Vote for America's future. Vote Green.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

A detailed critique of the Green Party Platform, part 2

In the last installment, I stopped with Article II, Section D. In keeping with the precedent set earlier today, the sections I reference will be listed thusly (Article).(Section).(Subsection).(Paragraph).(etc.), so Article II, Section D, Subsection 1 would be listed as II.D.1. Any portion of this platform that is not listed has my full agreement. Now, on with the show:

II.F.preamble: While I agree with the spirit of this preamble, I would restrict health care expenditures to those treatments that are proven to work. There should be some rational, scientific basis for whatever is being done to treat the patient. For example, a dietitian would qualify if such is needed for the patient, while a naturopath would not, as their activities are often based on pseudoscience. Chiropractic therapy and acupuncture would be acceptable if recommended by a Medical Doctor.

II.F.2: While I also hope for a cure for AIDS/HIV, the only successful means for controlling viruses, from the beginning of our understanding, has been vaccination. While I think a "cure" is unlikely, it is reasonable and good to hope for a day when it becomes a chronic condition not unlike diabetes.

III.A.14: I would add the caveat that we have been genetically modifying food for millennia with no harm. Golden rice and other foods designed to deal with serious nutritional deficiencies among the poorest should be celebrated, not opposed with anti-scientific ranting. However, GMO's designed to make foods more tolerant to pesticides and others that may have a deleterious effect on the environment should be opposed. In short, add rational thought to the process. The question should not be "GMOs or organic". It should be "responsible GMOs AND organic." Until that day, the focus should be on harm reduction. Pesticides aren't necessarily evil, but they should be used sparingly, much like antibiotics.

III.B.3.f: I would add that algae sources of biofuels should be aggressively pursued. Once commercially viable, these would, at the very least, be carbon neutral without endangering the food supply.

Well, that gets me through page 48 of this 71 page document. I will continue with more as time permits, starting with III.F if I have any commentary on that section.

No comments: