How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
Opinion
- Details
- Written by: Raphael Montoliu
As their politically conservative counterparts, they seem to believe that God wants all of us to become filthy rich, regardless of the cost to the environment or to poor nations.
But here wealth is defined in specific cultural, social and historical terms, that have absolutely nothing to do with either natural or divine law.
The natural order is merely concerned with the fulfillment of real needs, not with the accumulation of unnecessary possessions or symbols of riches. Trees do not grow more roots that they need, and lions do not kill more zebras than they can eat.
Only humanity is concerned with the building of capital, which leads to wealth and is erroneously associated with the idea of abundance by pseudo-spiritual new age gurus.
The rule of abundance is to satisfy actual needs in harmony and accordance with natural law, not to satisfy greed in accordance with competitive and alienating social standards.
Abundance leads to sharing, not to the selfish individual hoarding of wealth. As nature does not hoard its riches, neither does the natural man or woman who lives according to natural and divine law.
When sharing is allowed as a constant practice, the question of wealth, of capital, becomes irrelevant. No one needs be a millionaire, no one needs to live in a mansion or own an estate, as all share in the bounty of the earth, and none is left behind to suffer abject poverty, exploitation, abuse, neglect.
The spiritual way is to be contented satisfying authentic basic human needs, not to seek wealth and luxury according to the myth that we all can and must become rich within a destructive and predatory system.
The pseudo-spiritual crowd as well as the conservatives who espouse the view that God rewards the virtuous with gold bullions and punish the sinner with poverty miss the fact that the accumulation of capital, or wealth, is only relevant in a system funded on alienation and insecurity, a social structure rooted in the unintelligent and unnatural principle of the survival of the fittest.
Contrary to the common myth, it is natural for nature to cooperate, and unrealistic to perceive nature to amount to nothing more than a chaotic and meaningless food chain, a grouping of digestive systems equipped with fangs and claws that have no other purpose or preoccupation, beside procreation, than struggling endlessly to eat one another.
In truth natural and reasonable predation is part of a natural cooperation, for the natural predator, unlike man, does not seek the total annihilation of the prey.
Only man, in his delusion, seeks the total elimination of competitive elements, and absolute supremacy over all life. Only man experience near absolute insecurity because of having created warlike social conditions whereby he has become its own greatest enemy, and can trust no one, not even himself.
Only man needs creating 100,000 laws enforced by threats and coercion to protect himself from his out of control and totally unnatural predatory mindset.
These topics are however not discussed by people who are not accustomed to question anything, who are educated to comply rather than think, and to think as taught rather than feel.
For if people felt with their heart and soul, they would understand the natural human drives of cooperation, of needing to give and share, of compassion, of social harmony and equity.
They would feel the total absurdity of merciless competition, of having created a society that resemble a battlefield, where the victorious, the winner, crushes and enslaves the so-called weak, the meek, the disadvantaged. Where the powerful, privileged or ambitious takes advantage of the misery or failures of others….and single mothers, adolescents, families become homeless while the filthy rich becomes forever more bloated with obscene wealth and more controlling and arrogant.
It is possible that a majority of people vaguely feel something is rotten in Denmark. The widespread use of alcohol, hard drugs, anti-depressant medications, tranquilizers, the epidemic of mental illness and addictions seem to speak of a general state of malaise among the general population, who appears to be falling apart and to reach for whatever is available to attempt to cope with a crazy-making social structure and culture.
Yet as no vision of sanity is offered, and the population is made to believe alienation, competition and insecurity are natural conditions, and reality is harsh and life destined to be as hard and cold as a tombstone, the only solution people envision is personal escape or individual survival, in whatever forms these selfish paths take, that perpetuate the pathology of the system.
Raphael Montoliu lives in Lakeport, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Robert Schaerges
As the cannabis industry evolves, unions will protect individuals and promote investment through fair and effective labor standards.
Additionally, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement agencies will be much less eager to arrest growers belonging to unions (free Lake County’s Eddy Lepp and drop the charges against Tom Carter).
Let’s create jobs, not criminals. The right to unionize is not only a labor right, but it also is a human right.
During a speech in August of 1960, President John F. Kennedy declared, “Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, labor unions have brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes beyond their own job, and even beyond our borders. For the labor movement is people. Our unions have brought millions of men and women together … and given them common tools for common goals. Their goals are goals for all America – and their enemies are enemies of progress. The two cannot be separated.”
As of Sept. 26, current polls show that Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana, is ahead by seven percentage points.
One of the most influential labor unions in the state, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), has recently endorsed Proposition 19.
Bill Lloyd, the president of the 700,000 member SEIU, said the union decided to back the legalization of marijuana because it could help raise revenue to avoid cuts to health care, home care, education and services for children, families, the elderly and people with disabilities.
Proposition 19 is also supported by the United Food and Commercial Workers, the Northern California Council of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Communications Workers of America Local 9415 and Sign Displays & Allied Crafts Local 510.
Unions are already organizing within the medical marijuana industry. Earlier this year, approximately 100 workers in Oakland's retail Medical Marijuana dispensaries joined the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union.
Dan Rush of the Local 5 union stated that, “the marriage of the cannabis-hemp industry and the UFCW union is a natural one. We are an agriculture, food processing and retail union, as is this industry. We are proud to represent our cannabis workers and we’re determined to create a responsible, safe, and effective industry not only for our members, but for the communities that we live in and work in too. We have only just begun to organize this industry.”
Teamsters Local 70, an Oakland-based union, has recently unionized medical marijuana employees. Approximately 40 new members were added earlier this month. Members of this union work as gardeners, trimmers, and cloners for Marjyn Investments LLC, an Oakland business that contracts with medical marijuana patients through collectives.
Their newly negotiated two-year contract provides individuals with a pension, paid vacation and health insurance. Their current wages of $18 per hour will increase to $25.75 an hour within 15 months, according to the union. Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center, said Cannabis unions will, “help further legitimize the notion of legalizing and taking cannabis. This reflects a change in attitudes about cannabis in this state- and the recognition of the economic realities that California is facing.”
On July 20, the Oakland City Council voted 5-2 in favor of a plan to license four production plants where marijuana would be grown, packaged and processed. More than 260 potential applicants are interested in competing for the four production plants permits according to Arturo Sanchez, an assistant to the Oakland City administrator who will ultimately issue the permits.
During the bidding process, union connections will be looked upon favorably, as labor standards will be an important factor in determining who receives the permits. Oakland is laying the necessary framework to allow its citizens to profit in a legal market. Even Oakland’s popular Oaksterdam University has unionized.
Individuals within Lake County’s cannabis industry should be researching, collaborating and innovating. What will be the future of the cannabis industry? Will it be in large agricultural fields or industrial production plants? Or will it be more scientific, with testing to find that perfect medicinal strain? Could cannabis tourism revitalize Lakeshore Drive in Clearlake or maybe even reopen Konocti Harbor Resort? What about the production of hemp?
Lake County has great soil and some of the cannabis industry’s most knowledgeable professionals. To use economic terms, Lake County needs to capitalize on its comparative advantage and invest in its future.
The evolution and success of Napa’s wine industry is an excellent model of development and innovation. Napa County constructed a local wine industry that prevailed over neighboring counties (including Lake County). Right now, Humboldt and Mendocino counties are looking to blaze ahead in the “green rush” and Lake County shouldn’t be left in their smoke trails.
The Bay Area and other Northern California counties are thinking big. For example, a Los Angeles-based company (Plant Properties Management LLC) is proposing a 600,000 square foot indoor hydroponic medical marijuana grow in Chico.
Chico councilman Andy Holcombe was favorable to the idea, saying, “If it actually creates jobs and tax
revenue, it sounds like a promising business, just like any other business.”
During a July 2010 Berkeley City Council meeting, Mayor Tom Bates said, “If Prop 19 passes, it would be available to cities to tax, so we’re putting an item on the upcoming ballot to allow us to be able to tax marijuana in the event it passes, so we’d be ahead of the game.”
On Sept. 14, the Lake County Board of Supervisors prolonged the moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries.
Pointing to the potential passage of Prop 19, the county thought it was better to wait until after the November election to address the issue. I think we should address the issue now, before the price of marijuana drops and Lake County is left with an outdated cannabis industry.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors should be developing a strong relationship with members of the Lake County cannabis industry. If cannabis is legalized, an efficient growing system should be set in
place by spring of 2011.
When it comes to taxing cannabis, it is important to note that if taxes are too high then people will resort back to the black market. Lake County should be creating ordinances that promote development. Local growers should welcome the county’s involvement in the process, as it would bring in revenue and add legitimacy to their product/medicine.
Yes, I understand the current proposition to legalize marijuana is alarming to many individuals who currently profit in the marijuana black market and the medical marijuana gray market. It is natural to resist this economic trend towards commercialization, but it is irrational not to prepare for it. The good news is that the outdoor harvest this fall will not have to compete with large companies, however next
year the market may be considerably more competitive.
Unions are not perfect, but would you rather have a union or a public defender represent individuals in the cannabis industry? The formation of unions would promote development and safe investment. A union would not only be great for Lake County’s Cannabis industry, but also for the Lake County economy.
Until then, we will have ambiguous cannabis prescriptions/cards, cartels illegally growing on public and private land, and no tax revenues to fund our government’s ridiculous marijuana enforcement
expenditures.
Links:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/25/MNC21FJMOQ.DTL
www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9IBM2CO0.htm
www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/08/nations_largest_indoor_pot_grow_proposed_for_chico.php
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/east_bay&id=7539724
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hZLBYFaEsfHiwcOne9fhw5u1tVuAD9ICGPHG1
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-05-28/news/21647932_1_tax-cannabis-union-dispensary
http://sfappeal.com/news/2010/05/pot-goes-union-oaksterdam-joins.php
Robert Schaerges is a student at UC Davis Law School and was born and raised in Lake County.
- Details
- Written by: James BlueWolf
One of the accepted differences between these ideologies is the conservative view that taxation, social contracts and networked and hierarchal systems of organized representative government are bad things.
It comes down to answering the question of just much freedom and independence a society can have before it descends into anarchy – where government is so small that people must live in locally self-sufficient enclaves without a larger entity keeping the peace.
Conservatives speak of small government but have not yet clearly identified just “how small” a government they would prefer.
Reducing government, at the level of population we currently have, with huge infrastructure and national functionality depending, in part, on the government holding it all together, is problematic.
Some think the catch-phrase “small government” is instead a call for the empowerment of individually determined priorities – something that is virtually impossible in light of all the varied interests to be represented.
Liberals espouse a position that demands government take on the responsibility of identifying and measuring both community and individual need within a larger whole, and responding energetically, with sympathy and empathy, to that need with organized action; assuming responsibility – in a very tribal way – for the whole people.
Taking on this responsibility, at the level of population we have, requires a significant contribution from the populace to act as the funding mechanism. Taxation is only acceptable if the services provided are valued, and appreciated, by the populace.
Just as the danger of too small a government is anarchy and loss of freedoms and liberties, the result of too large a government can be tyranny or gridlock, both which result in loss of freedoms and liberties.
In the end, the average liberal can’t tell you just “how large” a government is large enough and how it is to avoid waste and favoritism within the boundaries of a free market system.
Following the crooked path a step further, it seems appropriate to state that we are not now in an infant state, where we can immediately choose to create a brand new paradigm. Many of our politicians, and much of our populace, embrace a sort of mindlessly vague loyalty to nondescript sound bites that represent their platform or ideology.
Taking the conservative view first: Do you want the absolute form of social individual freedom – anarchy? If you answered no, then the next question is, “What do you want government to do for you?”
In the present modern form of western civilization, government usually provides for a common defense, a form of law, and regulation to protect its populace from goons, thugs and fanatics and snake-oil salesmen.
If we were to list the services government actually provides localities, we might come to an idea just how deeply we’re attached to federal and state dollars; what services they fund or help to fund, and what our society would look like without them.
As an example of small government, I have seen local county Web sites that inform potential immigrants to expect unpaved or potholed roads, lack of reliable police or fire service and/or long response times, lack of school bus routes, no athletics, art or music programs in education, no public libraries or pools, unmaintained parks and recreation facilities, etc.
These localities practice small government. They don’t provide services they can’t afford and are content to live with the repercussions of their choice.
The true small-government ideology of conservatism without taxes means the elimination of numerous public services and facilities and a need for localities to become locally self-sufficient; something that is unattainable without local unity and organization toward a single purpose.
At that point, if embraced by every locality, the United States ceases to be. Also at that point, the wealthy have what they want and all the rest have what they can give or take.
Depending on what we keep, We may have no Medicare, no Social Security, no unemployment, no welfare, less fire and police protection, fewer solvent public schools, no central judicial system, greater crime, ultra-expensive utility services, deteriorating infrastructure, increased vigilantism, unregulated drugs and foods, unregulated driving, no public transportation, no care for the needy, and on and on.
What we need is for conservatives to draft a laundry list of the services they consider indispensable and what services will be let go.
Remember, decreasing central authority, though bulky, incompetent and expensive, removes the cohesive glue that allows all these services to exist and be regulated in the public interest.
Conservatism, in its present form, seems to desire to be part of the greater union, but its new primary directive seems to be a narrow effort to preserve the past and profit individually without financial responsibility for the care or condition of neighbors.
I think most reasonable conservatives would agree they prefer some type of central government to coordinate services for so many millions living so immediately adjacent to one another –e specially after having exhausted much of the natural resources.
I don’t know what other form of funding state, federal and local governments have, other than taxation or permit fees, etc., but all these services require some level of public financial commitment.
The idea that all these services could be provided by private for-profit interests at an affordable level goes against the grain of our recent economic experience. Reliance on public generosity has proven unreliable.
What services should government provide? What can you live without? How small is small government?
Liberals have their own problems. Large government is, as stated above, largely inefficient, wasteful, often incompetent – even counterproductive. Regulation in a corporate economy can be stifling and it is essential that the economy be good for large government to continue. The “common good” is difficult to serve from a distance.
Wherever the central government and its policies affect the freedom of a community to develop self-sufficiency, it has overstepped its bounds.
At the point where the populace is unwilling or unable to fund the multitude of special interests that result from having millions of citizens with individual needs and crisis, gridlock results and people are even less willing to contribute to the public coffer even to fund services previously considered indispensable.
The problem, for liberals and conservatives alike, is that we have allowed the Horatio Alger myth to become pervasive among our people.
Much of the younger populace, having been convinced by the entertainment media that “having it all” is a right and not the result of sacrifice and effort, are now too impatient and self-involved to sacrifice the services they have become accustomed to – or to contribute a greater portion of their income to fund the services they have expect.
A large portion of the elderly population, divided into the well-to-do and those dependent on government services for survival, are now faced with giving up a greater share of their hard earned wealth – or with suffering the loss of services they have come to depend on.
The variance in opinions regarding what is an indispensable government service reflect a cross-section of the economic, social, political and spiritual values and views and is a chasm of infinite disagreement.
How will we fund (immediately) the services we want to keep should federal or state sources cease? We have already begun to face these hard decisions in the recent economic crisis and have yet to come to common agreement about the priority of services we desire.
I think it would be an interesting research project to see: 1) What is the actual money brought into Lake County from federal and state grants, projects and programs, and how much of our economy and infrastructure is supported through government funding, activities, offices, etc.; 2) survey 50 local voters respectively from the Democrat, Republican, Green, Independent, Libertarian and Tea Party on their top 20 indispensable services to be provided by organized local government; 3) survey, from those same voters what percentage of their income they would voluntarily contribute to provide these shared services within the community.
It seems to me that would give us a pretty good idea of what we need and what people would be willing to pay. I fear that the answer would not be what we would prefer.
The distance between those who profess a real desire for the entire populace to share equity in the resources of the nation, including defining what responsibilities each neighbor has for the welfare of the next, is at the heart of this debate.
If you don’t feel a responsibility to share your individual economy in insuring that all people have shelter, food, water, utilities, medical service, police protection or education then your choice is indeed simple – I take mine, you take yours.
For those who profess a desire to assume that responsibility, the problem is thornier. Services offered can only be determined by the percentages of our individual wealth that we are willing to contribute to a central treasury to see that those services, protections, safeguards and benefits are administered,
protected, dispersed and utilized as equitably and efficiently as possible.
Whatever we are unwilling to fund through our own contributions must fall by the wayside. We cannot provide resources for all our population at the current level of consumption indefinitely. We cannot all be millionaires. We must come to agreement on what basic levels of services and benefits we can live with, and/or whether society can survive in a fractured and self-centered environment that decides it is not responsible for the basic necessities of its people.
Finally, when you take a position, remember that as the 3 percent of the earth’s population that uses 97 percent of the earths resources, we will come to a point where we cannot continue our standard of living without commitment to infrastructure redevelopment, higher standards of educational preparation, and commitment to green and energy efficient technologies.
Also remember that the 3 percent of our wealthiest citizens that hold 97 percent of the nation’s wealth have little or no real interest or stake in these decisions and the outcome. These “world” citizens will just pick up their marbles and go to another home if the standard of living retreats to an unacceptable level, leaving the rest behind to fight (literally) over the corpse of the American landscape and our direction as we struggle to cope with the loss of the dream we were told was our birthright.
As a postscript to this essay, we have just experienced a relatively local disaster that bodes ill for our national future. The real picture doesn’t get the visibility it deserves.
In the Bay Area, a 24-foot section of 30-inch natural gas pipe blew out of the ground, killing residents and leveling an entire neighborhood. This is not an isolated event; almost 2,000 of these types of “accidents” occur each year.
Add to that the “other” infrastructure failures occurring at an ever-increasing rate, and we’re in for a rocky road.
Replacing that infrastructure has been left to the private companies that own them, with predictable results. They are now 50 years old and crumbling. Can we afford to replace them by down-sizing government? I doubt it.
Neither will Americans see greater taxation as a solution. Only a huge government (gulp) stimulus could achieve the desired results in time. With the current political environment, a stimulus seems unlikely. So our infrastructure will continue to crumble as we tune our fiddles for the coming winter.
Now that I seem to have traveled the circle of my articles over the last 15 years, I’ll bring this to an end.
James BlueWolf lives in Nice, Calif.
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News Reports
On a number of occasions since then, allegations regarding the environmental issues, the purpose of the lawsuit, the adequacy of environmental review, the club litigation process and assorted economic considerations have been made in council meetings, informal gatherings and the public press.
Despite the obvious absurdity of many of these accusations (for example, attempts to blame the club for the city's financial crisis) some of them have apparently gained a certain level of credence.
With litigation in progress, and in hopes of reaching a negotiated settlement, Lake Group has refrained from public response up to now, but in the belief that it's time to put an end to the confusion, presents the following fact sheet.
Allegation: There are no important environmental issues surrounding the Lowe's project because it would be built on an industrial wasteland.
The facts: Environmental considerations are not limited to the site of any particular project. Larger development issues regarding sprawl, infill, traffic, greenhouse gases and the preservation of core communities are central to the mandate of the Sierra Club, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifically requires evaluation of potential “urban decay” impacts when a commercial development is under consideration.
Allegation: The Sierra Club lawsuit is intended to stop the Lowe's project.
The facts: The lawsuit has one objective only, and that is the preparation of an EIR as the basis for project approvals, as required by California law. The eventual decision on project approval still rests entirely with the responsible public body, in this case the Clearlake City Council/Redevelopment Agency.
Allegation: No EIR is needed because the project has already been studied thoroughly enough.
The facts: Under CEQA, an EIR must be prepared if a “fair argument” can be made that a project “may” cause significant impacts to the environment that have not yet been identified, or that have not yet been fully mitigated. It is not necessary to demonstrate that those impacts will occur, merely that they might occur. This is a very low threshold, designed to ensure that a project’s environmental impacts are thoroughly evaluated, in public, before an agency approves anything. For the airport project, there is strong evidence the project not only may but will have significant environmental effects in the areas of urban decay, air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic.
Allegation: A detailed economic study of the Lowe's project has already been provided.
The facts: The study commissioned by the city was restricted to an evaluation of potential municipal revenues (sales taxes, property taxes, and fees), and did not look at the project’s effects on the economy of the city in general, or the specific CEQA requirement to investigate potential urban decay. No attempt whatsoever has been made to evaluate the project’s consequences for Lake County as a whole even though the welfare of the city and the unincorporated county are inextricably bound together.
Even within the narrow context of municipal revenues, the economic study is faulty, both because it fails to take into account possible revenue losses from reduced business at other competing stores, and because it does not consider alternative sources of additional revenues that could be generated by investing Redevelopment funds in the existing business district.
Allegation: Sierra Club demands for an EIR on the Lowe's project are illegitimate because the club did not comment on the Kelseyville Lumber expansion.
The facts: Although the issues surrounding the two projects are so different that no direct comparison would be fruitful, and although Lake Group representatives did speak before the Board of Supervisors in 2003 in opposition to the Kelseyville Lumber General Plan amendment, in hindsight the group regrets not having more vigorously supported the Farm Bureau’s objections to the conversion of agriculturally zoned land across from the current retail store. As a newly formed local organization within the Sierra Club, the group was then just beginning to evolve into its present activist role, and did not pursue the variety of issues that it has later addressed.
Allegation: loss of anticipated revenues resulting from the Sierra Club lawsuit has caused the city’s financial crisis, including substantial staff layoffs.
The facts: Clearlake’s financial problems are the result of decisions made over the course of many years. Many specific cutbacks, including the elimination of the code enforcement department, were proposed at city council meetings before the lawsuit was filed. Even if nothing had happened to delay the Lowe's project, it would not have produced any new sales or property tax revenues for more than two years at the very least.
In the meantime, the only possible offsetting source of temporary revenue was a proposal for the city to borrow $100,000 from the Redevelopment Agency in order to pay a portion of the city administrator’s and city engineer’s salaries.
Allegation: Costs of litigation are making the city’s financial problems worse.
The facts: Testimony provided by the club before the project was approved made the possibility of legal action obvious. Prudent governmental bodies ordinarily require project developers, through indemnity agreements, to assume any costs associated with litigation; if the city administration did not take this standard precaution it neglected the protective responsibility it owes its citizenry. Under these circumstances the administration was particularly rash in failing to accept the club’s offer of a negotiated settlement at the earliest possible opportunity, but instead to drag the process out despite mounting legal bills.
Allegation: Without the Sierra Club lawsuit the Lowe's project would now be moving ahead.
The facts: The sewer district is at the limit of its capacity, with chronic spills of raw sewage during heavy rains, and no new hookups are being approved in the project area without the direct authorization of the Board of Supervisors. The project cannot go forward until sewer service is available. Under the currently projected best-case scenario, this could not occur before the fall of 2011; allowing the project to move ahead on the assumption that additional sewer capacity will be available when needed is not a legally permissible course of action.
Allegation: The Sierra Club is profiting financially from the Lowe's lawsuit.
The facts: So far, the suit has cost Lake Group a substantial sum in legal fees and costs, which it has met through local donations with assistance from the Redwood Chapter (the chapter represents nearly 10,000 club members in northwest California, from Solano County to the Oregon border). If the club prevails in court, a judge may require the defendant to reimburse the portion of these expenses that were incurred subsequent to project approvals, but a plaintiff is never allowed a “profit” in cases of this sort.
Allegation: The local Sierra Club group acted rashly in deciding to bring suit.
The facts: The club never takes legal action lightly. Any decision to litigate must be approved by a series of specified committees, starting with the local entity. In this case the Lake Group Executive Committee’s recommendation was passed on to the Redwood Chapter Legal Committee, then to the Chapter Executive Committee, then to the National Litigation Committee.
Extensive documentation about the case (including legal validity, environmental importance, and financial responsibility) was presented throughout, and every one of the listed bodies had to approve the suit before it could be initiated. Although concurrence by the national club is required for all litigation, no national financial or legal staff support is provided.
Additional information about the local Sierra Club, including a position paper on the airport redevelopment project, is available at the Lake Group Web site, http://redwood.sierraclub.org/lake.
Victoria Brandon is the Sierra Club Lake Group legal liaison. Shes lives in Lower Lake, Calif.