It Ain’t Easy Being Green: A Brief Green Party Overview

Instead of giving my take here of all things green, at least up front, I think I will simply give them the floor, and let the green party speak for itself. Each quote will be directly from the Green party website, from it’s 2008 platform.

The Green Party of the United States supports divestment from and boycott of the State of Israel until such time as the full individual and collective rights of the Palestinian people are realized.

The Green’s call for :

Full withdrawal of US military forces, civilian military contractors, and corporate interests on the fastest possible timetable consistent with the safety of bringing home US troops from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other states of the region.

Re-formulate all international trade relations and commerce as currently held by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), (Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB), and the nascent Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The new formulation must be Fair Trade and the creation of a level playing field. It must protect labor, human rights, the environment and grow the local economy of receiver nations. Especially local agriculture and water supply must be protected from foreign corporate control and domination.

I have chosen to focus on foreign policy because my mind has been turned to it by the events in South Ossetia, and the Russian Invasion of the nation of Georgia. The economy is a regular focus of mine.

I believe in peace. I believe in doing our best for ourselves and the rest of the world. But I have to say that what I see, in the Non-violence espoused by the green party as a main part of the party platform, is unfortunately, not enough in this intensely war-like time. I think we do need to get out of Iraq ASAP, because the war is wrong on just about every level. I do think that we need to go after, hunt and kill Osama Bin Laden and Al-qaeda, and that we need some kind of force in the Area to assist in that hunt, which means, by necessity, a force In Afghanistan.

If, like Me, you simply read the 2008 platform of the party, you get the impression that they are, well, a bit more interested in what we do for the world, and much less what we do for ourselves. And while I am very happy to see their Anti-corporate stances, I do not entirely get their stance on universal basic Income, or the realistic-ness, for lack of a better term, of their Corporate control, and their Banking and Insurance reform seems just a little undo-able and frankly, with the shape of of the economy right now, a little dangerous to the long term economic strength of The United States. But that’s just me.

A video for you, of the Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney accepting the Nomination of the Green Party.

What do you think of the Green Party platform, and the Green party in general? Is their 2008 Platform viable, given the current economic and political circumstances this nation finds itself dealing with? Drop me a line and let me know!

Uncle Mikey

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

Let’s look at Ralph Nader today, at his viewpoints on some key issues and what he plans to do, should he win in November.

All information for this overview comes from www.votenader.org

Mister Nader says he will cut The Defense budget, which he calls bloated and wasteful. However he has no concrete plan laid out for how much specifically he will cut, He says it will be cut to a “level needed to protect the country”.

Mister Nader says he will Institute a “Carbon tax” of $50 per ton of “Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions” garnering $300,000,000,000 annually that would go towards green jobs, including Geothermal and solar energy generation.

Mister Nader says he favors a Securities specualtion tax, which he says will make the tax code more fair, seeing how most financial speculation is “conducted either directly or Indirectly” by the rich.

Mister Nader has long and extensive list of things he would do to fix corporate America. He wants to:

1) Increase Corporate Crime Prosecution Budgets

2) Ban Corporate Criminals from Government Contracts

3) Crack Down on Corporate Tax Avoidance

4) Democratize Corporate Governance

There is more, and I would give you the entire breakdown, but right now, I think the best thing you can do is simply check it out.

Mister Nader is Very aggressive as far as his plan for a military pullout of Iraq, saying quite simply:

A target of withdrawing troops in six months will be set.

Mister Nader is somewhat less friendly than most to Israel on the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, saying he backs the Peace process, that he wants a “peaceful two state” solution, and that Israel should go back to it’s 1967 borders. He also states that “Democrats and Republicans reflexively back the Militarists in Israel”.

A Video from Ralph Nader, on the Israeli/Palestinian issue:

Now to my views of his plans and thoughts here. I agree that the Military budget is wasteful, but I am not entirely certain how many cuts the Pentagon can sustain and still exist as a functional cohesive unit. As much as I would like to save money, I’m not sure how much they could concievably cut and still come close to maintaining troop levels. Then again he doesn’t say he’ll keep troop levels nearly as high as they are.

The rest of his views seem even less doable. Without an Independent Congress, Not democratic or republican but Independent, Maybe, MAYBE, he could pull this off, but with the two party system still in full effect I really cannot see him pulling it off. He is ambitious here. Ambitious is never a crime, but here it looks like wishful thinking. Yes we would all love to stick it to the man, save more money and save the planet, but with no solid congressional backing from his own political party behind him, I just don’t see him doing it.

All of that of course presuming the people would vote for him in the first place.

Would you like to see the Nader Plan brought to fruition? Does he have a chance? What would it take for you to vote for Nader?

Uncle Mikey

More environmental viewpoints and policy today, this time from the third party candidates. First up, Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. His site has nothing, NOTHING, on the subject, so what content I provide here is an interview Mister Barr did with Glenn Beck on May 22nd of this year. Click here for the entire transcript.

GLENN: Do you believe in manmade global warming and to what extent will you try to correct it, if you do believe in manmade global warming?

BARR: Mankind has done a lot of good in the world. They have done a lot of bad as well, but change in the climate is not one of them. I’ve seen no legitimate scientific evidence that indicates that the cyclical — and they are very much cyclical — you know, increases and drops in global temperatures over the decades and over the centuries is the result of, you know, mankind.

There was much more than this in the interview. I do not know what to say. I’ve seen nearly snowless winters here in New York. I’ve seen altered weather patterns worldwide. I’ve noticed a dramatic increase in more destructive weather across the globe. I’ve noticed increases in average temperatures both locally and globally. I’ve seen all the evidence that says the ice caps are shrinking, that the Ozone layer is huge and getting larger as the years go by and seen all the charts and graphs that indicate the earth is getting warmer and that increased carbon emissions are to blame.

What more does Mr. Barr need? I am astounded at his inability to see the world as it really is.

Next Up: Ralph Nader.

Ralph is entirely on the other side of the spectrum. He believes in Manmade global warming, and he wants to tax the bejeezus out of polluters. The effect will be similar to Barack Obama’s plan, in that it seeks to drop U.S. carbon emissions to 80% of 1990 Here’s his plan in a nutshell:

Nader/Gonzalez proposes a straightforward carbon tax—set to annual benchmarks to bring, with the expansion of solar energy, US emissions to at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

A phased in initial price of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would harness $300 billion annually—money that would be put back in the pockets of American taxpayers, and money that would finance a green industrial revolution, providing a boon of 10 million new green collar jobs (in efficiency retrofits, cogeneration, geothermal, solar energy generation, and green grid enhancements) in the first five years.

I am a fan of Mr. Nader’s here, if for one reason only, it would be that number he mentions $300,000,000,000 annually. He goes as far as Sen. Obama, and further then Sen. McCain, and on top of that says there is potential for savings to boot, something i did not hear in either major party candidates plan.

Now, there’s change i can believe in. But it’s not perfect. Not by a long shot.

But again, Like in yesterday’s installment, the question then becomes how realistic is this plan? How feasible? How likely would it be that an third party affiliated Independent President could get a tax that onerous to big business through the by and large non third party House and Senate? For all that it would have the same effect as The Democratic nominee’s plan, a tax that heavy on the Industries that create the emissions would have business leaders crying foul from one end of this great nation to the other. I don’t think it would pass, necessary as the measure is.

Let’s see what you have to say on this subject. Drop me a comment.