It Isn’t Easy Being Green
POST UPDATE
Because the entrenched duopoly of power has very little interest in anything other than their own interests they are not inclined to stray off their respective reservations. No matter how much they bash each other the worst thing would be to let anybody else through the clubhouse door. So the political dialectic gets a little, um, stale. And by stale we mean brain dead asshat mindless.
A couple of weeks ago we ran a post on the immeasurably clownish ballot statements of the Republican and Democrat in the 72nd Special election. Since the Green Party candidate, Jane Rands, did not have a statement on the ballot, we though we would oblige by sharing one with the Friends. So we asked Jane to send a statement along. And here it is:
Name: Jane Rands
Occupation: Systems Engineer
Age: 43
I do not accept lobbyist money because I am running to represent you and not the special interests. While career politicians pander for dollars, I speak honestly about solutions for a sustainable future.
California needs a new energy plan based on clean, renewable power. I support decentralized rooftop solar power to achieve energy independence and a cleaner environment.
We need health care without insurance company profits getting in the way of providing coverage for every Californian. I support Single Payer health care.
We need a long term solution to bring water to our cities without harming our natural environment. I oppose billions of tax payer dollars being used to pay back bonds for a peripheral canal intended to benefit agribusiness. Local water use policies and conservation should be the centerpiece of any state water plan.
Last year Prop. 8 took away constitutionally guaranteed rights for the first time in our state’s history. If the state is going to be in the business of sanctioning one’s chosen life partner the state should be fair and equitable.
Public transportation is cut while disproportional amounts of transportation funds go to widen streets and freeways that are soon again jammed with cars. Elect me for long term transportation solutions.
I am a lifelong Californian with a Bachelor of Science in Computer Science from Cal Poly Pomona.
Find out more about my campaign at www.janerandsforassembly.com or email jane@janerandsforassembly.com or call (714) 325-5223. I look forward to hearing from you.
Please join me in campaigning for the California we all know we can have if we work together, not twenty years in the future, but now!
Thanks, admin. No matter what you think about the Green Party’s agenda you’ve got to agree that the current political dialog is, as you eloquently put it, “brain dead asshat mindless.”
Fortunately she has no shot.
That’s where you’re mistaken. The two-party system as left us with a bunch of crooks and panderers. The Respewglicans are in thrall to big corporation lobbyists and the Demosnots are dragged around by the nose-ring by the unions.
But maybe you like it that way.
Yes, unfortunately, she has no shot because she’s BRIGHT, w/CREATIVE solutions to California’s issues and challenges.. And, not going to pander to entrenched interests which are so corrupted by $$$ they’ve lost their moral compass…
Note – Unbelievable that members of Congress, who have government run health care paid for by taxpayers will deny us the same.. They are all morally bankrupt, their behavior unconscionable!
Thank you for posting Jane’s ballot statement on your site. Readers should know that the cost of including it in the sample ballots mailed to voters was around $ 4,000.00 per candidate in this race. Since Green candidates don’t accept money from lobbyists they are not always flush with enough cash for this expense.
Prop 8 took away constitutionally guaranteed rights? The first time in our states history?
Wrong on both counts.
Jane, same sex marriage is not guaranteed by the constitution. I understand there is a move to argue that it is but that is certainly not settled at this point.
As to the “first time in our states history” part, several examples come to mind where the people voted in a proposition that was challenged on constitutional grounds and all or part was overturned. Prop 187 ring a bell?
Wrong, Shawn. The Constitition recognizes equal protection under the law.
Soooo….
If the government is in the business of observing the consumation of contracts between consenting adults (which is exactly what a marriage license is – absent the religious content that is none of the state’s business); and then refereeing disputes in regard to such contracts disputes (divorce court), it cannot deny those samr contractual relationships to consenting, competent adults. That is indeed discrimination.
That’s not so hard to grasp is it?
Wrong, Not…
…just because you (or others) choose to reinterpret the Constitution to include same-sex marriage doesn’t make it protected or guaranteed by that document. You can’t “back date” your argument to say that for 150 years it has always been protected, just no one ever thought of it.
If the state (or society) can’t place ANY restrictions on the consummation of contracts, then it can’t limit the number of people in this contract, or their relation to one another, or ANY part of it. Sorry, most people are not willing to go down that road.
Civil union all you want. Live with whomever you want. Have your life with whomever you want.
Hey, Clarence Darrow, what part of 14th Amendment don’t you understand? There’s no re-interpretation here and no back dating.
The state can place limits on contracts that are reasonable. And reasonableness dictates that competent adults ought to be able to enter into contracts that only concern themselves.
C’mon, bring it on! Tell us all about how it’s all about the children. Or even worse, how people will start marrying their dachshunds.
By your reasoning civil rights, the right of women to vote, etc. were back dated Yes, genius. Somebody re-interpreted the Constitution!
Come to think of it, the abolition of slavery is the biggest “back-dating” of them all. But you go ahead and believe whatever your preacher-man tells you about how the government in a non-theocracy should work.
Folks, read my comment more carefully. My point is that this is not settled yet. In other words, until that time there will be plenty of argument from both sides about who is right. We will all anxiously await the answer and hope the Supremes dont punt.
No matter which side one is on it is not correct to claim “the constitution protects it” because it certainly is not literally spelled out and the interpretation part has yet to be concluded.
What about my constitutional right to 40 virgins?
Noting stopping you. Go for it.
Now Ben, hold your horse Barak. How about my right to religious freedom to keep my little white flock?
like a good, little engineer, Jane Rands plots out a nice and neat plan for a utopian society. Earning a degree in computer science, Jane has decided to diagram society towards better medicine, air, water and soil while funneling water away from crops that give us food to protect the environment. Jane Rands looks good only when compared to the pathetics that make up our current city council.
You’re missing the point of this post, as did Chris Thompson.
The two parties have left us with nothing except self-interested agendas and little armies of apologists like “Red County” and “Liberal OC.”
It’s time to start considering the ideas of third party types who are NOT beholden to anybody in disgusting symbiotic love-grope.
You got one thing right. Jane is a lot better than the people on our city council right now, even if that is setting the bar awfully low.
focus now, The Republicans and Democrats no longer represent us. Instead, they feed off of us while autocratically crafting a “better society”, for us, with their laws and policies. A third party movement is stirring in the wind and growing under our feet. It needs someone to step into its power vacuum for the 2010 and 2012 elections.
Well Merry Christmas to all.
Thank you to the hackers for proving the elite scientists of the progressive (read socialist party) left, did what all socialists do, lie about facts. In fact lie, denial, and obfiscate in order to put forth their “enlightened agenda” of better living through larger more invasive government.
Jane, any idiot that promotes solar energy as vialble should have their head examined, to make sure they have a brain. It can’t make it without heavy government subsidies. How about those “zeroscape” landscaping that greens and enviro-facists tout? It costs $7,000 and you have to have a C27 licensed landscape contractor to design and stamp in order to get your permits. You the homeowner are not allowed to do any of the work. Part of this lunacy requires the inclusion of a GPS automated sprinkler system that monitors and reports watering. Try putting in new landscaping in Granada Hills without the permits and you will be prosecuted by the city.
Yea, Greens = socialism. Who do you think is pushing this enviro crap? Unfortunately, none of the elected’s have the brass to stand up to these enviro thugs and vote this shit back to the cesspool it climbed out of.
For you out there that believe the “constitution is a living breathing document”, news flash, it isn’t and was never meant to be. If it was, every lunatic (like enviros) would have us living in mud huts like Barney Wiki-whats-his name.
Hey scarlet, there are 40 million people living here now. So you thinks its fine to let new houses and developments piss irrigation water straight into the storm drain system?
Solar energy is already being used by lots of people without any subsidy at all.
You really need to calm way down and start taking your meds again. Your calling anybody a lunatic is a wee bit frightening.
I’m not doubting your intent, however, the lack of specifics is rather …yawn…
So given that farmlands have been lost to the tune of thousands of acres a day, and we are now importing more produce from south of the border and Australia (with a pretty hefty carbon footprint), and also driving up the trade deficit, exactly how would she provide water to the remaining farms left in the Central Valley?
And, does she believe all agribusiness is bad? Give us specific examples of what you would do to help farmers. When you use words like “Agribusiness” you tend to use it as a broad general term to depict something undesirable. So if you want to make headway, give specifics, not generalities.
And does she support the continued importation from the Colorado River, as well as the northern regions to quench what seems to be a growing population in the deserts?
While we’re at it, just where does the Green party stand in terms of population control? Without going into abortion (another kettle of fish), the population of California has already reached a state where the environment cannot sustain the number of people, where does she stand on immigration, and publicly funded birth control?
Good god, it’s a campaign statement not a detailed manifesto. Send her an e-mail and ask away!
Also Jane, are you talking about giving taxpayer subsidies for rooftop solar systems? And if you are, exactly how much would people get? Right now the costs for doing so are around 18k per house, not counting anything that needs to be altered on the house.
I’m not against it, however, when you come up with such generalities –and really who could be against it, you leave yourself open to all sorts of questions. Right now, we’re greatly subsidizing windmill farms, which disrupt the migratory patterns of birds …and from what I can tell work intermittently. Would you be for getting rid of the subsidies on these “wind farms?”
Before criticizing Ms. Rands too harshly, we need to consider her party’s platform. http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/
I noticed that they actually use “Feminism and Gender Equity” as a key value: a feminist agenda with equity, not equality, as a basis. Also non-violence and respect for diversity are biggies.
After reading the ten key values, I have determined that I just wouldn’t fit in at that party.
The job of representing the 72nd AD includes the ability to read, analyze, and write laws. It requires the ability to work with those whose opinions and ideals may differ. I’m not sure that a computer science major will have any experience that would be useful or helpful in Sacramento. However, I have not looked into Rands’ background so perhaps she has sat on a home owner’s association board or some other political board which might help. IMO, a history major might be better suited for the job.
Greg, why couldn’t a computer science major read, analyze and write laws? Why couldn’t a computer science major have an “ability to work with those whose opinions and ideals may differ?”
In this instance your alternative choices are two school teachers neither of whom has ever written nor probably even analyzed a law from a technical standpoint.
And what’s wrong with non-violence and respect for diversity? You’re not against that are you?
You seem to have been asleep for the last 20 years of Norby’s political work. It is a fact that Norby has experience in the area of reading, analyzing, and writing laws (municipal codes and ordnances). He also has a strong background in history; a key trait which I think is helpful for understanding how we got to where we are and how to avoid getting here again. Further, I pointed out that perhaps Rands has experience which I am not aware of that might make her a good candidate.
Lastly, the violence and diversity thing. That sounds like the usual global community BS that punishes people who have pride in there own culture. Like its ok to have brown pride but if you have white pride you must be racist. There is more of a push to understand other cultures of the world than our own U.S. and California history. From what the Green’s website says, they think all violence is bad and can be overcome if we just spend enough money studying the socio-economics of the underprivileged and teach them that violence is bad. The fact is, some bad people were bad to the bone from the day they are born. Some people only respond to violence. The Green’s approach is like what we saw with the human shields that all ran to Iraq to protect Sadam. Where were they when Sadam poisoned his people or invaded Kuwait? It’s like a friend once said as a parody: “Can’t we all just hit a bong?” Ease off the dope and get a good dose of reality. In my not-so-humble opinion, what works for the pot-heads of Humboldt (Green Central) doesn’t work so well in GOP Fullerton. The Green’s agenda (the point of my comment) is hugely restrictive, intrusive, and socialist.
I don’t think too many people lined themselves up as human shields to protect Saddam Hussein. Rather, they were there to protect the multitudes of Iraqi civilians they accurately predicted would be indiscriminately killed in the US led bombing and invasion.
And where were they when Saddam poisoned his “own people” (the Kurds)? I remember people demonstrating in front of the White House, demanding that Ronald Reagan stop military and other types of aid to our then friend Saddam Hussein in the war he started against Iran. Don’t you ever wonder how he got that poison gas? Despite protests by ordinary Americans, the Reagan administration continued to supply Iraq with weaponry, and refused to add the country back to the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism.
Then, somehow, Saddam became Hitler. Was he “born bad?” If he was, the US Government didn’t seem to notice until around 1990.
Greg, while your trying to find an answer (there is no plausible one) to History Lesson’s lesson, please answer the question you raised, exactly what has Norby accomplished with all that “experience” in the last 20 years as a politician?
I have sat through numerous council and board meetings and witnessed first hand several well-thought-out and vocal decisions. Some of which were backed up by other council/board members and some not supported. Play back a board meeting on the County’s website, sit back, and watch. Norby seems quite aware of the situation before him and is quite vocal with his thought process, often to his detriment.
As to History Lesson’s post, it is convenient for us (yes, me included) to Monday night quarterback U.S. policy. Protestors outside the White House gate aren’t exactly human shields. Also, Saddam was our ally until he decided not to play our games. He’s gone and now we have a new ally on Iran’s doorsteps to protect Israel and our oil.
Back to my initial point and on the topic. We all seem to know or at least think we know about Norby, whatever that may mean to each of us. We all seem to know nothing about Rands except for her job title, academic major, and party affiliation. As much as I don’t like the politics of the Green Party, I can look past that if a candidate appears to have great qualifications and a vision. Rands has a vision, which I disagree with, and no public record of qualifications; at least none that I have found.
So, rather than bashing Norby in hopes of bolstering the Green Party’s Rands, tell me why Rands is the best candidate.
Greg, after you retract your cranium you will discover that Norby has NEVER written a municipal law. As far as “analysis” goes, who knows? My observation is that Norby (when he managed to stay awake) just rubber stamped 99% of the city and county code changes put in front of him (admittedly better than 100%) by staff.
As for studying history, it does harm rather than help when you study processes to fit your own stereotypes. In Norby’s case his libertarianism is probably a good sign – an indicator that the mishmash of history is fascinating, but a quagmire for those who seek comfort in “eternal truths” presented by a compliantly didactic history.
Which takes us all back to the original point: fresh infusion into the politcal dialectic is welcome when the entrenched parties are obviously bough and paid for by some interest or other.
Just Asking,
If you have ever sat through a Board meeting you would know that Norby analyzes the ordinances in front of him verbally during the meeting being sure to vocalize any concerns that he or his constituents have for the language used. He asks lots of questions of staff and critical members of the public who vocalize their concerns. So to answer your question, “As far as ‘analysis’ goes, who knows?”, I know and so does anyone else who has attended or viewed the meetings.
“As for studying history, it does harm rather than help when you study processes to fit your own stereotypes.” It does harm to ignore events and the processes that lead to those events to fit your own stereotypes.
Why would anyone look to history for “eternal truths”? That seems odd; perhaps a lack a spiritual faith??
And I must agree with you final statement on fresh infusion. However, how do we get beyond the campaign donations for to candidates? I have my own interests and when I give money to a candidate, I hope (but not expect) that they will respect my interests as representative of their constituency. Does my donation constitute buying and paying for a candidate? I’m curious where we go from here…