of action on the political spectrum and it's about time someone offered a realistic, approachable stance on things. The Tea Party is often accused as being outlandish and too right wing, only focusing on taxes and a dislike for Obama, but as Senator Campbell stated today, the Tea Party is really just a "grassroots" party. We represent a large faction of Americans and it's about time someone listened to us.

Starting at the earliest event, it's important to look at the Governor debates. One of the first topics discussed that peaked the Tea Party's interest was the idea of solving the very apparent unemployment crisis in California. It's a nice notion to talk about starting renewable energy and finding alternative sources of energy to supply our need for jobs, but its not realistic. If we want to solve the job crisis before things get rapidly worse, we need to do what's right, such as lowering the taxes that are crippling businesses. In alleviating these heavy taxes, a burden will be lifted from businesses and the atmosphere for creating jobs can only increase. Another topic the Tea Party is in strong opposition to is Prop 19. These liberal, left wing ideas proposed by the Democrats, Green party, and Libertarians are a strong proponent for a lack of care for the people of California. How could anyone ever elect a governor that supports the use of recreational drugs that ruin lives and minds? How is it in any way just to think that, "Well, since things like alcohol and tobacco are legal, why not legalize another abusive substance?" It may be popular and trendy to the youth and many others in California to legalize marijuana, but that doesn't make it right. The tea party doesn't want to get votes if it means de-moralizing Californians. As well, prop 23 was a hot-button issue. Governor Ogden stated that we "can't sacrifice our environment for our own well being." Again, it may be a real noble idea to Libertarians in thinking we can save our environment and let our people suffer in unemployment, but the Tea Party cares about the people first. We've made our problems, now we have to face them, not focus on "hip" and popular issues. The short term needs to be fixed before we can even begin to answer long term issues. There will be no one to care for the environment if there are no people supported by a strong Californian economy. The next topic is abortion. In reality, allowing abortions as long as America has been is truly an act of out right genocide. With 50 million infants dead since Roe v. Wade, there is no denying the immorality of pro-choice advocates. The Tea Party does recognize a woman's right to her own body, but the Tea Party does not advocate murder. If a woman has found herself in a situation she thinks she can't handle, killing a child is not a viable answer to getting rid of the problem. To go on briefly to the next two topics, immigration and same-sex marriage, the Tea Party is more liberal than perceived. We are for same-sex marriage, as well as legal immigration. It seems almost immature of Republicans to feel it necessary that two homosexuals in love can't be "married", but must have a "civil union". To demean these two people in love by giving them all the same rights as married people, but giving no justifiable reason as to why they can't hold the same title is just ignorant and upholding traditions for the sake of keeping these traditions. Considering the rates of divorce and cheating, even of public officials, it seems heterosexuals have already ruined the sanctity of marriage.

The next major event was the Senatorial debates. Even though the Tea Party feels somewhat disillusion by both the Democratic and Republican issues, there were certain topics that were of interest. One major issue is tax cuts. It seemed that both Boxer and Fiorina didn't give solid answers to this. Luckily, Fiorina mentioned eliminating capital and death taxes. Boxer, on the other hand was more quick to mention the idea of only giving tax cuts to small businesses. The Tea Party is in strong favor of tax cuts across the board. As the Republican candidate stated, you can't give privileges to some and not others. There is a bias that's rising against the rich and big businesses, and the Tea Party doesn't like it. We rely on these companies for a strong job atmosphere and economic stability. Therefore, all businesses need to see tax cuts. Again, the topic of same-sex marriage was brought up. In this case, Fiorina made the point that sexual orientation is completely different from race or ethnicity. It may seem this way on the outside, but in reality its not the case. The Tea Party believes that America is continuously faced with greater challenges of tolerance. When African Americans were segregated and abused by white Americans, people had to learn to overcome hundreds of years of seeing people based on color. Today, many Americans have overcome issues with race relations, but now must look at people on a deeper level. The psychological aspect of someones sexual orientation is much more difficult for people to understand. To this sentiment, it will only be a matter of time before people realize the equality homosexuals deserve, just as the majority of Americans realized the equality African Americans deserved. The final issue of the debates that the Tea Party would like to comment on is the war on terror. Boxer referred to America as a "crutch" for Iraq, and we should let them learn to stand on their own. It is a good idea to allow Iraq to stand on their own, but only once they are ready to do so. Iraq still needs considerable aid and it would be destructive to the people of Iraq if we suddenly diminished our presence there. We're at a point where we have made our bed, and now we have to lie in it. It may not be ideal, or the prettiest solution, but it is the only realistic option at this stage.

Overall, the Tea Party has a wide range of views beyond just strict tax cuts. That may be our basis, but that is because the other pressing issues can only be confronted if we have a strong economic system to rely on. Once California businesses can prosper, then people can become employed again, and the culture prosperity of our state can grow, such as allowing same-sex marriage and keeping marijuana the illegal substance it is.

$

From the minute congressman John Campbell started speaking yesterday, I knew he was one of the most sensible and well-rounded republicans I've ever come across. He had original, fresh ideas which, despite being somewhat conservative, were practical and rational. His thoughts on withdrawal from Afghanistan due to costly and uneffective practices, the social security/ medicare payment issues, and the healthy partisan competition in congress were all intriguing and interesting, something you don't usually see in the republican party. However, I do belive his excellent speaking skills made his ideas sound good any way he put them. If the Dwayne Roberts could talk like Mr. Campbell, the world wouldn't have a problem with global warming. All jokes aside, though, I did find one thing Mr. Campbell did not impress me with. And, to be honest, that one thing in the reason why I strongly disagree with the right side and with politics in general.

Money. It makes the world go around, right? It's what we strive for most and what makes us (most of us) happy. Politics, then, i guess, is about making the most money for the richest, most powerful nation on this planet. All this talk about deregulation of business and lifting taxes and decreasing spending is all a ploy to get the rich richer and to keep the "American Dream" alive and well. Accordingly, every issue Mr. Campbell spoke about was rooted in how we could profit from it or how we could save money.

Now, I'm not saying money isn't important. It indeed is and is a necessary evil in this world. But, money isn't everything, no matter what the republicans say. Doesn't the place we live add up to something? Isn't the way we treat others something as important as profits and capitalism? Is being the richest nation on earth a symbol of status, or a symbol of greed?

I want to see politics start working for the people again; not for the people's money. America is lost in a capitalistic fever where life is a never-ending race to an unreachable finish line of perfects. We want the perfect business environments, the perfect unemployment rates, the perfect jobs, the perfect paychecks and the perfect way to spend our hard earned cash. The sad reality is that nothing in this life is perfect. Let's embrace it instead of killing our earth, it's people, and it's soul in the race to be the best. Let's return to simpler ways and use the earth we were given in the way it was intended to be used. Go green if you want humanity to realize what's really important in this life.

Confused, Outrageous, and Deceptive

The October 20, 2010 debate gave the people of California a look at the potential governors in this election. And what an interesting look it was. One must question whether most of our potential governors even know their own positions on issues that are considered crises in California; if they don’t know their issues, how are they supposed to solve them?
Let’s begin with our wish-washy Libertarian, Mr. Ogden. His policies seemed to be logical, generally following the typical Libertarian stance on things. Less government regulation of business, giving people the choice to put whatever they want into their bodies, freedom of choice in regards to abortion, and the like. However, some interesting points came up when Mr. Ogden was discussing Proposition 23. He initially took a stance in favor of the proposition, stating that green restrictions are really restricting commerce and business and that we must focus on the economic challenges that face California. Why then, Mr. Ogden, did you end with the puzzling statement, “We cannot sacrifice our environment for the sake of our own well being.”? What is it that you support? Are we to believe that you are against Proposition 23, that the environment comes first? Mr. Ogden cannot seem to make up his mind.
And what could be worse than the egregious double-speak of Mr. Ogden? Nothing less than outrageous comments put out by the Green candidate, a Ms. Laura Wells. The recent jailbird made a very interesting statement regarding Proposition 19 and marijuana: “Marijuana can only help us.” Hmmm, let’s examine the effects of the so called harmless drug. “The marijuana available today is much more potent than that of the past…we’ve seen an upswing in the number of emergency room admissions related to marijuana use,” says Cynthia J. Mears, D.O., a specialist at Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago. In addition, marijuana use can affect learning abilities by impairing the hippocampus, the brain’s memory center, according to Nora Volkow, M.D., director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana also has psychiatric effects, including amotivational syndrome, which basically results in an extreme loss of interest in activities, creating what is commonly known as “burn-outs.” Furthermore, marijuana is an addictive drug. Repetitive use of marijuana inhibits the brain’s production of endogenous cannabinoids, naturally occurring chemicals that help the body deal with stress. When one is not under the influence of marijuana, and is no longer able to produce endogenous cannabinoids, they are much more susceptible to stress, and therefore likely to smoke more, creating a never-ending cycle of abuse. So, it seems that Ms. Wells believes that damaging the brain, creating a workforce of burnouts at a time when our state needs innovative thinking, and facilitating the formation of addictions will help California. I believe that she needs to rethink.
But Ms. Wells does not stop at marijuana, oh no, the outrageous comments only continue. The ever shocking Ms. Wells backs a platform that supports same-sex marriage, and that’s all fine and dandy. However, while elaborating on her views, Ms. Wells let slip a more radical initiative: “People can do whatever they want.” Really Ms. Wells, whatever they want? So, people should be allowed to commit mass murders, to involve themselves in hate crimes, even to damage the environment if they so wish? What it appears is that our radical Green Party candidate is really not in favor of anything about the Californian government, but rather an anarchist that wants to eliminate all order. Is this the woman California wants to elect? One who will destroy all hopes of ever recovering our state? I think not.
Of course, we cannot forget our dear Democrat, Mr. Jerry Brown, up for another reign in Sacramento. Mr. Brown repeatedly stated in the debate how firm he was going to be in regards to the economy of California, just like he was in his first try as governor. He knows how to handle a budget, and he won’t let any politicians get their way around his regulations. However, considering Mr. Brown’s record, what is his true motivation for keeping a tight fist clenched around the government’s wallet? Could it possibly be that he wants all the money for himself? History seems to imply that it is. When he was governor, he may have gotten a budget in, but he also managed to increase spending in Sacramento by 120%. Additionally, he gave his staff an 8% pay raise as well as letting the Legislature increase its own pay by 10%. And Californians think that somehow Mr. Brown has changed his ways. Let me tell you, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. Dear old Mr. Brown is the same as always; as Attorney General, he recklessly spent $230,000 of taxpayer money to redecorate his office. According to Mr. Brown, a fancy new desk lamp is worth stealing from public education.
How can Californians trust these left-wing candidates? The answer is, they can’t.

Not So Crazy After All

The green party: the extreme liberal hippies who only care about smoking pot and holding hands in an impractically idealistic society. Or so you thought.

Dwayne Roberts, green party candidate for U.S. Senate, spoke today on the issues he was running on and the general sentiment of the green party on the current political situation. Although, at first, you may have thought he was underdressed, in my opinion, he redeemed himself quite well with the poignant points he made concerning the federal issues rocking our nation.

Robert made it clear that he was about getting to the core of the issues, not finding ways to get around them. This was especially prevalent in his argument for the legalization of marijuana, as he described how the drug war could be stopped once and for all and how the high tax revenue could help us get out of our massive debts. He also pointed out that industrial hemp can be used to stimulate hundreds of other industries in our nation and made it clear that racism and class barriers are at the root of the marijuana issue.

Along with pot, he expressed his hopes for a universal medicare system similar to that of Britain’s, immediate withdrawal of troops, and the halt of using nuclear energy to power America. In all, his arguments made sense and were quite rational. I especially enjoyed his description of why the U.S. has troops in the middle east: for oil and power. He made it clear that no matter what the big parties say, they are puppets of big business interests and are virtually the same. It's time that we start considering third parties and the significant issues they often bring up, as he also mentioned.

The green party, although small, has a serious and practical method to saving this nation from the people that control it and us. It's time we consider what makes sense and what helps our nation to respect the planet and other people's rights. Take the green party seriously and remember that, unlike the Democrats and the Republicans, we care about you, this country, and this earth.

This week we all had the privilege of seeing libertarian chairman of Orange County Bob Booth speak for us and help elucidate various party platforms and its position on the political spectrum. We are all thankful for his visit, and he answered all of our questions honestly and both to his party and his personal beliefs. He demonstrated the interesting libertarian view of a political diamond, showing that liberals and conservatives merely are a different areas of more government participation. Overall, all of his views provided interesting insight into a party that in not well known, and probably misunderstood.

Furthermore, his foreign policy proved to be very agreeable. He proposed an interesting view that "when goods cross borders, troops don't", so he was in favor of maintaining peace and pushing trade with all nations as a way to keep all economies healthy. However, he wanted to eliminate tariffs as well to bolster trade, and he wanted to both decimate the taxes to start a new business and the taxes collected from trade. Thus, this portion of his economic plan seemed slightly idealistic because even if he planned on severely lowering the size of government, taxes will be so limited that even the limited government will receive too little funding so they can protect the people from force and fraud, as is their government plan. This plan would destroy local businesses because people overseas usually produce things much more cheaply. Also, to cut costs, companies here will use as many techniques as possible to create their products as cheaply as possible regardless of the environment because there will be no regulations. This position seems too harmful to both the United States and the world to be supported wholeheartedly.

Both his immigration and drug policies seemed to be idealistic, but potentially remarkable. Immigration was more realistic, and he expressed his feeling that lowering the limitation and obstacles to get inside of the country was necessary so not as many people would enter illegally. This position is very agreeable. However, his drug policy seemed brilliant but impossible to effectively implement. He planned on privatizing drug manufacturing so Mexican drug lords and sellers within the U.S. would not have anybody to sell to. However, these drugs would need extensive testing for their safety, and they would be relatively weak for the addicted users. Thus, they would go back to the dangerous counterparts, so such a plan is not likely to work. It sounds fantastic, and I would support it because it seems like a much safer alternative to all other options, but it seems to lack any realism behind it.

Finally, my absolute biggest complaint against the libertarian view was when Mr. Booth claimed that private industries are better to the environment than the government. This is preposterous because national parks are evidence of the government's effectiveness, and factories billowing smoke into the air show industry's effects. If environment protection became an absolutely private industry, then the biggest profit making industries will take over and horrendously destroy what we have left of the Earth.

Overall, Mr. Booth was an interesting speaker for an interesting party that has as many valid points as it does disagreeable and idealistic plans. If the Libertarian party showed more empathy for the environment and demonstrated a will to compromise on some issues so they don't appear too idealistic, then they would seem to be a very agreeable party and one that could become a true contender in future elections.