A detailed critique of the Green Party platform of 2010, Part I

I'm going with that one because it's the only one they have posted. For clarity, I'll list them in the following manner: (Article).(section).(subsection).(clause).(etc.). So, without preamble, here it is:

I.E.6: I disagree fundamentally with the Green Party stance on Puerto Rico. Frankly, it smacks of the same arrogance shown when they were annexed in 1898. If the Puerto Rican people want independence, fine. However, if they want to maintain the status quo or be granted full statehood, let them. Our actions on the mainland should strictly be in support of whatever decision the Puerto Rican people make. That said, I support the environmental cleanup of Vieques and Culebra, as not only it is just, it is simply the right thing to do.

I.F.1: It's next to impossible to fake a crime scene as large as the World Trade Centers, Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania. Also, frankly, such talk presupposes a far greater level of competence than we ever saw from the Bush II Administration. Such efforts would be better spent on investigating the profiteering that has occurred in the years since 9/11.

I.G.2: Instead of reducing human-staffed space exploration, I want to see a greatly increased human staffing of space exploration, but I want it to be true exploration. I want to see manned teams on Mars and elsewhere in the Solar System to look for evidence of current or former life. Mars is a great first step on the way to Europa and other places of interest.

II.A.1.b: A list system would probably be the best way to accomplish that, similar to The Netherlands and other Western democracies.
II.A.1.n: Any actions that address the concerns of domestic violence should also acknowledge and address male victims of domestic violence, and they should include robust protections for the rights of the accused in full accordance with the Bill of Rights.

II.A.2.d.ii: Point of order, really. Those have already been repealed by virtue of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

II.A.4: The Hawaiian people have long since decided to join the United States. While I support the preservation of Hawaiian culture, by and large, they're already there.


II.C: To accomplish that goal, I see no harm in taking the wage limit off of collection of Social Security premiums, and frankly, a needs test would also be just. Someone with a net worth of $10 million or more wouldn't notice the addition of the Social Security check. This should be for those who need the help, much like automobile insurance only pays out to those who get in a wreck.

I agree with Article II, Section D, except I would use the means listed above instead of a negative income tax. That's it for now. I'll say more as time permits.