Slashdot Mirror

Not just prices for tortilla but most other grains (substitution) and animal products (feed) will likely go up http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2007/Update63. htm. But this has more to do with politics as usual and farm subsidies that environmentalism. May environmentalist are skeptical of bio-fuels. http://gp.org/committees/ecoaction/eco_2006_04_25. shtml Setting up a situation where food and fuel compete is a Republocrat endeavor.
--
Don't eat your seed corn: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Let's assume the technical problems of switchgrass-to-ethanol are solved, and we can actually get the 10,000 litres/ha yield (which is actually a net yield of something more like 7,500 if you take into account EROI). The USA uses roughly 20 million barrels of oil a day - that's 3,200 million litres per day (just for simplicity, we'll assume a litre of ethanol is equivalent to a litre of crude). So you need 320,000 hectares - 800,000 acres - just for one day's crude demand. To produce a year's demand, you'd need 292 million acres of switchgrass. That is a equivalent to a square 675 miles to a side, and nearly four times the area on which corn is currently grown.

With regards to stream-bed hydro, my point is simply that the energy extracted from it - worldwide - will be lost in the noise. It is such an irrelevancy to global energy demand as to not be worth more than a moment's consideration for anybody other than the vanishingly small number of people who can benefit from it.

While there may be plenty of individual environmentalists who are comfortable with nuclear power (indeed, I would count myself as such a person), every single one of the major environmental organizations have opposition to nuclear power as a policy and as an active campaign. As a semi-random sample, we have:

• Greenpeace
• The Sierra Club
• World Wide Fund For Nature
• The Green Party of the USA - indeed, pretty much every party thus titled around the world.
• To give an international perspective for you, in Australia, the premier environmental NGO is the Australian Conservation Foundation, who are strongly opposed

Maybe there are internal debates about the topic currently going on in these organizations, but if so it hasn't resulted in any actual changes in policy yet.

In the US they tend to attract the people who are too left for the Democrats, or occasionally protest votes from Democrats who can't stomach their own candidates. It is true on some issues they might be viewed as conservative, shift towards more decentralized government for instance, but on others...well they support the "decentralization of wealth" (communism) just as much as they support the decentralization of government, mixed with extreme environmentalism. As you can see read for yourself... http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml Basically they are ecologically "friendly" communists.

He has an interesting page at: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/senator -ratings.html discussing that there really aren't any senators in the middle anymore.

From my analysis of his table "mean" column...
What I found interesting from the table is that the 55 Republicans are more beholden to their side (on avg, 10.47 away from 100% on all issues) than the 44 Democrats are to their side (on avg, 13.56 away from 100% on all issues).

Since that data is taken from all the same bills/amendments/etc, it is a meaningful difference.

Of course, as a registered Green, I knew this already: the Democratic party became "Republicans lite" and left me a long time ago...

So does the Green Party! If you live in Washington State vote for Aaron Dixon for US Senate this fall!

The Greens on the other hand, seem to believe that government only exists on pieces of paper called laws, or through lawyers.

Funny, I don't get that impression. What makes you think that?

One reason why I don't agree is that personal involvement in government ("grass-roots democracy") is one of the most important parts of the Green platform. In fact, it is the first of their "Ten Key Values".

No one is going to protect something unless it's out of greed. The key to making anything work is understanding psychology, and the science behind it. The Green party wants to alter behavior to protect the environment, but people in general do not take orders from nameless faceless words written on pieces of paper, at least thats not how most people respond. It's carrot and stick, you offer incentives, like increased freedom, the ability to profit, and other incentives, and reducded freedom and ability to profit as the downside. This is proven to work.

Right. Greens offer people the "increased freedom" of not going to jail or facing large fines if they follow the rules. It's just a difference between positive and negative reinforcement.

This means, if a corporation or individual can recieve government credits, and recieve a huge reduction in taxes in exchange for protecting the environment, then you'll be on to something. How about a tax reduction?

Well, let's think about that for a second. First of all, how do you measure whether they protect the environment? Obviously, by creating a set of criteria or guidelines to measure against. Let's invent a word for that -- say, "regulation." Second, a tax reduction means charging them less for following the "regulations." If you think about it, that's no different than not charging them more (i.e. a "fine") for failing to follow the "regulations."

In other words, your idea and the Greens' idea are exactly the same thing, except for the labels you choose to describe it with.

How about a decrease in regulation for the people who protect the environment?

That doesn't make sense. If the people do protect the environment it means they're abiding by the regulations anyway, so decreasing them would be useless. If the people don't protect the environment it means they're failing to abide by the regulations, so they don't deserve the privilage of having them reduced.

In fact, the only consequence of your idea that I can figure out is that you'd have the scenario where people would comply with the regulations initially, and then pollute more and more -- still in compliance -- as their "privilages" were increased. At the same time, the people who were initially failing to comply would be subject to more and more stringent regulations, and more fines/higher taxes/whatever you want to call it. It sounds like extra complication for no apparent benefit, to me.

How else do you get selfish people to protect the environment? People want something in return for that.

What they get in return is not having to deal with the judicial system for breaking the law! (Note that this is the case in both the Libertarian and Green systems; the difference is that the charge in the Green case would be failure to comply with environmental regulations while the charge in the Libertarian case would be failure to pay the increased taxes.)

Now, I do have to concede you one point: the Libertarian idea is better because it uses happier semantics (i.e. rewarding the good instead of punishing the bad, even though they're the same thing) and because the higher taxes for noncompliance (which are essentially "automatic fines") are more efficient than getting the court system involved.

But still, it's important that Libertarians

The Greens on the other hand, seem to believe that government only exists on pieces of paper called laws, or through lawyers.

Funny, I don't get that impression. What makes you think that?

One reason why I don't agree is that personal involvement in government ("grass-roots democracy") is one of the most important parts of the Green platform. In fact, it is the first of their "Ten Key Values".

No one is going to protect something unless it's out of greed. The key to making anything work is understanding psychology, and the science behind it. The Green party wants to alter behavior to protect the environment, but people in general do not take orders from nameless faceless words written on pieces of paper, at least thats not how most people respond. It's carrot and stick, you offer incentives, like increased freedom, the ability to profit, and other incentives, and reducded freedom and ability to profit as the downside. This is proven to work.

Right. Greens offer people the "increased freedom" of not going to jail or facing large fines if they follow the rules. It's just a difference between positive and negative reinforcement.

This means, if a corporation or individual can recieve government credits, and recieve a huge reduction in taxes in exchange for protecting the environment, then you'll be on to something. How about a tax reduction?

Well, let's think about that for a second. First of all, how do you measure whether they protect the environment? Obviously, by creating a set of criteria or guidelines to measure against. Let's invent a word for that -- say, "regulation." Second, a tax reduction means charging them less for following the "regulations." If you think about it, that's no different than not charging them more (i.e. a "fine") for failing to follow the "regulations."

In other words, your idea and the Greens' idea are exactly the same thing, except for the labels you choose to describe it with.

How about a decrease in regulation for the people who protect the environment?

That doesn't make sense. If the people do protect the environment it means they're abiding by the regulations anyway, so decreasing them would be useless. If the people don't protect the environment it means they're failing to abide by the regulations, so they don't deserve the privilage of having them reduced.

In fact, the only consequence of your idea that I can figure out is that you'd have the scenario where people would comply with the regulations initially, and then pollute more and more -- still in compliance -- as their "privilages" were increased. At the same time, the people who were initially failing to comply would be subject to more and more stringent regulations, and more fines/higher taxes/whatever you want to call it. It sounds like extra complication for no apparent benefit, to me.

How else do you get selfish people to protect the environment? People want something in return for that.

What they get in return is not having to deal with the judicial system for breaking the law! (Note that this is the case in both the Libertarian and Green systems; the difference is that the charge in the Green case would be failure to comply with environmental regulations while the charge in the Libertarian case would be failure to pay the increased taxes.)

Now, I do have to concede you one point: the Libertarian idea is better because it uses happier semantics (i.e. rewarding the good instead of punishing the bad, even though they're the same thing) and because the higher taxes for noncompliance (which are essentially "automatic fines") are more efficient than getting the court system involved.

But still, it's important that Libertarians

Foo: How does Wen Ho Lee say anything about Bush? He was an issue in 1996, under Clinton.
Bar: It doesn't, but why let facts stand in the way of a little Bush-bashing?

Finally, someone who understands me! :)

I do stand corrected, though I did point out in the original post that the author of the book took previous administrations to task as well. All that is why I didn't vote for either bozo in the last elections. Go Green!

5. DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice, environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social, political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens.

The Libertarians: pretty much yes. Greens... well I'll let the party platform speak for itself:

"The accumulation of individual wealth in the U.S. has reached grossly unbalanced proportions. It is clear that we cannot rely on the rich to regulate their profit-making excesses for the good of society through "trickle-down economics." We must take aggressive steps to restore a fair distribution of income. We support tax incentives for businesses that apply fair employee wage distribution standards, and income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive individual wealth."

Do you call that smaller government?

The Great Bubble of the late '90s shaped a generation of Internet entrepreneurs and investors much as the Great Depression shaped a generation of economizers in the mid-20th century.

Since my own existence only dates back some 40 years, I can't claim firsthand experience of the Great Depression, but comparisons between the Dot-Com Bust and the Great Depression are so overblown that it ain't even funny. From the usual suspects:

Almost all countries were affected; the worst hit were the most industrialized, including the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Cities around the world were hit hard, especially those based on heavy industry. Construction virtually halted in many countries. Farmers and rural areas suffered as prices for crops fell by 40-60%. Mining and lumbering areas were perhaps the hardest hit because demand fell sharply and there was little alternative economic activity.

I guess it's to be expected, though. We're supposedly in this War on Terror, but so far, I haven't been asked to participate in a single Meatless Tuesday. Where do I go to get my ration cards, anyway?

Better yet, it is time to either join, form, or support independent political parties. Face the facts, the Democratic - Republican party is funded and controlled by special interests. Special interests make political campaign contributions and pay for advertising. Voters do not. Things will change ONLY when people decide to smarten up and quit being manipulated by the special interest financed advertisements (and that includes internet advertising such as blogs like this one).

'We the People' have seen what decades of power shifting between Democrats and Republicans has accomplished - more government, higher taxes, and less freedom. Out of the entire Congress, there may be one (Ron Paul) or two members that even care about such a thing as the Constitution. Just about all of Congress is made up of Republicans or Democrats. Each party accomplishes the same thing by eroding different freedoms.

Republicans may not be as hard on gun ownership as Democrats, but they are sure hard on the fourth amendment of the Constitution. Both parties support the flooding of our nation with cheap, slave-made goods. Both apparantly have a disregard for human rights. I know that I for one am tired of the years and years of broken promises and false hope that is preached by these two parties. Both of these parties have shown us what they can do for (to) us. We have seen their work. Now, let's try something else.

This election season as well as 2008, it is high time that we as a people support alternative parties such as the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/ ), Constitution Party( http://www.constitutionparty.org/ ), Green Party ( http://www.gp.org/ ), Veteran's Party, Socialist Party, and any other political party other than the two corrupt lamescream parties that have been duping the people for decades.

I for one support the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party, and Veteran's party (in that order). I will only vote for a "Republicrat" or "Demican" only if there is nobody else on the ballot and there is no write in blank. Even then, I have sometimes abstained from marking a choice. But of course, we will always have some people who insist on voting the "Lessor of Two Evils" because they believe that candidates of other political parties "don't stand a chance of winning."

Tell that to Jim Gilchrist (Founder of Minuteman Project) who ran for Congress under the American Independent Party. He won the most votes on election day and was only done in by absentee ballots (apparantly, the absentee voters never got a chance to hear his message or the election was rigged). Aagree with him or not, he showed that a candidate from an alternative party actually had a good chance of winning. Apparently, the people in that distric in California are sick and tired of the bullsh1t that spew from the Republican/Democratic Party.

I hope that people this election are not so stupid as to give up their freedoms to the sellout lamescream political party that has manipulated them for years. Each time I hear people bitch and moan that Gore should have won the election or that "Democrats" tried to appeal and recount their way to victory, I want to puke. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE which one should have, could have or had won, the results are the same. More government, higher taxes, more rules and fewer freedoms for the people. I want limited government, so that is why I vote for candidates of the Constituion and Libertarian parties. I hope people who read this are not stupid enough to throw their vote away on a Republicrat

Any Slashdot readers willing to run for public office on the newly made-up 'Open Source Party' ticket?

"The Green Party in the European Parliament has invited Hartmut Pilch, head of the Foundation for Free Information Infrastructure, and Richard Stallman from the Free Software Foundation to speak at a hearing at the European Parliament entitled: "Is software patentability necessary?" The Greens hold only around 10 percent of the seats in the Parliament, but they can still influence the debate and propose amendments to the draft law." - Green Party to hear open source line on patents

"The Green Party [of the USA] opposes patenting or copyrighting lifeforms, algorithms, DNA, colors or commonly-used words and phrases. We support broad interpretation and ultimate expansion of the Fair Use of copyrighted works. We support open source and copyleft models in order to promote the public interest and the spirit of copyright." - http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/economics.html

The Greens' core principles may be incompatible with most voting slashdotters tho.

If not them, who, and how? I just watched the state of the union crap, then the alleged democratic party "response". That was PATHETIC, I couldn't believe it. Well, I can actually, I expected it, but I had 1% hope they might actually DO SOMETHING. Instead of using the great opportunity to do something with GUTS, say announce some serious impeachment moves, they had some gomer on who droned his way to lecture hall sleepytime and said...nothing. Not believing this incredible display of ineptitude, I go over to the democratic official webpage. They are having a blog circle jerk call in to each other while they have "watch parties". WOW, THAT'LL WORK!!!1!1 MAN,, I IZ IMPRESSED!!

I checked the Libertarian party home page, NOTHING, NO RESPONSE. Constitution party, NOTHING, NO RESPONSE. Only the Greens had anything, they have 5 videos up as a response (says there available feb 1).

If the major so called opposition party FAILS to address wars based on lies, illegal and clearly unconstitional actions domestically, expansion of the heinous police state, destruction of the economy, with the only thing they do is get on the phone and talk at each other, then who the hell is left? Only places like the EFF and others like that who are trying the only peaceful remedy we have left, in the courts. Sure as hell VOTING ain't doing it, because they hack the damn vote now and get away with it! So even play acting at VOTING is a big fat waste of time.

The recounts not happening correctly is not from a lack of effort. In fact, quite a bit of effort is being used by the Ohio election supervisors to keep any irregulatities under the table.

Until they are indicted.

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/9/emw28492 6.htm

We live in a capitalist society, and in that kind of society products and services and provided by companies based on the greatest demand.

The analogy between demand and votes, often called voting with one's dollar, is a common rhetorical device. Besides, apathetic American voters elected the Republican and Democratic legislators who enacted the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA by voice vote, putting us into this mess in the first place.

When your right to vote gets taken away because your black, or your right to drive gets taken away because you're a woman, then you can start complaining.

My right to vote, and the right of everybody else who doesn't agree with the platform of the GOP or the ASS to vote, is already taken away under the equilibrium of Duverger's Law, which applies to all first-past-the-post election systems.

Do people who vote Green realize that the Green Party is for caps on how much a person can make in one year?

Sounds like a myth promoted by the right-wing.

The green party is not for any such government-controlled or mandatory earnings limit. If you could please provide your evidence, maybe I could argue. For reference, here's the Green Platform.

The greens do favor a traditionally sustainable economy, where there would be natural salary limits, but that's always existed-- Chop down all the trees, you'll lose your job. Overfarm the land, and you can't grow crops anymore.

There are no mandatory caps, which is very relevant to information businesses which use very little natural resources except for energy.

And for the record, I don't agree 100% with the Green Party's platform. Nor do I agree 100% with the platform for any political party. I do agree with the Greens more then any other party, which is why I am a member.

I like the Big-L Libertarian platform, but I feel that many people who call themselves libertarian are mostly interested in low taxes, and don't really believe in many aspects of personal liberty. I've just met too many 'libertarians' who were homophobic or beleived in strong drug control.

Your post says you are angry, but then you sigh and heave and -- inevitably -- you give up, shut up, and go on with your life. Your opposition to the war consists of posting on Slashdot about it, in a section that nobody reads.

LOOK IN THE FUCKING MIRROR! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! If you want people to be outraged, then BE OUTRAGED YOURSELF and DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ANGER. There are still anti-war speeches taking place -- go and listen to one. Go take part in a rally, hell, START a rally yourself. Get your friends and neighbors to go, and be an ACTIVE citizen, instead of someone who sits back, complains, and votes democrat. Write editorials, get in touch with the public, and get people to channel their own anger with yours.

You talk about the election being 50/50. Well guess what, buddy: BOTH MAJOR CANDIDATES SUPPORTED THE WAR. You think voting for them sent any kind of message? The democrats are the ones that gave Bush the power in the first place. The democrats are the ones that still won't take a stand against it. Why are YOU content to vote for a party that you don't agree with on this incredibly important issue??

Now is the time to start acting, not yet another four years from now when it's too late to change anything. Look up your local Green Party and become an active member of it.

It's worth several hours of my weekend to protest the war and go to political meetings. I don't understand when you say you're too busy watching sitcoms and playing World of Warcraft.

Why isn't protection for open source software and limitation of intelectual property law a political issue? I never heard it discussed in the presidential election. What can we do to force politicians to bring these issues to the forefront? Don't we want to put all the FUD behind us?

That's because you were busy being mesmerised by the main two political parties. Try looking here for an example of a reasonably major third party that takes the issue very seriously indeed, and in fact has views that very clearly align with most of the attitudes espoused on Slashdot. Of course David Cobb (and Michael Badnarik) weren't invited to the debates, so we never got a chance to hear what the two main parties would have to say if these issues were raised.

Jedidiah

Without question the green party and it's movement are the largest impediment to nuclear energy out there. It's a power trip really, one that has no scientific weight. Now the good news is that some of the greens are starting to realize that their opposition to nuclear power had everything to do with politics and nothing to do with science, and are starting to renew the calls to look at nuclear power.

The Nuclear alternative wass a hot point of contention when it came up in a county Green Party meeting I attended. I don't think it's fair to call it a "power trip", though... I think it has more to do with long-term historical mismanagement of nuclear resources (think: atomic soldiers). Plus, we Greens don't trust the big corporations to do the "right thing".

That's why you see statements like this one, where nuclear and fossil fuel subsidies are lumped together as something to be eliminated in favor of "clean, renewable sources" and conservation.

Personally, I'm torn on the issue. I believe the science, but distrust Westinghouse and the other corporations whose only responsibility, as shareholder-owned entities, is to the bottom line.

Nothing will change until we get out of a two party system mentality. Nothing. I don't understand why people don't see that it's just too fucking easy for a powerful group of people to buy BOTH parties, give the general population the bone every four years, and say "just be glad you have the right to vote!" When was the last presidential election where we actually had someone we really wanted to elect? 1992 :-/? 1980 :-)? 1960?

If the Internet is supposed to be this massive force of change, why can't an internet based "popular" party nominate someone through the Internet, and then everyone can vote for that person to do an end-around this fucked up two party system? You know, I can just see all the fat-assed geeks say "well, just think of the fraud from overseas voters, and blah blah blah." Well, instead of just sitting there on your big fat asses and criticize, why don't you use your supposed massive intellect and THINK of a way to do a national based internet nomination of a candidate... Our only other alternative is for everyone to choose another party such as this or this.

I also think it's time for all the Democrat and Republican Koolaid drinkers to wake up from their coma and realize these two choices are actually more alike than different. They are in agreement with military issues, immigration, and other misc. topics. So what does that leave, abortion? Great, that's leaves a whole lot for me to pick from...

Until then, don't be surprised for another round of pick the worst of the two in 2008...

• Bardnik
• Bush
• Cobb
• Kerry
• Nader

Yep. Massachusetts resident who's voting third party for basically the same reason. Except I'm going to go Green and vote David Cobb. Of course, I don't agree with everything they stand for, either. :)

Neither party

I'm sorry, you seem to be operating under the mistaken assumption that there are only two parties to pick from. Allow me to share some info with you. For convenience, let's consider only the Presidential election.

There are actually 6 candidates for President who are on enough (I believe) states ballots to have a chance to win the election. Bush and Kerry, obviously, but also:

Mike Badnarik - Libertarian

David Cobb - Green

Ralph Nader - Independent

Mike Peroutka - Constitution

In addition, Roger Calero, the candiate for the Socialist Workers Party, is on the ballots in 14 states.

Finally, there are at least four other candidates who are on the ballots in at least two states:

(from ballot-access.org):

Socialist Party (Walt Brown) is on in Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

Socialist Equality Party (Bill Van Auken) is on in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey, Minnesota, Washington, and is in court in Ohio.

Prohibition Party (Gene Amondsen) is on in Colorado and Louisiana.

Workers World Party (John Parker) is on in Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.


More details can be found at ballot-access.org

And a list of political parties in the United States is available as well.

seems to be fiscally conservative anymore.

The Libertarian Party is.

Being a Libertarian is about recognizing that, currently, large corporations have an advantage over any competition due to legal government protection.

Oh, and that's the central and defining concept of the Green Party.

In the USA, the Libertarian Party is the most pro-corporate, and the Greens are the least. The Republicans are in the middle, and the Democrats are very slightly less corporate than them (differing mainly in which corporations they prefer).

Constitution
Libertarian
Green
Socalist

But Green Party presidential candidate has definitely cast his mind about nuclear energy and genetic engineering.

But that's my point. In an organization that believes in grassroots democracy, the candidates match the membership's philosophy. I've spoken with David Cobb several times and I'm certain that he could be convinced to support any safe sustainable technology. His stance on those issues is based on the fact that no such technology (with attendant policies) currently exists.

If safe, well thought-out methods of using the technologies you mention are really available, then once you convince the membership, the candidates will follow. Note that there would have to be really convincing arguments as to safety and sustainability. It's not enough to predict that waste disposal solutions, etc will be invented later.

The Greens are big on examining the whole picture, so before you try to push fission, read up on the findings of the Tooth Fairy project. Many of these so-called "clean" technologies actually cause lots of problems in practice.

Just remember that the Greens are guided by their ten key values. They will adopt policies that fit those values, but they aren't set in their ways. They are very open minded and are willing to listen to anyone.

most people and soccer mums don't need inneficient gas guzzlers

So YOU decide if I really need the 300ZX I drive? I have no choice in the matter? You can take my Z when you pry it from my cold dead hands you effing commie. Because that whole to each his need from each his ability crap died about 15 years ago in case you didn't get the memo.

As for not buying in Walmart or your freedom of speech, frankly you can not be serious.

From the green platform:

Laws promoting and favoring
1. Locally owned small businesses, which are more accessible to community concerns.

2. Local production and consumption where possible.
in other words favoratism against non-local business such as WalMart, forcing competition on an un-level playing field.

m. Language is often used as a weapon ... Freedom of speech is vital to democracy. However, we believe that this freedom should not be used to perpetuate oppression and abuse.

How can simple words create oppression and abuse? They can't; but that won't stop the greens from banning speech that is distasteful in their opionion.

In one paragraph he harps on racism and in the next the need for a true democracy. (Care to take a true democratic vote on civil rights in 1860 America?)

What, like a true democratic vote would have been worse?

While Cobb's answer can be picked apart on technicalities on the meaning of "democracy", it's clear from the platform that they beleive minority rights need to be protected, as provided in the Constitution. (I think most people think of "democracy" as "constitutional democracy".)

(Interestingly, In Mississippi and South Carolina, slaves outnumbered whites. In Louisiana, whites had only a 1/2% edge, so a few pro-civil-rights whites could have tipped the balance. So yes, a state-by-state full democratic vote on civil rights in the 1860s would have resulted in a better situation.)

He think that conservation can substitute for Nuclear power. (Do the math; not unless you're willing to watch everyone's standard of living plummet).

Fusion is no solution - the supply of uranium is limited, and a tremendous amount of fossil fuel energy is used to mine it. That's not even counting the environmental costs of mining and of waste disposal.

If we as a nation live sustainably, would some people's standard of living go down? Probably, for while until smarter tech catches up. Excuse me while a shed a tear for those forced to downsize their SUV, or turn their AC up a few degrees.

It's just like personal fiscal discipline; you can live high on the hog for a while if you run up your credit cards, but you can't do it forever. We've been running on ecological credit since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Fission would be a balance transfer, not a turn towards responsbile spending.

Ten Key Values of the Green Party

I'll get to my question for Mr. Cobb in a moment.

Meanwhile, parent poster, here's a link for you to examine.
I note items numbered 5 and 6 with much trepidation.

I also note their emphatic support (check the "Resolutions" link) for such peaceful regimes as Saddam's Iraq and Arafat's Palestine. (For a party that advocates "economic" and "social" "justice", it seems ironic that they would support multi-millionaire totalitarian dictatorships. But that's just me.) ;)

Anyhow, my question for Mr. Cobb:
Having read your platform and list of resolutions, I ask what are the differences, if any between you and the World Worker's Party, the Communist Party USA, or the Socialist Worker's Party?

Thank you for even considering my question, and may you garner all the support that you deserve.

Indeed. I, like many people, would like to think of myself as environmentally concious, or "green" in the sense that it makes sense not to destroy the ecosystem upon which we so clearly depend.

That said, I am also avidly in favor of a Free society. As it turns out, such a philosophy is contradictory with Socialism, and contradictory with State control over my personal lifestyle or fiscal choices.

Now, the Green Party in the UK openly asserts that Green economic policies are basically Socialist in nature. Given that the US Green Party has a virtually identical economic platform, calling explicitly for a Welfare state...

Would it not be intellectually and morally appropriate for the US Green Party to simply come out and explicitly state that the Party's economic platform is, basically, a Socialist one?

Or do you fear that this would turn off too many voters, like me?

"And the one-dimensional political spectrum used in the good-ol US_Of_A strikes again. Greens aren't nearly as leftist as Democrats."

Their party platform says differently.

Ten Key Values of the Green Party, from their own website include things like NON-VIOLENCE, FEMINISM AND GENDER EQUITY. These aren't leftist positions? Only the decentrilization plank could be construed as libertarian.

Be careful to remember that there are actually 2 distinct parties that call themselves the Green Party.

One the G/GPUSA is not the "traditional" Green Party that we know and love. They have never ran a national candidate for office AFAIK.

The other is the ASGP (the REAL Greens), which endorsed Ralph Nader in 2000 and is endorsing Cobb in 2004.

The G/GPUSA tends to have more unreasonable views (such as the one you quoted above), which is what reminded me of the difference.

In short, make sure you are using the ASGP platform when using its text to aid in your questions.

Perhaps you should read the GP platform before you say what is and isn't in it.

"Public funding for living wage jobs. "

http://www.gp.org/issues/issue2c.html

I hate to say this, but the "Green" party is really just the new "Red" party. They're socialists. Why would they want to work with a party which embraces capitalism and free-markets?

Sure there are some issues which libertarians and Greens agree on, but they are few and far between. Legalizing marijuana, the War on Iraq, ballot access, and Civil Liberties are probably the biggest but when it comes to anything economic the Green Party is virtually identical to the Socialist Party.

They view happiness as a right and refuse to recognize the distinction between "the pursuit of happiness" and "happiness" when defining rights. You can see this quite clearly in their platform. When asked who is to provide people with the "right" to healthcare, the "right" to a "living wage", etc. the answer is quite clear. You, the able and willing owe your life to the unable and the unwilling.

Do you also plan to ban sports?

http://www.gp.org/issues/index.html

And are your 'after school' and pre school programs mandatory? What if parents do not wish to have their kids in them, is that allowed?

There is no such thing as nuclear waste "disposal." All 6 of the "low-level" nuclear waste dumps in the United States have leaked. Generation of additional nuclear wastes must be stopped. We call for the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible (in no more than 5 years); for a phase-out of other technologies that use or produce nuclear waste; and for an intensive campaign to educate the public about nuclear problems, including disposal, clean-up and long-term dangers.

Thank you for taking our questions, Mr. Cobb.

Your party's issue statement on nuclear power calls for "the early retirement of nuclear power reactors as soon as possible." Could you please explain your party's position on nuclear energy (1) in light of new, safe reactor designs and (2) in light of the necessity of the United States to wean its dependence on foreign oil?

Thank you.

"We call for a graduated supplemental income (negative income tax) that would maintain all adult incomes above the poverty level. "

http://www.gp.org/issues/index.html

"Income tax policies that restrict the accumulation of excessive wealth."

That is from http://www.gp.org/issues/index.html

What dollar amount is excessive?

Firstly, thank you for responding to our questions.

The name "Green Party" conjures images of a party interested in environmental concerns. Of course, environmental legislation isn't the only issue to have environmental impacts; international trade and energy policy both have substantial environmental ramifications. However, it seems some Green issues aren't environmentally related. For example, while I too believe that gender equity and diversity are good values, why are they part of The Green Party's Ten Key Values, given they don't appear to be substantially related to environmental issues?

Why does it seem that the Green Party takes on issues that aren't related to "green-ness"? Is it essential for a modern US political party to have a stance on every issue, even those not seemingly related to core beliefs?

Cobb is the Green Party candidate, not Ralph Nader. Nader is running as an independent.

is anyone else bother by the fact that Ralph Nader is not running on the green party platform. that their candidate is David Cobb. This has been completely ignored by the media and presents either the false impression that Nader is backed by the Greens or that the Greens have absolutely zero party loyalty. Either way I think that this should recieve some attention; parties, whether we like it or not, are treated as the dominant political institutions and to ignore party affiliation just because these candidates are not Republicans or Democrates seems absurd.
Do any (former)Greens have a justification for abandoning their party to follow Nader? I'd like to hear them.

Why just the Libertarian party? Why not other third parties too. Personally I couldn't vote for the Democrats or Republicans in good conscience. But I couldn't vote for the Libertarians either. Check out all the parties that you can. Don't just latch onto the first one that's "Not Republicrat". That would be as bad as being in the "Not Bush" party.

There's David Cobb the Green Party candidate, Michael Peroutka the Constitution Party candidate, Ralph Nader the Reform Party candidate (no, I'm not kidding), and as mentioned, Michael Badnarik the Libertarian Party candidate.

Those are just the four parties I've heard the most mention of. If you don't like any of them, keep looking. If you're really interested in them, there are even Socialist and Nazi parties.

If you want a quick intro to the Green and Libertarian parties, search the videos on C-Span for the Cobb/Badnarik debate. It's very informative and gives you in a nutshell what the policies of the two parties are, and helps to highlight the problems of having just two major parties.

"11. We support the 'Brady Bill' and thoughtful, carefully considered GUN CONTROL."

http://www.gp.org/documents/platform_2000.pdf

This could rule a party out if one was to strickly vote on the basis of being on the pro-gun side of the "GUN CONTROL" issue.

I'm still looking for the Democratic Party Platform statement that is similar. If someone finds it, please post it.

"The Whole World is Watching"

Green presidential candidate David Cobb today challenged the Democrats on the eve of their national convention to join the Green Party in calling for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

"John Kerry claims that he was deceived by the Bush administration and the U.S. intelligence community into supporting the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Yet Senator Kerry chose to ignore reports from United Nations weapons inspectors, international outrage over the planned U.S. invasion and the millions of Americans who took to the streets opposed to the invasion.

"It is time to bring the U.S. troops home now. Their presence is opposed by a majority of Iraqis and is fueling political instability and widespread and continuing resistance. U.S. troops don't belong in Iraq any more than Dick Cheney's Halliburton does. Every day, more U.S. soldiers and more innocent Iraqi civilians are dying.

"The whole world is watching to see what the Democrats will do in Boston. They can either distinguish themselves as a true opposition party or can continue as accomplices to the agenda of the radical right-wing Republicans.

"The Green Party has consistently opposed this deadly and disastrous invasion. The Cobb-LaMarche campaign offers the voters of this country a genuine alternative and we are proud to present a foreign policy based on international cooperation, diplomacy and the protection of human rights," said Cobb.

Cobb will be making campaign appearances in Boston on July 25, 26 and 27 for forums, rallies and protests timed to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. Cobb's running mate, Pat LaMarche, will be in Boston from July 26- July 28. LaMarche will be speaking at a rally to protest the placement of a Bio-Terror Lab in the heart of Boston on Wednesday, July 28.

For more information about this rally, contact United for Justice with Peace, a Boston-area coalition of groups seeking global peace through economic and social justice, at 617.491.4857.

For more information on the Cobb-LaMarche campaign, go to http://www.votecobb.org.

Information on the Green Party can be found at http://www.gp.org.

There is life beyond two parties. Tell your friends, tell you neighbors, tell your family.

Simply put: Hatch and his kind are cunts.

green party website

Since we are totally off topic anyway, which is better? this or this?