Friday, October 27, 2006


Lunch with Mike Thompson

CLMP invited Rep. Mike Thompson for a meeting, and he agreed and showed up in Garberville today. They asked me to attend to ask questions about his intentions regarding the Military Commissions Act. The other topics of discussion were voting system integrity, the Iraq war, and the drug war.

He's very personable, and very sincere. Michael DeLeon was actually pretty forceful in his dissatisfaction of the performance of Democrats in resisting some of the slide, and when somebody else tried to intervene to diffuse the conversation, Thompson actually held up his hand and responded to Michael with forceful conviction of his own that the Democrats have done what they could with a minority against a ruling majority that's willing to change the rules to its advantage on a moment's notice. Thompson described incidents such as being told that a certain vote was going to be held at four p.m. the following day and having a draft of the proposed law six inches thick dropped on his desk at seven the next morning and told that the vote would be in a hour. He described committee meetings in which bills would be brought in already typed up, and all amendments rejected, no discussion - written somewhere in the ether then delivered to be voted on as is. He described the frustration of some of his colleagues who suggest they all go home and leave the Republicans to their devices since their presence had become moot anyway.

Of course there are those Democrats who don't want the rules changed back - to treat Republicans fairly if the Democrats take over. Thompson understands, but says that ultimately it's the institution of congress that's at stake, and one party has to stand up for it. Can't be argued with really, it's just that King Solomon isn't around to measure the virtue of the respective parties, and Republicans have won many a battle because they treat politics as war while the Democrats treat it as a debating society.

There were some other highlights that I'll discuss later. Estelle Fennel was there, and she'll have some clips on KMUD tonight at six.

Sounds similar to the Humboldt County Democratic Central Committees way of doing business.
One thing's for certain, CLMP wants to talk about anything but marijuana legalization as CLMP represents growers rights and not those of marijuana users who provide their incomes as well as the incomes of pot lawyers. Major conflict of interest in really stopping the violation of grower's rights if there were no illegal pot to maintain the system.

So, continue on, distract us from the original purpose of CLMP. Like the original purpose of EPIC, it got lost in the creation of the political committee mind-set that has other priorities.
Actually, it came up in the drug war portion. CLMP argues for legalization all the time. That's why Geiringer is invited to all the forums.
Like NORML, nothing is ever accomplished by those with money or community status to lose towards legalization. Talking heads talking and yet more people are going to jail for pot than ever before.

I brought up an avenue to pursue towards legalization and you just dismissed it out of hand. If this is the typical attitude in CLMP then of course nothing changes of significance.

It will take disinterested parties without a financial conflict of interest to really do the job. As long as NORML pays salaries to its execs and pot growing pays its lawyers, CLMP will continue to be window dressing on a very lucrative business.
"the Democrats have done what they could with a minority against a ruling majority that's willing to change the rules to its advantage on a moment's notice.".

Interesting that that's the same sort of thing we heard from the Republicans when they were the minority in congress.
3:46 In all the discussions about Brown Act rules of public meetings-why do the Greens get bashed and HCDCC skates?
I brought up an avenue to pursue towards legalization and you just dismissed it out of hand. If this is the typical attitude in CLMP then of course nothing changes of significance.

Your idea was a clever word game that would go nowhere.
Fred - the Republicans complained about being shut out, but the bills were generally written in committee, and Republicans were allowed input into many bills. And you didn't see the time for voting being extended when Democrats were planning to vote against the majority in order to twist their arms. Pretty much everybody watching congress on a daily basis will acknowledge that the methods became much more draconian after 1994.
"Your idea was a clever word game that would go nowhere."

See, there you go again, with your ego tripping have to have get the rebuttal answer in without stopping to think.

Eric, my "word game" idea was backed by three, count them, three lawyers at that time. One of them being Robt. Cogan who at that time was the primary pot lawyer in Humboldt County.

You just defend CLMP out of political loyalty and a lawyer's inability to lose an argument. NORML and CLMP have had their chance to do something, years of chance, and they've accomplished virtually nothing. Conflict of interest is the problem. Pot growers' hearts aren't into legalization so there's no real incentive to check out legalization avenues. Then's there's the pot grower lawyers who also share in the lack of incentive as well as the pot lawyers who've made jobs for themselves at NORML, well paying jobs not doubt, again no incentive to really legalize pot--no money if pot were legalized. no jobs in pot legalization orgs either.
This is the same problem EPIC and other professional protest orgs have. Conflict of interest. If they ever succeeded in resolving environmental issues they'd have no conflict to exploit, no lawsuits to file to pay themselves, no EPIC as it has become to be--a lawsuit org far away from its original purpose which was to provide homesteaders with environmental protection information.

Conflict of interest to do the right thing because doing the right thing doesn't pay professional enviros or professional pot lawyers or professional pot legalization org reps.
The three lawyers are simply wrong. If you win the court case the legislature will simply fill in the gap by outlawing indica.

CLMP would probably actually support the lawsuit, but it's a typical approach of the civil liberties crowd which often feels that the laws are defined by the strength of their conviction rather than popular will. I hear so often the phrase "the wording of the (law, constitution, etc.) is clear," but the fact is as we are told earl in law school, the law is what the last judge on the issue says it is, or to put it into more baseball terms an old umpire saying "somes is balls and somes is strikes. But until I calls em, they ain't nothin."

You won't legalize marijuana until you have popular will. And when you do that you can legalize it by referendum. Until then, all the cute legal strategies in the world will amount to nothing. I'm much more concerned about black and Hispanic people being pulled over simply on the basis of their skin color in the wrong neighborhood. I'm nore concerned about the death of habeus corpus and other due process. I'm more concerned about voter's rights, and election integrity. I left CLMP because the marijuana crap bored me to tears after awhile and the doesn't mean a whole lot to most people outside the emerald triangle and a few other select areas of assorted hippiesqe demographics. Even where they support your position, most people just don't prioritize it. Including me.
Because your "most people" are the people you make your living from. Both of you aren't interested in the civil rights issue that should have been the basis for CLMP, the right to grow and distribute marijuana without penalization.

This is marijuana growing country, eric, in case you haven't noticed which you have, making your living off the industry one way or another. CLMP was formed by mj growers. You want to drag your rad-lib political causes into the CLMP agenda which is your perogative but it doesn't address my civil rights issue which is legalization of mj.

And I don't buy your straw boss put down of those other lawyers who backed a civil suit using the species defense. I think it would be very hard for any California Legislature to criminalize indica at this time when the mood of California has been towards legalization for years. Think of the publicity it would create if the Legislature came out against legal pot.

Eric, your argument is just you doing what you always do, try to win a debate without showing any signs of actually hearing what the other person is saying.
I was going through my things and found a letter from Mike Thompson in 1992, he was a state senator then. Makes me think we should have TIME limits along with term limits. He's been a &^%$$ politician for 15 or more years! Time for him to get a real job.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for