(SACRAMENTO) In the name of promoting less injustice statewide, the
Green Party endorses Propositions 34 and 36, to end the Death Penalty
and to reform the Three Strikes Law, respectively.
“Non-violence is one of the Green Party’s Key Values and the Green
Party has unconditionally opposed capital punishment since the party
started,” said Don Macleay, an Oakland Green City Council candidate
who has been working to end the death penalty for years. “In practice
the death penalty is also applied disproportionately in a racially
biased manner, and to the least advantaged and most vulnerable in
society, extending even to the race and economic class of the victim.
This means this is a profound civil rights issue as well.”
“Therefore, the Green Party believes that the death penalty should be
eliminated immediately and unconditionally, and endorses Prop 34 to
help bring this about.”
The GPCA also endorsed Proposition 36, the “Three-Strikes Law” Reform Act.
Greens have consistently opposed the “Three Strikes” law since its
origin in 1994,” said Laura Wells, Green Party spokesperson. “The
multiple problems with the original Three Strikes law that the Green
Party warned about have come to pass – our prisons contains thousands
of people serving sentences up to life imprisonment for non-violent
(and other often relatively minor) ‘third strike’ crimes. Stories of
injustice in sentencing resulting from the present law are legendary.”
“By contrast, Prop 36 is an enormous improvement over the present
Three Strikes law,” added Wells, who was the party’s 2010
gubernatorial candidate. “It inserts the words ‘violent and serious’
before the word ‘felony’when referring to any of the three convictions
being considered for sentencing. As a result, no longer will citizens
face indeterminate lifetime sentences for having committed three low
level felonies in the course of their lives. Only three violent and
serious strikes will result in life sentences.”
The Catholic Trotskyist Party agrees with the Green and Libertarian parties’ endorsement of Prop 34 and Prop 36. We disagree with most of the Libertarian Party’s other proposition positions, especially 30 and 32. We support Yes on 37.
Through the official dispensation of the Holy Catholic Church, the glorious leadership of our leader Barack Obama, and the teamwork of the US Parliament project, we look forward to a dynamic and universally liberating election result. We have not posted on IPR due to our focus on real-life activities, but we are still here and always watching. We were inspired to come back after being mentioned in comments about Don Grundman yesterday.
Here’s a write-up of Prop 37 in California, by Shannon Black, a FB friend:
So much misinformation / lack of knowledge on the issue of GMOs & Proposition 37 in this thread that I am not really sure where to begin. I guess it would help if everyone read the actual proposition and were not just regurgitating the deceptions thrown forth by the profit-over-people companies that are dumping millions of dollars into California to avoid 5-7 simple words on their existing nutritional labeling. Most major, industrialized countries have addressed this issue with the exception of the US & Canada so since our government has FAILED to address this, the people have worked very hard to get this on the ballot so we can take matters into OUR own hands and with our pocketbooks when we go shopping. I will be voting YES on Prop 37 and here is WHY:
? This is about the consumers RIGHT TO KNOW what they hell is in our food. Our right not to unwittingly become lab rats with unintended damage to our bodies and those of future generations. Lab animals in private studies that Monsanto is not manipulating are developing organ damage/failure, tumors and are sterile by 3rd generation. But we are supposed to HOPE we are not mistakenly eating this crap? This potentially toxic food is coming from a company that sued to force any organic or hormone free dairy company that dares to label their product rBGH (hormone) free to put an additional disclaimer saying there is nothing wrong / no difference with the Monsanto hormone? All this while little girls are getting boobs at nine years old due to the high level concentrations of such various hormones. So they are not really opposed to labeling but only labeling that might somehow affect their profits. This proposition is what will give all consumers those “sharp knives” to truly make the market work for us.
? Sure you say that the free market should work or you just to tell people to go buy organic from places like oh say – Whole Foods, who was just recently caught for false advertising and selling GMO products on their shelves. Trader Joes is potentially iffy but more trusted. The Sprouts “chain” undoubtedly may have many of the same issues. Telling consumers to guess if a product is safe is not the answer. This is a highly manipulated market and without people knowing what products are safe/which are not, there is no real way for the consumer market to dictate or prevail. The playing field is obviously been tilted beyond recognition given companies like Monsanto’s manipulation.
? The term “organic” (requirement being at minimum that 95% to be certified) means that GMOs can still be slipped into the product to unwitting consumers so telling people to just go buy organic is also misinformation since the potential for hidden items could still be there in smaller quantities.
? Genetically modified foods in this case are specifically those created in a science lab – not those that have been selective bred over the centuries for best qualities. GMOs like Monsanto, et al. are the inserting of DNA from one species into another admittedly by them AT RANDOM in the chain. The effects we are just now starting to see with “private” non-Monsanto led studies. A 90 day trial in which the very same scientist who participated in the Monsanto study later joined the FDA to review her own work vs. lifelong or even human trials that have not been conducted is not good science.
? The fact is that Monsanto uses FORCE AND FRAUD against farmers, manufacturers and consumers to manipulate the food market. Frankly, I am surprised that the LP is so misinformed on a topic that they should be in the forefront on. Monsanto has a team of lawyers that use the courts, government infiltration of the FDA, EPS & Dept of Ag to put potentially hazardous items on the market while claiming they “do not need to prove their product is safe for consumers, that’s the government’s job”. Meanwhile behind the scenes they are buying officials / politicians and getting their people appointed into positions of power over said decisions.
? Hell, look at Monsanto’s track record with EVERYTHING else they have brought to market. It’s safe they say, buy it up. Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs, dioxines and glyohosate (mislabeled biodegradable) in which their ads ran and I quote: “”safer than table salt” and “practically nontoxic” to mammals, birds and fish.” have all done some hefty damage on innocent people and the environment. They have killed, maimed, deformed hundreds of thousands of people before various governments FINALLY step in to do damage control. There are babies STILL being born in Vietnam over four decades later due to Agent Orange poisoning of their county (Cambodia and other defoliated countries too). There are still people dying over their past “safe” products. Might I suggest you inform yourself and watch “The World According to Monsanto” or read up with the Millions Against Monsanto to see just how corrupt this company really is. Think the Umbrella Corporation in the Resident Evil movies folks!
? Genetically modified foods that are in this proposition are not from natural selection or breeding. These are the kind created in a petri dish in a LAB, injecting random point dna strains without even knowing the ramifications, are not adequately tested, and are destroying our natural food sources all over the globe. Either creating internal toxins or made to be soaked in pesticides. Again, Monsanto says they are not responsible for finding out the safety, that’s the government’s job? Then to ensure the governments fail to protect its citizens, they make campaign contributions to buy politicians and literally have a revolving door of their people infiltrating agencies like the FDA, EPS and Dept of Ag to ensure their products get the green light no matter how harmful or toxic they turn out to be.
? Food manufacturers should already know their supply chain and know what kind and where their products/ingredients come from. So there is not a bunch of red tape. A simple affidavit, no testing requirements. Retailers and farmers are not liable for product now and will not be under Prop 37, only the food manufacturer as they are now. Restaurants and meat that is not genetically modified itself are not included in labeling now now will they under this Prop.
? Food costs rising & rampant lawsuits… bogus. UK / European Union countries did not see a big difference in food prices (soy, corn, wheat are cheap ingredients) and this is just a scare tactic to deceive voters.
? Rampant, get rich lawsuits are also false. Consumers can get an address of grievances by notifying the manufacturer. Those manufacturers have 30 days to remedy before any lawsuit can even be filed and then all they have to do is slap a label on it. There are protections against windfall suits. Lawyers and consumers do not get money from winning lawsuits like Prop 65 caused. Of course if you read the Proposition, you would already know this.
? If you think all L/libertarians are supposedly so against food labeling, I wonder how we should all feel about removing all labels or making them ALL VOLUNTARY? Hell, why not? Say we get regulations and government out of it and make all labels completely voluntary including those ridiculous ones for known allergens so that manufacturers can force people to play russian roulette with their health. But we can stand back and callously say to them – now be responsible about it and be sure to have epinephrine shots, oxygen tanks and CPR devices handy in case you guess wrong or have a hidden ingredient slipped in your food that you thought was otherwise safe for your consumption. Oh and those silly calorie, fat, sodium, transfats, carbs, protein ones should go too… let’s all just guess & wing it on all counts.
I think the “three strikes” reforms make sense. They were ham-fisted feel-doos tough on crime hoopla that a series of politicians got elected supporting. The reality is that they encompass too wide a range of potential strikes. Not just actual serious crimes. All manner of mandatory minimum sentences also seem to have lead to more people getting caught in them for lesser crimes then I think voters wanted contained under those laws. I also think it is useful to give judges leeway in sentencing. Three strikes and mandatory minimums seem to just be gimmicks whereby cops and prosecutors can add more knotches to their pistol handles, not administer actual justice.
Thanks to all of you who are informed about GMOs. I believe the correct Libertarian vote is “Yes”.
Exactly.
Furthermore, the feds have outlawed companies from labeling their food as GMO-free, so there’s no non-government solution here at this time.
And how can CA LP justify a company suing farmers who don’t want GMO contamination of their seeds for patent infringement? Truly Owellian/Kafkaesque.
@6: LPLAC is wrong about 37. The right to life includes the right to health (note I didn’t say health care!) and the right to health includes the right to be informed about what one puts into their self-owned body. Fernandes’s position on their site is just inaccurate, as nothing is banned at all. Besides, the French just two weeks ago linked GMOs and glyphosate directly to cancer. Jaech’s position is inaccurate as well.
If you believe you own your own body and have the right to health, then you also have the right to be informed about what you choose to put in it, and without that information you cannot make an informed choice, which leads to self-harm and harm of your family.
Gene,
Good idea. LP and LP locals should pursue that kind of free publicity more.
The Yes On 34 campaign to End the Death Penalty has a website @ http://www.safecalifornia.org/
If local Libertarian Party committees endorse the proposition, they will be listed as endorsers, with a link to their websites. The endorsements page includes the Riverside County LP and the LP of Santa Clara County, with links to our county websites.
I have notified the Yes on 34 campaign that the LPC supports their proposition, so hopefully the LPC will be listed.
I agree with Paulie about Prop 33 – but if someone can explain why it is wrong, I will listen.
So far I have just seen objections from Michael Hiltzik in the LA Times, and he is very anti-business and pro-government. And Harvey Rosenfield is opposing it, and he favors extreme regulation of the insurance business – he put Prop 103 on the ballot years ago.
I’d go for a modified version of NF’s proposal above. Four not guilty or dismissals (or similar findings) and you automatically are not guilty of your next charge.
Maybe you know something about it that I don’t then. When I read it all it said was that people who maintain coverage but switch companies you can maintain their continuous coverage discount. The current law means they have to stay with the same company they are with or lose that discount.
I don’t thin Prop 33 is necessary. I think it will increase the amount of unisured drivers in the state, and will result in an increase of everyone’s rates.
http://lplac.org/2012/10/19/lpc-november-ballot-voters-guide/
Looks mostly correct except about Prop 37
The CA Executive Committee finally issued its recommendations for the many propositions on the ballot. Several of us disagree with them, so here’s the link to LA County’s Libertarian newletter. They’ve posted some other views, including mine (which is why I won’t post this as an article myself):
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=2169a0833ce9dd605e003573f&id=0f3714cf44
I fully agree–34 and 36 should both be a “yes”.
NF – “Three Strikes” laws are laws that provide for increasing punishment for successive convictions after the first conviction of a felony.
California adopted a “Three Strikes” law years ago which provides for mandatory sentences of 25 years to life if someone with two violent or serious felonies is convicted of a third crime, even if the third crime is a misdemeanor.
Prop. 36 would amend this to provide that the third conviction must be for a serious or violent felony for it to count as a third strike with the mandatory 25 to life sentence.
In 2004 there was an initiative similar to Prop 36 to amend the three strikes laws. Judge James Gray was the Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate that year and actively supported the ballot proposal to reform the three strikes law.
What about “three strikes”? What are the proposed changes? How about “four balls”… if you get four consecutive cases thrown out you can do ANYTHING you want!
The Riverside County Libertarian Party endorses a Yes vote on Prop. 34 to End the Death Penalty, and a Yes vote on Prop 36 to reform the Three Strikes law.
Prop. 34 to End the Death Penalty was organized by El Dorado County Supervisor Ron Briggs, a conservative who has long supported the death penalty, but then looked at the results.
Prop. 34 has also been endorsed by the Santa Clara County Libertarian Party, by former Gov. Gary Johnson, and by Judge James Gray (Ret.)