MISSION: To improve our security and to reform politics.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
ARTICLES & ESSAYS |
|
|
Jump Menu Letters to Students Additional Selected Email Letters Letters to Educational Staff Issues - Articles by Others Presidential Candidate Questionnaire Issues - Articles by Kent Mesplay Letters to Students (the ones who ask me the most questions) From: someone at @american.edu] To: campaign@mesplay.org Sent: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 afternoon Subject: Interview Questions from Robert Dear Mr. Mesplay, Thank you for graciously answering my questions. I know that you must be busy especially with today's primary but my paper is due Friday so hopefully by either tomorrow or Thursday I can receive word back from you with some answers to my questions. Attached below are the questions I would like answered. Feel free to skip any if you feel uncomfortable, but the more detail you can provide the better. Once again thank you. Sincerely, Robert
Why in your mind do Green Party candidates seek to run in national elections when they have very little shot of winning according to history? What is it about you running that keeps you driving and motivated to continue your campaign? One reason we run "higher ticket" races is to give the Green electorate someone for whom to vote. We are building a party, so it doesn't matter that we are relatively small in number. Another reason that we run is that we have to in order to remain on the ballot. The rules for ballot access are so extremely restrictive that in some states like Georgia it is basically illegal to form a "third" party. In Illinois we ran a contested Green Presidential Primary for the first time in history because it was good for the party. With a state-wide race it was possible for people feeling Green to pull the Green ballot throughout Illinois. If we only submitted one candidate's name (and the three-to-five thousand signatures per candidate required by that state) to the Secretary of State then there would have been no need for ballots to be printed. Contested races are good for parties and they are good for the country. Statistically, it was possible for our last presidential candidate, David Cobb, to be elected president (it would have been difficult but not impossible). In this two-party country lacking a party that represents people it is important to replace one of the two major parties. This is fully possible once more people realize that it is so. Roughly half the people who could register and vote do not do so. With the right candidate, message and medium it is fully possible that we elect a Green president, especially in these times of environmental awareness. The two major parties are supported by the same corporate interests and they vote accordingly. Both parties started the war in Iraq. Both parties refuse to impeach our criminal administration. Both parties are not sincerely interested in treating Global Climate Change as the security threat that it is. Gore somewhat tried, when he was in office. Out of office he is having more of an impact. Incidentally, although the propaganda experts were effective at blaming the Green Party for Gore's loss in Florida in 2000, it should be noted that more Democrats voted Republican than Green. Also, Nader drew more people into politics, who then supported Gore, than he drew away in terms of the election. It's not "spoiling," it's "voting." People have a right to support their candidate of choice. I am running to save lives. That keeps me motivated. How did you become involved or associated with the Green Party? Did you ever consider yourself a Democrat or Republican and if so why do you now associate with the Green Party over the other two major parties? When I came of age to vote I registered "American Independent" briefly until I learned how right-wing these people can be. I quickly changed to Republican when I was in college, although I knew this was not right for me. During graduate school I identified with Democrats and I voted for Carol Moseley Braun when I lived in Illinois (thinking, an African American woman running for congress? Sure, I'll support that. What are her chances?) In 1995 I was so disgusted with the two parties being so alike in abysmal ways that I thought of starting my own party. Fortunately, other people had started one that fit just right, and I've been a Green ever since. I will never again register with either of the two usual parties. Part of the problem is that while little-d-democrats and little-r-republicans have a lot in common with Greens the decision-makers in Capitals are too caught up in corporate funding to properly utilize the problem-solving tools and trust of a true democracy. The Green party does not accept corporate or union funding, which helps us remain independent of distracting factors. Most lobbying should be declared bribery and made illegal. Greens value social justice and environmental health and diversity. One of my favorite key values is decentralization, which is also a requirement of a sustainable culture. The Green Party is the most viable alternative to the two stale parties. As we both know the DC Statehood Green Party held their primary today. What makes this such an important primary for your campaign? And as a follow up to that, why do you think the DC Statehood Green Party has become so powerful over the years, especially considering it is now considered to many the second party of DC; (This is in reference to Green Party members casting more votes in previous elections compared to those of Republicans)? The DC Statehood Green Party came into being because of a fusion of the DC Statehood Party and the Green Party, which tells us something about each other. It's not just "taxation without representation" (as I saw on D.C. license plates), it really is a matter of the government suppressing a demographic that it doesn't know how to deal with. D.C. residents lack the rights and responsibilities of other citizens who are allowed to vote. Once D.C. obtains fair representation in government it will prove unsettling to those accustomed to the usual White privilege. Our nation will grow as a consequence when we face rather than ignore "the last plantation" and the poverty in the city that poetically is held as a truthful mirror to the shallow wealth in our nation's capital. Republicans don't bother with D.C. since their selfish lies just can't get any traction there, which is why the Greens and Democrats are the main two parties in D.C. If selected as the nominee, what are some of your top priorities that you will fight for in attempting to obtain the national vote for President? I would prepare our nation for a war unlike any we have ever had or ar possible of imagining. I believe in real physical security by having the basics in place for people-sized communities to be as self-sufficient as possible, with an emphasis on sustainability by design rather than as a late after-thought. "Oops, we could have been prepared for Global Warming" is unlikely to be uttered by a Green since we treat Global Climate Change as a public safety issue of enormous proportions. The solutions are really not that painful: more energy-efficient buildings, more food grown locally and organically, more local treatment of fresh- and waste-water, transportation and shelter that can take people out of harm's way in a manner that we currently lack. The list goes on. I would find it difficult to design a society that is more prone to collapse than our current one. And, what does our government do? Worse than nothing, it starts wars for no good reason in areas it doesn't understand at a time when we need to be advancing diplomatically and working together for our common survival. I would cut military funding back to 1999 levels and use the money to grow inner-city jobs in a Green Corps that enhances local security while cleaning up the environment and rooting our way of life more strongly in community. As a follow up, what makes you stand out compared to the other 4 candidates who are still in the race? I understand foreign policy better than most. Our nation relies heavily on force and intimidation in its international affairs. The greatest resources are people. Even when an adversary has little more left than "face" it is important to hold open lines of communication and work toward recognizing and nurturing commonality. Otherwise, we have endless war. I would end the war in Iraq in a manner that makes its people more secure. Is there anything else you care to add that may help me on my article that is focused on the results and issues surrounding the DC Statehood Green Party primary, and the overall party goals, ideals, and candidates vying for the 2008 presidency? I support the goal of D.C. statehood. I support diversity among Green Party registrants and I recognize how important it will be for our nation to move beyond gender and skin color in the selection of our president.
Dear Joel [name deleted; written November 23rd, 2007], First, I apologize for taking so long to write back to you. I have had a lot to do. Maybe this is too late for your Civics class project. Here is my reply regarding my views on the following topics:
· The American Constitution I support the Constitution. I view most historic documents by first trying to understand the intent and then applying that intent to modern-day issues. For example, in the Second Amendment ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms") the real issue is the common law right to self defense, followed by the need to have a “well regulated militia" to help defend others who are like us (i.e. fellow citizens). At some point, with personal arms “big enough” to threaten the security of those around us then personal defense breaks down as a good reason for owning overly powerful weapons. Those who lived centuries ago probably had no idea how powerful the weapons of today would be. My party supports gun control. I support the right to keep and bear arms, but the real issue is “just how powerful should my personal weapons be?” Especially with our government moving toward totalitarianism I would rather have a populace sufficiently armed to fight back. I think a sensible approach would be to encourage or even require all adults to have regulated, controlled access, as part of local “militias” or “community guards” to weapons that are way too powerful for personal, unchecked use [note that this is not “national” service. Our military are abused and misused by corporate interests]. My party also supports “decentralization” and recognizes that real strength lies within community. We need to balance our personal freedoms and fears with community responsibilities. The Constitution is a living document and should ideally be interpreted in how it applies as the times change.
· Abortion Abortion is a personal health issue and has no place being discussed by politicians. Still, it’s a serious issue. My party encourages personal responsibility and promotes equality among the sexes.
· United Nations Whether the “League of Nations” or “United Nations” the idea is a good one: have an international body with clear goals and objectives and a means to carry them out so that we can all be “on the same team” on important issues. Some sort of international body needs to be developed quickly to help humanity contend with the changes that are happening to our Earth. The problems we now face are outside the scope of any one country and are unlikely to be solved by politicians with the usual corrupting business connections: e.g. drought in Australia and in parts of the U.S.A., instability in weather patterns and an increase in severe storms, expected earthquakes, cataclysmic loss of habitat, 90% loss of sea-life, etc. We need an “international guard” formed by largely independent local chapters in order to deal with the mass relocation of people fleeing, in search of water and food and a stable means of surviving. Today, tens of millions of people are permanent refugees. What would happen if Californians living along the shore lost their homes to an earthquake or a tidal wave? Where would they go? What “credit” would they be given for their lost valuables? Just leaving this up to chance or to a supposed “free” insurance market is not good enough. Our nation needs a plan and it lacks one (think of “Katrina times ten”). An international body can provide good governance. In practice, the United Nations is largely ineffective.
· Taxation Taxes are necessary. I would like to phase out the income tax, which was developed as a means to fund war. For now, a more equitable tax structure is in order, with people in the highest tax brackets contributing more so that the lower and middle classes are not unfairly burdened. Ideally, a progressive tax on consumption of “nonessentials” would be tied to a “full cost pricing” analysis of the life-cycle costs of goods and services so that harmful, less efficient practices are discouraged. For example, looking at nuclear power and the hidden costs associated with that industry, wind power comes out ahead, overall. Often, people who fund major energy projects receive the benefit (e.g. shareholders), yet the de-commissioning costs of finally tearing down the structures and dealing with the toxic waste tend to be thrown the way of taxpayers. (People are talking about nuclear power, now, not because it makes sense but because it’s a powerful industry. Improving efficiency of buildings and other systems is about seven times as cost effective at reducing greenhouse gases (carbon emissions) than is nuclear power. Moreover, decentralizing increases regional security.) I favor “emissions trading” in which the allowed emissions for an entire industry are “capped” and then gradually ratcheted down in an effort to get businesses to do the right thing. Within the individual business allowances companies are encouraged to trade emissions credits so that, for example, a business that reduces its emissions then has credits to sell (and is rewarded) while the businesses that choose to keep polluting then have to pay a price and pay for emissions in a “free market” within the set constraints. When taxes are collected they shouldn’t be shunted off for other than their stated purpose. For example, here in San Diego water taxes have been siphoned off to the general fund, rather than being used to the fullest extent to fund reconstruction of our aging water supply infrastructure. Rather than simply raise taxes I would restructure government, consolidate departments and look for ways to cut waste, delays, redundancies and other inefficiencies. I recently took part in a “Kaizen” event at work, where we spent several days breaking down a business practice and rebuilding it with an expectation of soon providing value to customers in half the time it currently takes. There are ways to improve any process.
· The War on Terrorism War is terror. One problem with the war on terrorism is that terrorism is not well defined. When would the war be over? When only one person has been murdered each day, or twenty or what? A “war on terrorism” is a loose term allowing ongoing warfare. Moreover, when suspected terrorists are captured they aren’t treated properly because they don’t wear uniforms, which just isn’t right. Torture is inhumane and it is a good way to get bad information. Since “terrorism” is assumed to be on-going, there is never an end to the war or a way for prisoners to serve their time and eventually be released. The “war on terrorism” will not and cannot be won through military means, alone, since it is essentially like guerilla warfare in which one can never be certain who one’s enemy is. National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) reports state that the presence of the United States in Iraq is a factor in the instability. In other words, part of the reason for the problems in Iraq is our military presence. Note that this isn’t a problem of our troops, who are courageously doing their duty, but it is a problem of our presidential administration that exaggerated the reasons for getting us into Iraq. Also, it’s a problem of our Congress not asking tough questions prior to getting us into war (both Democrats and Republicans are to blame). Most citizens, at the time of the invasion/liberation, did not believe there were weapons of mass destruction or “advanced weaponry,” as they are now called. In the moments leading to the show-down in Iraq there was a race between the United Nations Weapons Inspectors, who had a pretty clear idea of what was going on, and the Bush administration, who had questionable motives. Terror is real, and it is important to confront it. People who resort to violence are often desperate and feel that they don’t have any other options. When given money and the chance for status, young men and women are drawn to participate in armed conflict when what they really need are good jobs and a way to support their families. Most terrorists are poor. Now that our nation is committed to war we also need to act more decisively at creating opportunities for economic stability for our would-be enemies so that they are not drawn further into conflict. By resorting to terror, to wars of choice and not necessity, we do not provide leadership and we are being a bad role model for other countries who may also resort, readily, to violent action. My party believes in nonviolence and in eradicating the root causes of war. In this day of information technology and verification it may soon be possible to avoid and end war. Additional Selected Email Letters (format is the one I receive followed by my response, cleaned up for typos, etc)
----------------- Original Message ----------------- Response from Kent Mesplay Hi Response from sender - November 25, 2007 Subject: Civics Essay about Kent
Mesplay. Received December 8th, 2007, responded the same day. Response from Kent Mesplay Response from sender Thank you for spending your time to write to me. I would appreciate
it if you responded to my letter before December 12th because my
paper is due in that date. Thanks again and I am excited to read
what you have to say!!! Thank you SO MUCH!!!! ----- Original Message ----- Response from Kent Mesplay Hello [first name], Letters to Educational Staff (I get questions from teachers, too)
Sent: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 [exact time deleted for the purposes of
trying to maintain some confidentiality.]
Subject: Student Loans
----- Original Message ----- my response
Hello [He has a first and last name. They go also here.],
[after e-mailing, I now wonder how much water is stored at
school grounds. We had tanks of rainwater in New Guinea]
end of letters section
Iran Excerpt from “A new Chinese red line over Iran” follows, by M K Bhadrakumar (12/8/07) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IL07Ak02.html China, Russia vindicated The NIE means the Bush administration cannot resort to a military strike against Iran during its remaining term in office, as it says that Iran "halted" its secret nuclear weapons program in the autumn of 2003. The military option simply doesn't exist anymore, no matter US officials' grandstanding. Equally, the Bush administration's diplomatic campaign to get the international community to back tougher sanctions against Iran runs into a cul-de-sac. Washington has been lobbying for a third round of United Nations sanctions against Iran. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked to their Chinese and Russian counterparts. But Beijing and Moscow have taken serious note of the NIE. Probably, their intelligence already knew of its contents. At any rate, they reiterated their aversion for another UN Security Council sanctions resolution." We need to ignore the “saber rattling” of the U.S. government regarding Iran. Let’s have no more talk about the U.S. bombing Iran with nuclear weapons. As stated here and elsewhere, other countries are not going to stand idly by while the U.S. mad-men run rampant.
HOW TO END THE IRAQ WAR (I am not the author. These are general Green positions. October, 2007. KM): VOTE GREEN It's time to face the truth: voting for Democrats is not going to end the war or change the direction of the US. + Democratic Party leaders supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. In October 2002, they voted with Republicans to surrender Congress's constitutional war power over to the Bush White House. + Democrats won't use their power in Congress to stall on Bush's requests for more war funding, which would result in a quick withdrawal of US troops. + Democratic Party leaders will only support vague and delayed "timetables" for bringing home US troops. Clinton and Obama won't promise that all US combat troops will be out of Iraq by 2013. + Democrats have rejected impeachment and won't hold Bush & Cheney responsible for criminal abuses of power: deceiving the American people about why we invaded Iraq, torture, surveillance of US citizens without warrant, detention without trial, violation of international laws, inaction and racist response to environmental emergencies (Hurricanes Katrina & Rita), tampering with scientific research on global warming. + Top Democrats limit their criticism to Bush's strategic military mistakes in Iraq. They won't talk about how the war itself is a crime -- an invasion of country that posed no threat to the US, based on manipulated intelligence and lies to the American people. + Democrats want to plunder Iraqi oil: Democratic leaders have endorsed the Iraqi hydrocarbon law "benchmark" that would place 2/3 of Iraq's oil resources under the control of major US and UK energy companies. This would require continued US military presence in Iraq to protect corporate investments. The same oil companies that contribute to Republicans also give campaign checks to Democratic candidates. + Top Democrats also take money and orders from the pro-Israeli-government lobby (AIPAC), which demanded the invasion of Iraq and now demands an attack on Iran. + Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have signed on to Bush's threat of a US attack on Iran -- which could touch off World War III. * * * Whether we elect a Democrat or Republican to the White House in 2008, the war will continue. Our only hope for bringing home US troops safe and sound is to elect Green Party candidates to Congress! + Greens are committed to an immediate withdrawal of all US troops and to impeachment of Bush & Cheney for their crimes. + If Greens win seats in Congress, it'll shock Democrats (and some Republicans) into stronger action to end the Iraq War. Democrats and Republicans will no longer be each others' sole competition for votes. + The few genuine anti-war Democrats and Republicans in Congress aren't getting help from their own parties. They need Greens in Congress to create the political bloc necessary to end the war. + Thanks to the two-party monopoly on elections, America has moved toward more war, greater corporate power, and less democracy. This direction will continue... until new political voices get elected. + Green candidates take no money from powerful corporations. Democrats and Republicans take big campaign checks from oil companies, arms makers, credit card companies, media conglomerates, HMOs, insurance firms, pharmaceutical manufacturers, Wall Street, K Street, and other corporate lobbies. + If you oppose the Iraq War and you vote for a pro-war candidate, you're throwing away your vote. Vote for the real Peace Party -- the Green Party! Do we really want a future that's limited to Democrats & Republicans and the narrow points of view that they represent? We The People deserve a party and candidates to speak for our own ideals, interests, and needs. Help us build America's party of the 21st century -- the Green Party! * * * Bring US Troops Home Now, Cancel War Funding, Impeach Bush & Cheney Save Our Democracy, Save America's Future Support America's PEACE PARTY, Support the GREEN PARTY, Vote for Green candidates in 2008 Register Green, Donate to the Green Party http://www.gp.org/impeachbush/ http://www.gp.org/welcome.shtml
Regarding Florida in the year 2000 and Al Gore falling short of an Electoral College majority. Kent P. Mesplay, October 29, 2007 More registered Democrats voted for George W. Bush in Florida in 2000 (the brother of their governor) than did Floridians voting for the Green Party nominee, Ralph Nader. Still, alternative and independent parties such as the Green Party can have an impact on the outcome of elections. Historically, concerns raised and held onto by the alternative parties are a factor in affecting public policy. Al Gore lost his own race in 2000. More to the point, his party did not support him to the extent that it more properly would have had it known the damage that Bush would do to our nation. I believe the only way to really spoil a race is to remain silent or to not vote and thereby acquiesce to a political system in dire need of systemic repair. Here's
a debate between
Robert Scheer and Ralph Nader: As
commented on by a Green Party member in a recent e-mail, "Nader's
net spoiler effect was probably non-existent...Nader probably
generated a net GAIN in votes for Gore, that Gore would not have
received if Nader had not been a candidate! Simmons'data suggest
that not only would Gore have lost Florida and New Hampshire by
wider margins without Nader in the race, but that Gore might even
have lost Wisconsin and New Mexico without Nader in the race!" Presidential Candidate Questionnaire Completed as part of the process of becoming formally recognized by the Green Party of the United States as a 2008 presidential candidate Completed by the candidate; this version is dated July 8, 2007 Contact Information: Kent Philip Mesplay, Ph.D. info@mesplay.org General Campaign Information: I meet the legal qualifications for the office of President of the United States. I was born July 19, 1962 in Madang, New Guinea to parents who were and are citizens of the United States. I am a natural-born citizen. I have been a U.S. resident since 1973 (i.e. more than 14 years). My candidacy is currently on file with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) with my Principal Committee having the name “Mesplay for President.” I filed for the 2004 election and I have kept this filing open and current. I am focusing more on raising funds and starting earlier, this time around. I am a Green Party member and have been so since 1995 in California. I am not a member of any other political party. The manner in which I will seek ballot lines in states lacking Green Party ballot status is yet to be determined. I would like to help as many states receive and retain Green Party ballot status as possible. Particularly during the General Election it may be necessary for me to run as a write-in candidate or to find other creative ways to garner electoral support. I am seriously looking into Unity 08 bipartisan efforts (a 527 Committee) to obtain an online presence as an alternative-party Presidential candidate, declaring my Green affiliation. I have already subscribed as a delegate. Currently, I spend over 20 hours a week campaigning: an hour a day on e-mail and extensive time over my three-day weekends researching, writing articles, contacting people and learning to manage my campaign. I work a 4 X 10-hour shift for the County of San Diego as an Air Quality Inspector, which frees-up my Mondays. In order for me to more actively campaign I require administrative and financial support. I plan to become more active as the campaign grows. For example, once sufficient funds are available to reimburse me (via the new category of “Candidate Pay”) I can legally and transparently replace my income to an increasing degree. The next step in this plan would be to take Fridays or Tuesdays off work, once I am guaranteed to not lose income by campaigning. Although my employer is flexible regarding “time off” I anticipate that as I approach 20-hour work weeks at work it will be necessary for me to strongly consider taking off a block of time (up to six months at a time) in order to campaign full time and to not be distracted by my inspector duties. I am considering fund-raising strategies for on-going support that will facilitate phasing in more time to actively campaign. I am able and willing to travel, now and throughout the campaign. The Green Party represents the only viable political alternative to the mess that we have. Initially, I was drawn to the Green Party by the stated values: social justice and nonviolence, in addition to the expected concerns over environmental protection. I grew up with rain-forest dwellers and I spent time learning about people such as my Native American ancestors who are displaced and dispossessed under the boot-heel of “progress.” I know that scientific and technological solutions are meaningless absent the human element, absent recognition of the harm that abuses of power can bring. The Green Party has credibility with voters in that we shun corporate contributions and we present solutions to a wide range of societal problems: everything from “peak oil” and pollution to recognition of the real harm that war brings. By running as a Green Party presidential candidate I help make things better by advocating solutions to our political system and by calling for re-evaluation of our wasteful, short-sighted way of life. I have experience as a presidential candidate, as a California delegate to the national party, as a member of the county council and I am qualified to represent the Green Party as a candidate and as president. Helping to secure and retain state ballot lines for the Green Party is an important function for a presidential candidate. As the electoral arm of the environmental and justice movements we become more effective with each Green elected to public office. Recognizing the unlikelihood of winning “higher ticket” races before a strong base of support is built, presidential candidates serve by inspiring people to run as Greens and to vote Green, think green and live green. I am willing to work with others to focus on identifying and getting “key” states into the Green fold. Apart from being a candidate and a spokesperson, I currently have limited personal resources that I can bring to bear to assist with ballot access drives. It is my intent to help inspire disenfranchised voters and non-voters, including but not limited to women, Native peoples and People of Color and of Hispanic heritage, to turn toward Green Party organizing efforts as we work to address and remedy social ills. Ballot access is extremely important. I am committed to the Ten Key Values of the Green Party and I view them as questions that we must ask of ourselves and others in an on-going process of improvement. My current base of support is varied and scattered. Among people who are active with party-building I have developed a reputation for running as a positive and principled candidate. Perhaps most notably in my last run I earned recognition for being a lone candidate saying we need to mount serious challenges to the powers that be and not run “democrat-safe” campaigns or half-hearted campaigns intent on losing and in effect endorsing non-Greens. Especially at this nascent stage in our development we Greens need to run campaigns that inspire others to believe that a change to our top-down, corruption-driven, nonrepresentational type of government is possible. My fundraising ability is growing. I am currently at a rather early organizational stage of my campaign. I agree to not accept contributions from corporations or from unions and I promise to abide by established campaign finance policies such as those enforced by the FEC. I prefer to accept low-level, ongoing monthly contributions from many supporters rather than larger, infrequent contributions from fewer people who may expect a return of favors. If you are reading this and can afford a contribution of $1 a month to “Mesplay for President” it will make a difference. I ran for U.S. Senate in 2006 in a primary race contested among Green Party candidates in California. I have not held elective office, other than duties on the local Green Party of San Diego County Council. I briefly entered the race for Mayor of San Diego before embarking on a senatorial bid. I have not held elected office. I am currently a delegate from California serving on the Green National Committee and I am an elected member of the Green Party County Council in San Diego, California. There is much room for growth for the
Green Party without converting people who are currently registered
with a political party. A political space awaits that is equal to
either the Democratic or Republican party in number. My strategy is
to focus on matters such as emergency preparedness which affect all
people, hence making an appeal to all-comers. We Greens make the
compelling argument that our leaders and our political institutions
offer poor governance and negligible guidance on matters of urgent
security. Considering Katrina, Iraq, lack of a comprehensive
national energy policy and gross deficit spending, the argument that
our nation lacks leadership is not a difficult argument to make. My
campaign is in part a protest and a call for the youth to get
involved, to bring in those people who are not yet registered to
vote. I prefer offering not just citizens but our leadership viable
options, and in this regard our “third” party serves in the typical
historic capacity of placing pressure on the powers that be to
recognize the need for meaningful change. I believe in an all-out
non-apologetic run, despite Democratic Party protestations and
manipulations. My goal is to receive the Green Party Nomination and
to do what I can to improve my country in the process of seriously
running for president. ISSUES - ARTICLES BY KENT MESPLAY Election Reform, Instant Runoff Voting and Public Financing Electoral reform is a key topic with me. Our political system is in need of reformation to improve representation of we-the-people and to ensure that voting is a trustworthy process. In particular, a good way to ensure that everyone’s vote counts is to require paper ballots with electronic verification as back-up, rather than “the other way around” in which there is insufficient paper back-up to questionable electronic voting. Public financing of campaigns and debates helps ensure that candidates are effective at more than fund-raising. The current “money grab” method of running for public office is offset, somewhat, through cost-effective methods of grass-roots campaigning and exposure using electronic media. Televised debates are all but off-limits to independent candidates which would provide much needed exposure, to the public, of real candidates in real parties, really running. Every ballot-qualified candidate has already undergone a selective process and should be admitted into debates publicized for Democratic and Republican candidates. In addition to increasing the level of public funding for all party candidates it would be useful to require media to provide “free of charge” debate coverage to all party candidates, lest public funding be used to, in effect, subsidize the corporate media. Proportional representation would be an improvement to our “winner take all” system of campaigns and governance and would promote greater diversity within our elected bodies. Instant Runoff Voting is a method whereby in races where there is to be one “winner” the candidate with the most “broadband” support can be identified through an iterative process. IRV saves money in that a candidate with majority support can be determined short of an expensive follow-up election. Also, IRV allows people to vote their choice in addition to voting to block a less worthy candidate and it is a good way to encourage people to vote their conscience and support alternative candidates since some portion of their ranked choice is counted. I support increases to the Federal Minimum Wage and State and Municipal wages to be in line with allowing a person to earn a living. In concert with what may be experienced as an unfunded mandate by business it would be helpful to link Living Wage increases with opportunities for businesses to otherwise decrease their operating cost. As part of a Living Wage “package,” employees and employers might become part-owners in municipal, green-based power generation, with funds legislated to be set aside for such security-enhancing and (long term) cost-cutting development. A living wage is more likely to pass and become a federal standard if it is linked to a program to create an immediately recognized “win-win” situation for labor and management, with all parties becoming vested owners. The death penalty is immoral. We do not teach that killing is wrong by killing people convicted of killing. The death penalty belongs in our barbaric past. I support the decriminalization of marijuana and other controlled substances provided similar effort is given to fund treatment centers for those who become addicted. Cross-border drug trafficking is extremely difficult and expensive to stop. A better use of money wasted on the “war on drugs” would be in education campaigns aimed at providing accurate information to lower the demand for drugs. Also, demand for drugs (including pharmaceuticals) is likely to drop as people are supported in developing healthier more livable communities and reconnecting with family, friends and a meaningful sense of place. We can have better health care for all by supporting single-payer universal health care. Our current for-profit medical system leaves tens of millions of people uninsured. One way to fund improvements in locally-available care (i.e. health clinics) would be to gradually transform military spending toward the National Guard, and to task the Guard with preparing communities, medically, to be prepared in the face of disaster. I also support the recognition of alternative or complementary medicine for the cost-effective medical solutions that are available outside the heavily-lobbying medical establishment. Whatever plan or plans come into being, it would be particularly advantageous and useful to have as distributed a network of providers as possible: to reach rural areas and neglected urban areas. I am pro-choice. As a party espousing non-violence and recognizing that, at some level, abortion represents an act of violence and possible poor planning, I believe in placing emphasis on prevention. Women need to be supported in having access to family planning and in having medical and legal support and increased options in removing themselves from abusive relationships. Barrier methods of contraception, such as condoms, additionally provide protection against disease propagation. I would not like to see Roe-vs.-Wade over-turned. I am in favor of stem cell research for the benefit that it can provide. In early 2001 I helped care for an elderly lady suffering from Parkinson’s (for three months), so I know first-hand how important it is to come up with cures. As with other medical matters I believe that health care is a basic human right. I would not like to see the fruits of stem cell research turned into just another profit-driven niche within the current medical industry. Global Warming, or Global Climate Change (G.C.C.), is the single defining public health and safety issue of our time. I expect that at least a third of all life on this planet will vanish within my lifetime, even if we act accordingly. If we merely continue on our present course I would say that two-thirds of all life will soon vanish. The solutions are not that difficult, other than the threat perceived by the standard energy companies. When we live more consciously we eat lower on the food web (decreasing our farm footprint) and purchase more locally-grown produce (decreasing transportation costs and our carbon footprint). Livable communities, in which people work without commuting long distances, become survival centers when they are designed to be as self-sufficient as possible. Through the design of energy-efficient structures architects will play a key role in helping us to lower our energy bills and to meet environmental and human-based challenges. States like California, being a top-ranked global economy (eighth or so, worldwide) will lead the way in “re-tooling” our society to lessen emissions of carbon dioxide and to generally reduce our footprint on the earth. I work in the field of air pollution. Due to passage of Assembly Bill 32 I anticipate taking on a new role regulating carbon dioxide emissions as part of my inspector duties, within the not-too-distant future. This topic is one of my key campaign issues. In addition to considering heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere there is merit in understanding better how clouds form around condensation nuclei. Clouds are a “wild card” in climate models. A national energy policy placing emphasis on domestically sourced renewable energy is needed. Conservation efforts to cut our high level of wasteful energy use are important, rather than having too much emphasis placed on how to rapidly expand generation. I am opposed to nuclear-power-and-weapons. The production of electricity is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. A by-product of coal-fired power plants is mercury, which pollutes fish and other foods consumed. Conservation, wind and photovoltaic and other forms of solar and biomass must be advanced, bearing in mind that diversity of energy methods makes good sense. Our political system has traditionally been weighted toward centralized industries and toward subsidy of favored, homogenized yet scientifically suspect industries (e.g. petroleum, nuclear and now agribusiness-friendly corn-based ethanol). As industries begin viewing waste streams as “product” streams having value, and as buildings are created using an energy-knowledgeable systems approach we will cut demand. What is not widely discussed is that our “throw-away” way of life is a big part of the problem. Educating people to become more conscious consumers is important for its energy implications. The current immigration “debate” is driven by the fear of outsiders generated by successful terrorist techniques. I live in California, not far from Mexico. Undocumented immigrants are being “scape-goated” for failure of our economic system to provide jobs for everyone. Mexico is an important trading partner. A focus on community-based economics, such as local scrip, is necessary to ensure that people are able to contribute to society and to be supported in meeting their basic needs. Local solutions are best. Illegal aliens are in actuality economic refugees. In California migrant workers have traditionally been a vital part of agribusiness, yet they are not recognized in any official manner with integrity. The money wasted on building fences and walls and patrols would be better spent being invested directly in cross-border micro-economic “Grameen-Bank type” localized projects generating trade and good will. Both from the right and the left immigration issues are not being dealt with effectively. Although I sympathize with the drive to provide amnesty to those who are here without papers I can’t help but wonder about the wisdom of such a move as it provides a “carrot” for people to risk their lives traversing yet more difficult passages into this country (and dying in the desert). Amnesty would best be concurrent with an official immigration policy that is consistently within reach of all strata of non-U.S. citizens. I met the president of MAPA (the Mexican American Political Association), Nativo Lopez, and I follow this organization’s “take” on what is really going on. Civil Rights laws provide protection for those classes and segments of society that are traditionally dispossessed. I believe in aggressive prosecution of hate crimes and in improved public education in matters respecting the natural human diversity that is within our country. During a presentation to a high school audience, some years ago, I listened to other party candidates try to describe their party stance toward minorities, people of color, those with disabilities. I summed up the Green Party stance as being a belief in the equality of all people. Economic Corporate Globalization is an insidious problem. Not only can companies with offshore banking or foreign charters get off without paying their fair share of taxes, but exporting jobs abroad by “outsourcing” can be harmful to businesses and industries here at home. Through their manipulation of elections (for example, by funding the Democratic and Republican parties) multi-national companies are set up to, in effect, be governments of their own. The difficulty is that governments cannot counterbalance exploitation and protect the rights of, say, indigenous people when they are beholden to corporate interests. Of particular damage is the legal fiction that a corporation is a person. By being incorrectly granted “super-person” legal status corporations are not held accountable to the extent that they more properly would be. Local measures restricting the influence of outside businesses in changing local environments, against the wishes of residents, help to keep unchecked development at bay. International trade agreements (NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO) need to be re-formulated “to protect the labor, human rights, economy, environment and domestic industry of recipient nations”(ref: G.P.U.S. Platform Summary, 2004). Restructuring the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) “to end the debts of recipient nations…and to guarantee the rights of the citizens of the nations receiving investment” would be an improvement, as would be strengthening labor’s right to organize. Here at home, Taft-Hartley needs to be repealed. Our nation’s Foreign Policy is haphazard, ill informed and misdirected. Reliance on violence and upon intimidation is a mistake as it breeds ill will. The recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) indicates that our presence in Iraq is acting to destabilize the region. I recall hearing Ralph Nader comment, on national news during the last presidential race, that our military intervention in Iraq is “acting as a magnet” to draw in insurgents from surrounding countries. The current situation bears out this analysis. Peace begins at home. The Green Party is the party of Peace in that we have long recognized that improvements in our nation’s destructive fire-power are not nearly as important to progress as improvements to diplomacy. We are a nation that has been quick to go to war. This is costly on many fronts. On the matter of “Middle East Policy, including Iraq, Iran and Israel”: The war in Iraq is the result of an admitted mistake: poor intelligence. Even if there were weapons of mass destruction these were not nuclear devices capable of being used within ten years or so, “post-liberation.” Iraqis are fleeing their country as a result of the ongoing violence. Diplomatic solutions are necessary to end the conflict, together with an understanding that economic and cultural factors must be addressed. The monetary cost of the war is in excess of 400 billion dollars. The cost to our national prestige is incalculable. While I do not question the commitment of our troops to fulfill their duty I certainly do question the competence of our Commander in Chief in starting this war for no good reason. I do not have a simple solution to ending this war. If we do pull out soon, which is the right thing to do, there may be escalations in killing. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war that our country helped ignite, so we do bear some responsibility in seeking peaceful solutions. Iran is not the threat our blustering presidential administration would like us to believe it is. For Israel and Palestine to find peace they will have to agree that they are all descendents of Abraham and they must work to find common ground. Perhaps environmental collapse will provide the “common enemy” capable of uniting these people, especially as water becomes more scarce. For our part as a nation, we would do well to transform military aid into economic and social development for Palestinians and Israelis. The current two-party system would
work better if the two parties were sufficiently distinct during
other than election years. The Green Party serves as the only viable
alternative to our current system. We aren’t just working to get
candidates elected; we are endeavoring to change our political
system for the better. Some changes that are moving in from the
horizon are Instant Runoff Voting (I.R.V.), rejection of corporate
contributions to candidates and to political parties, publicly
funded campaigns and a focus on local communities over corporate
globalization. We believe in good governance and in the removal of
money as an influence in decision-making, especially when those
decisions impact public security, health and the pursuit of
happiness. Ideally, we would have active civic participation by the
populace. Short of direct democracy some form of proportional
representation or at least fairer representation would be a “plus.”
It is all but illegal to participate in politics in this country as
something other than a Democrat or a Republican, so high are the
barriers to ongoing ballot access and to open political debate and
so specious is the coverage by the media of important issues. The
Green Party asks important questions about how we can together meet
the future in our current national culture of expedience, violence,
fear, waste, greed and overall unjust, exclusionary and
short-sighted behavior. On the matter of Foreign Policy and Peace I have encountered criticisms of the Green Party as not having much of a foreign policy because we believe in problem-solving through diplomacy rather than through armed force and physical conflict. In actuality, the Green Party has a strong Foreign Policy in that we respect diversity and we recognize the importance of ensuring vibrant local economies and healthy and healthful physical environments as a deterrent to disenfranchisement, displacement and desperation. I recently met Wangari Maathai, founder of the Green Belt Movement and recipient of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Peace. I volunteered for the Green Belt Movement at a recent E.S.R.I. conference in San Diego so that I could hear her speak the “keynote” address. It may seem odd that the simple act of planting trees is so important, especially against the high-tech back-drop of modern weapons. She laughed as she said that the enemy was not so much soldiers, but desertification. Trees factor into environmental preservation by keeping land from washing away, they help slow the down-flow of water and hold a reservoir capacity for the land and they provide available resources such as ready firewood, food and other products…not to mention beauty and wildlife. I am quite comfortable discussing foreign policy and peace. I grew up with “primitive” people in Papua New Guinea and I have an appreciation for the diversity of humanity that is perhaps lacking or foreign in mainstream candidates to public office. When I told Wangari Maathai what I was up to she signed my book, “To a Fellow Green.” I work as a regulator for a governmental agency on environmental matters. As an inspector for the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (A.P.C.D.) I enforce local, state and federal rules regarding compliance with air quality regulations. The A.P.C.D. is the local enforcement arm of the E.P.A., under the California Air Resources Board (C.A.R.B.) and within the County government under the Land Use and Environment Group. Global Climate Change is affected by air pollution, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that Carbon Dioxide is an air pollutant to be recognized and addressed under the Clean Air Act. Energy policy is of vital importance to reducing “greenhouse gases” as it is the byproducts of combustion (such as from internal combustion engines and coal-fired power plants) that contribute to global warming. I am knowledgeable in these areas and I am very comfortable with the more technical aspects of such discussion. I have addressed Domestic Policy
issues in a dozen presidential debates and panel discussions with
other candidates during the 2004 election cycle. I am rather well
versed in matters related to how we can improve our justice, health
care, energy policy and economic security here at home. I include as references attesting to my expected ability as a presidential candidate the following members of the California Delegation to the Green National Committee: (names withheld for purposes of privacy). I have the voiced encouragement and support of fellow Green Party County Council members in San Diego.
LETTER SENT TO SIXTEEN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Sept 25, 2006 and signed by other local Alternative Party candidates
To First Nations Tribal Elders, Council Members and Tribal Members: We, the undersigned alternative party candidates to California public office, do hereby seek and request your assistance in the matter of organizing, hosting and publicizing public debates open to all ballot qualified political party candidates. We offer to assist in the development of a forum that will likely allow Native and Indigenous concerns to be addressed in an uncensored manner to be viewed by large audiences. This is a time of citizen disillusionment with the corrupt political process in which fewer than one third of qualified citizens even bother to register and vote. With your help, candidates such as ourselves can be heard without having to buy influence, and the electorate can become educated, empowered and motivated to vote. Native and Indigenous peoples have a history of oratory excellence and participatory self-governance. The Iroquois Confederacy provided a model for the founders of the United States when creating the Constitution. In a democracy, alternate points of view deserve to be heard and are not summarily dismissed and blocked. Help raise the political standard by providing a place for debate (in local, state and national races) and the impartial oversight necessary to ensure “Freedom to Debate.” To start, we suggest inviting Senatorial, Gubernatorial and other statewide candidates to one or more of the reservations in San Diego County prior to November. Hosts and candidates would help determine the format and issue press releases. We can make this happen, statewide and nationwide as First Nations people strengthen their voices and retain their dignity. Thank you for your consideration of this first step toward a true debate. Public funding of campaigns would support all ballot qualified party candidates attending debates. Please distribute this letter widely to all tribal members and other parties who are interested in improving our state of politics. Sincerely, Janice Jordan, Peace and Freedom Party Gubernatorial Candidate, 2006; jjordan@janicejordan.org Kent P. Mesplay, Green Party Write-In Candidate to U.S. Senate, 2006; presidential candidate, 2008; info@mesplay.org [KM: updated 10.14.06] Michael S. Metti, Libertarian Party Candidate to U.S. Senate, 2006; metti2@cox.net |
|
© 2008 - PAID FOR BY "MESPLAY FOR PRESIDENT"