Skip to Content

AlJazeera Asks: Where is the Green Party?


Where is the Green Party?
As climate change become increasingly apparent, many wonder why the Green Party is being ignored in the US election.
 Last Modified: 02 Nov 2012 12:21


Some Americans say climate change is an important issue, but the two major parties don't focus on it [GALLO/GETTY]

In the race for the White House, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have talked about sustainable development.


Yet the Green Party ticket, whose stance on the issue outpaces those of both the Republican and Democratic parties, is virtually unknown by the vast majority of US voters.


Romney, . . . enjoys support from the billionaire Koch brothers who made their fortune in oil, gas and chemicals, is the bane of many environmentalists.

Meanwhile, Obama has been criticised for not cracking down on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking,  . . . (and) has nevertheless given the green light for offshore oil leases in the environmentally sensitive Arctic Ocean, leaving the 66 per cent of US citizens who favour tax breaks to curb greenhouse gas emissions without a candidate.


Elizabeth Hooper: Charter School Amendment - Privatization of Georgia's Public Schools


Now that Nov. 6th is right around the corner, it's time to talk about the elephant in the room - the privatization of public education. The "pro" Amendment 1 side all feel that private corporations, in this case "for-profit" charter operators, can provide a more efficient way to educate your children compared to the current system managed by locally elected school boards, superintendents and the State Board of Education.

They feel so strongly in the superiority of the "free-enterprise" system that they are willing to remove any obstacle from the path of privatization, including your elected voice, and I guess their own if they happen to live in Georgia. A "yes" vote on Amedment 1 will trigger a 7 person appointed commission who's sole duty will be to review charter petitions faster and more efficiently than the current State BOE apparently is capable or interested in doing. Your input or your locally elected school board's input on these decisions, will not be required.

If privatization is such a great idea, why not include it in the preamble or ballot?

Reasons Number 9 and 10 to vote NO on Amendment 1: the privatization of education is not "free" and will most likely result in people getting rich off of our kids rather than saving us any money or improving education.


Dick Yarbrough: Ten reasons to vote ‘no’ on the charter school amendment

A couple of points, follow the read more link for the rest:


Eight: The Legislature has deliberately starved public schools financially and as a result, 67 percent of the schools systems in Georgia do not have the funds to provide 180 days of instruction as required by Georgia law. According to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, Georgia’s funding for K-12 public education is at its lowest level on a per-pupil basis in 10 years. Legislators like to wring their hands about “failing schools.” If the schools are failing, the politicians need to look in the mirror. It is their fault; not the schools.

Read more here:
Ten: I support charter schools, as do most educators. But this amendment isn’t about charter schools. It is about money. Lots and lots of money from for-profit education company lobbyists in a state with the weakest ethics laws in the nation. That’s reason enough that the amendment needs to be defeated.

Read more here:


Ten: I support charter schools, as do most educators. But this amendment isn’t about charter schools. It is about money. Lots and lots of money from for-profit education company lobbyists in a state with the weakest ethics laws in the nation. That’s reason enough that the amendment needs to be defeated.

Read more here:

Why Sandy Has Meteorologists Scared in Four Images

The talk is of Franken-Storms. And Sandy's arrival on the scene a week before the election ought to give pause to every environmental apologist for the Drill Baby Drill politics of the Democrat incumbent who has refrained from mentioning Global Warming while he competes in the constrained debate permitted by the corporate contributors over who can tap more of the off-shore, hydro-fracked, dirty coal and even more dangerous nuclear energy resources beneath our soil and off our beaches.

Follow the Read More link to see the images which have meteorologists frightened, New York City flooded without power and transit systems closed.

The progressive case against Obama


Bottom line: The president is complicit in creating an increasingly unequal -- and unjust -- society

A few days ago, I participated in a debate with the legendary antiwar dissident Daniel Ellsberg on Huffington Post live on the merits of the Obama administration, and what progressives should do on Election Day. Ellsberg had written a blog post arguing that, though Obama deserves tremendous criticism, voters in swing states ought to vote for him, lest they operate as dupes for a far more malevolent Republican Party. This attitude is relatively pervasive among Democrats, and it deserves a genuine response. As the election is fast approaching, this piece is an attempt at laying out the progressive case for why one should not vote for Barack Obama for reelection, even if you are in a swing state.

There are many good arguments against Obama, even if the Republicans cannot seem to muster any. The civil liberties/antiwar case was made eloquently a few weeks ago by libertarian Conor Friedersdorf, who wrote a well-cited blog post on why he could not, in good conscience, vote for Obama. While his arguments have tremendous merit, there is an equally powerful case against Obama on the grounds of economic and social equity. That case needs to be made. For those who don’t know me, here is a brief, relevant background:  I have a long history in Democratic and liberal politics. I have worked for several Democratic candidates and affiliated groups, I have personally raised millions of dollars for Democrats online, I was an early advisor to Actblue (which has processed over $300 million to Democratic candidates). I have worked in Congress (mostly on the Dodd-Frank financial reform package), and I was a producer at MSNBC. Furthermore, I aggressively opposed Nader-style challenges until 2008.

Voting Green in a Swing State


I live in a purple part of the country (Virginia) and move in academic circles, so of course I know many, many people who will be voting for Obama. It is impossible to know, but if I sodomized the Easter Bunny in front of their children the look on my Obama-voter friends’ faces could scarcely be much different than the look they get when I say I am voting for Jill Stein.

“But this is a swing state…you have to vote for Obama…what if Romney wins?!?
The pain in their voices tugs at my sympathies; their fear is very real. I want to reassure them, but I was cured a few presidential elections ago. I won’t be drinking from that cup again.
At first they assume I don’t understand what’s at stake. They tell me about the Romney/Ryan agenda. They tell me about Obamacare. They tell me about DOMA and the Fair Pay Act. But the conversation wanes when I am not only unsurprised by the information but able to supply amplifications and corrections. I’ve read the (detailed summary of) the Affordable Care Act. I know about Romney’s probable agenda. I even know the age and bodily afflictions of key members of the Supreme Court. In short, I know what’s at stake.

No Papers No Fear Posters image container

Why I am voting no on Amendment 1


So, basically, the text itself demeans anyone who dare vote against it as someone who is against smarter kids and more involved parents, not to mention that such a voter must be against charter schools per se.  But the facts are far less clear.  As I will explain below, this Amendment does not do what it says it will do, but is rather using empty platitudes to convince the uneducated voter to vote for it.  Such tactics are dangerous.  With this logic, the text of an amendment banning abortion would say “Provides for healthier, happier babies by ensuring birth.”  It’s just not true.

Amendment 1 is a thinly-veiled attempt for out of state companies to profit off of Georgia students, without any regard to how well-educated they are.

Read more for the full story.


The Last Word w/ Lawrence O'Donnell -- Rewrite Third Party Candidates Debate 2012

As O'Donnell puts it: "Having spent my lifetime in states irrelevant to the electoral college, I have mostly voted for third party candidates for president, and I was always told I was wasting my vote. When I voted for Democrats for presidents who lost, I was never told I was wasting my vote. I have actually voted for the winner of the presidency exactly once, so please don’t try to tell me that voting for a candidate who loses is wasting a vote in a democracy. If you live in a battleground state, voting for a third party candidate can be a bit dicier."

But of course all concerned know that the Republicans will take Georgia and that a Georgia vote for either corporate party will not change the Electoral College outcome and will in fact be wasted.

Jill Stein Advances to final US presidential third-party debate

Syndicate content