The Local Wing of Politics: Progressivism isn't national left wing and conservatism isn't national right wing, both are local or nothing at all
This is only a good example how the seat of any concern over human rights, health, ecology, and economy isn't an ideological issue. It is a geographic issue that appeals to particular geographies, instead of parties. Note in the article below that the organized frameworks here that are for these issues are entirely local. We should reconceptulize the whole basis of politics here, to take into account the Local Wing versus the National Wing. In the National Wing, they use whatever flavor of the month ideology to gatekeep against the Local Wing.
The Local Wing is why called 'left' environmentalist and so called 'right' gun rights organizations are working together on the local level to create local conservation corridors for wildlife in the Rocky Mountains--while these ideological groups on the national level pretend these issues are enemies of each other. They aren't. The ideologies are. The issues aren't. Another good example of 'right-wing environmentalism'--and a serious critique of how misleading it is to frame it as a left issue--is the book Deeper Shades of Green:
The Rise of Blue Collar and Minority Environmentalism in America.[link]
A new merger of movements is aborning. African-Americans, who had largely ignored much of the environmental movement as irrelevant to their primary social and economic concerns, became increasingly aware that racial discrimination can take the form of environmental injustice. Workers, long accustomed to the adage that jobs are more important than preserving the environment, have discovered that they were often sold a bill of goods....In the process, these groups have found each other. They have become America's newest, most radical, and most committed environmentalists. Radical, not because they adhere to esoteric theories about humankind's ecological crimes against the biosphere, but because they have discovered a mother's passion for true family values when her child's life or health is in danger. Committed, not because they believe deeply in a particular political philosophy, for most come from fairly unremarkable backgrounds, but because they are America's real communitarians. They believe that neighborhoods matter and that government should be in the business of protecting, not destroying, our sense of community.
And that is why the Local Wing--full of people on the left and right--are totally opposed to the neocons and their health destroying, economic destroying, and environmntal destroying policies.
Just goes to show you that the Local Wing knows how to run society much better than the criminals on the national level. Finally, someone came out and said it in Congress: Bush is a criminal syndicate.
This is of course why the criminals at the national level enjoy keeping the Local Wing divided up on irrelevant and superfluous divisions. These ideologcial divisions are only constructed from the national level, instead of presuming that the national parties are something from the local that is reflected on the national level. On the contrary, the national parties of the Republicans and Democrats, as mentioned throughout Toward A Bioregional State, are increasingly without any grass roots support at all! More that shows it:
California Senate voted 23-10 in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 10 relative to the USA PATRIOT Act, making California the 404th government entity and the largest of eight states to have done so. The other seven are Alaska, Colorado, Hawai’i, Idaho, Maine, Montana, and Vermont. Beginning in 2002, eleven California counties and 53 cities have passed resolutions. The combined populations of states and communities that have enacted resolutions is now nearly 87 million—roughly one in three U.S. residents. The California Assembly passed the resolution on January 3, 2006.
The bioregional state recommendations in the book would help to bring out the Local Wing, by removing national parties capacities to gatekeept and divide it as a political power, by allowing local politics to frame its own local concerns before being clientelistically driven to support the hydra-headed DemocratTM-RepublicanTM police state that only wants to totally remove the Local Wing.
There's some interesting graphs in this article about the scale of the misapplied funding in the U.S. right now. The U.S. is without any enemies or military competitors. A total of half or more U.S. budget is being swallowed each year by contractors for one building of government--The Pentagon. However, there really is nothing in the way of support for this fantasy world that the neocons promote of a dangerous world. It's only empty air(waves) and rigged ballot boxes that both parties support the rigging.
That is why you should support your Local Wing parties instead of any of the national left parties or national right parties. Perhaps you should join a watershed based organization before supporting a National political party?
Both Democrats and Republican parties in the U.S. are totally corrupted. 87 million people of the Local Wing say that the RepubliDems are corrupt and wrong.... Which is more than Bush dupes or Clinton dupes ever got to vote for them. Think about that.
Remember, the Local Wing is the majority. Bioregional state motifs would bring about its institutionalization.
California Enacts Resolution Critical of PATRIOT Act
SACRAMENTO, California - February 17 - On Thursday, February 16, the California Senate voted 23-10 in favor of Senate Joint Resolution 10 relative to the USA PATRIOT Act, making California the 404th government entity and the largest of eight states to have done so. The other seven are Alaska, Colorado, Hawai’i, Idaho, Maine, Montana, and Vermont. Beginning in 2002, eleven California counties and 53 cities have passed resolutions. The combined populations of states and communities that have enacted resolutions is now nearly 87 million—roughly one in three U.S. residents. The California Assembly passed the resolution on January 3, 2006.
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) commends State Senator Liz Figueroa, who introduced the resolution last year, and her colleagues in the Senate and Legislature for their principled stand in defense of Californians’ civil liberties. Republicans Tom McClintock and Sam Aanestad were among those who voted for the resolution.
Said BORDC’s director, Nancy Talanian, “The California resolution sets a standard we hope Congress will follow as it considers reauthorizing several controversial sections of the PATRIOT Act and the administration’s approval of warrantless wiretaps. The resolution states that no state resources will be used to collect information based on residents’ activities that are protected by the First Amendment, or to scoop up personal records without a direct connection between the records sought and suspected criminal activity.”
California’s resolution also observes that government security measures “should be carefully designed and employed to enhance public safety without infringing on the civil liberties and rights of innocent persons in the State of California and the nation.”
The BORDC congratulates Hazem Kira of the California Civil Rights Alliance, which spearheaded the California effort, and its 23 member groups such as California’s three ACLU chapters, the Green Party and Libertarian Party of California, peace and justice groups, several interfaith organizations and local Bill of Rights Defense groups throughout California.
The passage of the California resolution has the potential to affect the PATRIOT Act debate well beyond California’s borders, as Congress considers the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
Congress members with more civil liberties resolutions in their districts tend to be willing to take a strong stand in defense of civil liberties. BORDC data show that the 174 representatives who opposed a PATRIOT Act reauthorization compromise bill on December 14, 2005, were four and a half times as likely to have one or more resolutions passed in their districts as the 251 members who voted in favor. The Senate filibustered over that compromise bill’s inadequate civil liberties safeguards. Talanian explains, “If you go further, and compare the vote of the House of Representatives in October 2001, when only 66 representatives voted against the PATRIOT Act, to December 2005, when 174 representatives voted against the reauthorization, it is clear we’re making progress in turning our government’s attention towards our fundamental liberties. So we expect continued positive results now that the most populous state in the union has come to the defense of the Bill of Rights.”
Media Advisory:
California resolution text
List of resolutions by state (PDF) at
http://www.bordc.org/resources/Alphalist.pdf
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/0217-07.htm
posted by Mark at 4:30 AM
4 Comments:
More on the local being far more representative: This could be a comment on the labelling issue or this post.
Washington would become the third state to study the effects of depleted uranium on returning National Guard troops
State to study depleted uranium
Battlefield residue from U.S. weapons spurs cancer fears
BY BRAD SHANNON
THE OLYMPIAN
Washington would become the third state to study the effects of depleted uranium on returning National Guard troops under a budget proviso state legislators approved last week.
Some veterans are worried about the effect of depleted uranium on troops returning from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, citing anecdotal reports from Iraq and higher cancer rates in Europe’s Balkan war zones after uranium 238-enhanced munitions were used there in the early 1990s.
The budget puts $150,000 toward studying the problem of exposure to radioactive materials used in munitions, as well as to set up a registry of Washington National Guard personnel who might have been exposed to hazardous materials.
The budget awaits Gov. Chris Gregoire’s signature.
Ken Schwilk of Olympia, who attended legislative hearings on the subject, said Tuesday that he and other veterans were pleased “to see that the issue is being addressed at some level by the state Legislature. We hope to be able to work as activists ourselves with the military affairs people. We plan to try to set up some meetings with them to talk about some of the concerns we have as this moves forward.”
Depleted uranium was used for munitions in the Gulf War and to improve the armor on some Abrams tanks. Gases given off by the firing of the ammunition have been said to create a mist or fog of radioactive material that can be inhaled and absorbed into the body, where bone, lymph, liver and other tissues store it, and some activists fear it could be the “Agent Orange” of this generation.
“I think everyone is trying to understand the issue,” said Col. Ron Weaver, the joint chief of staff to the general who commands the state Military Department, which is heading up the study and has no evidence yet of exposure to the materials by any state Guard troops.
“We’re going to meet in the near future; we’ll go about and request that someone do the study. We haven’t decided how we’re going to do that or where,” Weaver said.
Part of the agency’s internal discussion is how to make a registry part of the study, Weaver said. He had testified in favor of waiting until studies in Louisiana and Connecticut were finished before launching into work in Washington.
Roger Kluck, a lobbyist with Friends Committee on Washington Public Policy, a Quaker group, said activists are working with lawmakers to ask the Military Department to consult independent health experts for any study or report they produce.
“Certainly the Europeans have done some good stuff. We’re just hoping the consultant and the process are set up to bring in as much information as possible,” Kluck said, noting that the state Department of Health and the University of Washington have personnel with expertise. He said they also want to see the hearings by a joint legislative committee on veterans and military affairs, which is scheduled to receive the depleted uranium report by Oct. 1.
Democratic Reps. Brendan Williams of Olympia and Rosa Franklin of Tacoma sponsored companion bills in the House and Senate that called for the study and creation of a task force and registry, but both measures died in committee. Activists later worked through budget committees and even enlisted the help of the governor’s husband, Mike Gregoire, to secure the funding by means of the budget proviso.
“This appropriation is a tribute to the hard work of local veterans’ activists like Jerry Muchmore and Ken Schwilk. They deserve thanks for bringing attention to health issues surrounding depleted uranium use in war,” Williams said this week by e-mail.
Other bill signed
Gov. Chris Gregoire signed into law a bill that protects
advocate-helpers for victims of sexual assault from divulging in court the communications they have with victims.
House Bill 2454 passed unanimously in the Senate and by
96-2 in the House. Olympia Democratic Rep. Brendan Williams sponsored it, calling it one of his session’s top priorities.
“This will strengthen the privilege between sexual-assault advocates and victims,” said Christi Hurt of the Washington Coalition of Sexual Assault Programs based in Olympia. She attended Tuesday’s bill signing.
Victims’ statements had been sheltered previously, but Hurt said the new law goes further to ensure a safe, confidential and supportive environment for those traumatized by sexual assaults.
---
http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060315/NEWS01/60315024/1018
Another interesting issue of 'local wing' issues is seen in the widespread support for campaign finance limitations in U.S. States, while the disemboded 'nowhere' parties of the federal level Democrats and Republicans oppose it entirely.
It is noted that in 49 of 50 U.S. states, these smaller jurisdictions, closer to the local ecological self-interest of the people, and (when states as a whole are voting), unriggable (except for vote machine fraud...), show huge popular 'local wing' support for financial limitations on campaigns:
45 states have systems of limits on political contributions. 3 other states have limits on contributions from certain types of corporations or in judicial races only. Only Oregon and New Mexico have no limits on political campaign contributions.
Though it seems that only New Mexico is the odd one out presently, making 46 of 50 state governments in the U.S. showing a public that authoritatively want limitations on all financial campaign contributions to elections; and 3 of the remaining 4 have at least some form of partial financial campaign contribution limitations.
Interesting points below in bold.
full article:
Measure 47 Enacts Campaign Finnace Reforms in Oregon
Oregon voters today [November 7, 2006] enacted Measure 47, a comprehensive campaign finance reform measure that includes both limits on political contributions and additional anti-coercion, disclosure and reporting requirements.
(Note to the Press: This press release assumes that Measure 47 is enacted. With 52% of the vote counted, it leads by a 54-46% margin, and various services have projected it will win.)
Many Provisions Will Take Effect and Do Not Depend on Measure 46
Some Other Provisions Will No Doubt be Challenged
"The Measure 47 limits on contributions will no doubt be attacked in court by the opponents," said volunteer lawyer Dan Meek. This will give the Oregon Supreme Court an opportunity to revisit its 1997 decision, striking down the limits that were enacted by Measure 9 of 1994. In addition, all of the important campaign finance disclosure and reporting and anti-coercion provisions in Measure 47 will take effect and do not in any way depend upon enactment of Measure 46."
"Oregon voters have shown they know that the current political system is broken and corrupt," said supporter Ken Lewis (former President of the Port of Portland). "If necessary, I will ask the Legislature to refer an amendment to voters so that all of Measure 47 can take effect."
If Measure 46, a constitutional amendment, had passed, then the contribution limits in Measure 47 would have been protected against attack by opponents who claim that any limits on political contributions violates Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution. Since Measure 46 did not pass, the Oregon Supreme Court will have to decide whether the contribution limits in Measure 47 are consistent with the existing Oregon Constitution.
"This will give the Oregon Supreme Court an opportunity to decide whether Oregon has the only state constitution in America that does not allow limits on political contributions, even though the language of Oregon's analog to the First Amendment is similar to the language of the corresponding amendments in many states," said Meek. "We fully expect these limits to be attacked by the corporations and unions and political parties and everyone else who depends on the existing big money political system in Oregon, one of only 2 states with no limits on political contributions.
45 states [now 46, inclusive of Oregon] have systems of limits on political contributions. 3 other states have limits on contributions from certain types of corporations or in judicial races only. Only Oregon and New Mexico have no limits on political campaign contributions.
In any event, the following are the more important provisions of Measure 47 that will go into effect in 30 days, even without Measure 46.
1 Every campaign advertisement funded by "independent expenditures" must prominently disclose the top 5 contributors to the "independent" campaign, the businesses they are engaged in, and the amounts contributed by each of them. These disclosures must appear in all advertisements, including TV, radio, newspaper, direct mail, billboards, etc. They need not appear on small campaign items, like buttons or bumper stickers.
2 Anyone making independent expenditures during any 2-year election cycle in excess of $200 must publicly report the expenditures in the same manner and schedule as a political committee in Oregon must report to the Secretary of State or local election officer.
3 Every candidate who spends more than $5,000 of personal money on a campaign for public office must disclose in every subsequent campaign ad the amount of personal money being spent on the campaign.
4 Every contributor of more than $500 per year must obtain a "handle" from the Secretary of State, so that his future contributions can be more accurately recorded. [Note: Every registered voter in Oregon already has a handle, consisting of his or her voter registration number. This provision will, however, include also all out-of-state contributors].
[Frankly, I think all out of state funding for elections should be banned, in order to further represent the local ecological self-interest of a particular place, instead of having distant people outside the jurisdiction bias the political process within a particular area.]
5 "Within five (5) business days of receipt, the Secretary of State shall report and make available on the Internet in an interactive database format all contribution and expenditure reports and all handle registrations. The format shall enable the user to determine the sources and amounts of reported contributions:
1) For each candidate committee, political committee, political party, and independent expenditure campaign; and
2) From each contributor who has contributed at least five hundred dollars ($500) during the election cycle."
6 No employer can, directly or indirectly, "require any employee or contractor to make any contribution or independent expenditure to support or oppose any candidate; or provide or promise any benefit or impose or threaten any detriment due to the fact that an employee or contractor did or did not make such contributions or expenditures. Any person subjected to a violation of this "shall have a civil cause of action against the violator and shall, upon proof of violation, recover a civil penalty of not less than $50,000 per incident of violation."
http://www.fairelections.net
Zoltan Grossman's Doctoral dissertation:
"Unlikely Alliances: Treaty Conflicts & Environmental Cooperation Between Native American and Rural White Communities," studied alliances of tribes and local farmers, ranchers, and fishers in the western and midwestern U.S. (using a common "place membership" to build interethnic collaboration).
Article
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/Unlikely%20Alliances.pdf
and
powerpoint
http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/UnlikelyAlliancesLecture4.ppt
on research findings.
The global green supermajority of Health, Ecology, and Local Economy concerns are innately forms of localist policy solutions and democratically popular solutions for specific areas.
http://biostate.blogspot.com/2007/11/polls-planet-earth-has-green-majority.html
Post a Comment
<< Home