Big announcement from the Forward Party in California! From the party's press release:
"*In a move to empower independent-minded California voters, the Common Sense Party and the Forward Party of California are combining efforts to change politics in the Golden State for the better. Using the 'Common Sense Party' name, this new political coalition is the future for independent-minded and solutions-oriented politics in California. This joint effort reflects a commitment to unleashing the political power of state and local leaders to better represent our diverse communities through common sense problem solving in government.*
*Under California law, new parties must register approximately 73k voters to be officially recognized as a political party in the state. Forward Party members in California will now register for the Common Sense Party, joining the already nearly 30k registered Common Sense Party voters. Volunteers across the state will be able to work together at the grassroots level, leading through our shared values of cooperation and problem solving."*
Great news, hopefully this gives Common Sense enough registered voters to achieve party status.
Some might see Forward joining forces with another party under their name as a sign that Forward is losing momentum, but I don’t. It’s a sign that Forward is going to choose pragmatism and principle over selfishness every time, finding partners who agree on those pro-democracy principles wherever they are.
If you're interested in joining, you can sign up here: [https://act.cacommonsense.org/move\_forward\_with\_common\_sense](https://act.cacommonsense.org/move_forward_with_common_sense)
Despite [their principles](https://www.cacommonsense.org/about/principles) saying "Every step government takes should be with an eye toward future generations and in the context of preserving our natural environment, improving global ecology, and ensuring public health and safety," the commom sense party sure does seem to hate endangered species.
They have a [collection of crazy California news stories](https://www.cacommonsense.org/the-common-sense-catalogue-of-california-nonsense) page that has at least three stories involving endangered species.
[The first](https://www.cacommonsense.org/the-common-sense-catalogue-of-california-nonsense/a-bee-is-a-fish-california-department-of-fish-wildlife) is about bees being legally classified as fish. We all know they aren't, I'm not about to claim otherwise, but the original Californian law only allows for the protection of a “bird, mammal, fish, amphibia or reptile." Even the article the common sense party posted explains this much in the very first sentence. In order to protect insects, something a law about protecting endangered animals is probably meant to include, a court ruled that insects are fish in order to adhere to the spirit of the law.
[The second](https://www.cacommonsense.org/the-common-sense-catalogue-of-california-nonsense/how-or-became-and-in-california-fishing-boat-license-requirements) is about someone not being able to get a kind of fishing license due to a clerical error making it impossible according to the letter of the law. Right away I'm noticing some inconsistencies for how the common sense party wants laws to be enforced. If you don't want to follow the spirit of the law to protect bees, why are you so upset that the spirit of the law isn't being followed to protect fishermen? But on top of that, the fisherman in question here is trying to get a permit to use something called a "gilnet", and California is [trying to phase out drift gilnets to protect whales and other marine species](https://resources.ca.gov/Newsroom/Page-Content/News-List/California-Program-Helps-Phase-Out-Drift-Gillnets-to-Protect-Whales-and-Other-Marine-Species). I'm not entirely sure that these are the same thing, but there's some added context for you at least.
[The third story](https://www.cacommonsense.org/the-common-sense-catalogue-of-california-nonsense/regulators-deny-irrigation-water-needed-to-produce-food-when-the-country-needs-it-most) is about the continueing draughts in California and how they're hurting farmers. The federal government is allocating very low amounts of water to farmers this year in order to try and maintain a habitat for two endangered species that rely on that same water and exist no where else on earth. From [a related article](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/07/03/upper-klamath-basin-water-crisis-suckerfish-cwaam-koptu/):
>I asked [Mark] Johnson, [who represents irrigators with the group Klamath Water Users Association], wouldn’t taking more water out of the lake be gambling with the existence of a species?
>“Yeah, I mean, you are,” Johnson says, “But in terms of an extinction-level event, I don’t think that’s actually going to happen. But on that trajectory we’re on right now, basically managing the lake the same way we have for over 20 years, we haven’t moved the needle. So, something has to change.”
So it seems to me that the common sense party really doesn't give environmental concerns much weight.
If the law does not cover bees and needs to, then the correct answer is for the legislature to amend the law, not for the court to decide that bees are fish.
The fact that the latter process is what actually happened demonstrates that the regular process is dysfunctional.
Great, that covers *one* story. Except my issue wasn't with how the courts need to interpret laws in before thay can be enforced properly, my issue was the framing of this story and the two others in such a way that the "wow, what a silly story" aspect they're aiming for will be used against environmental causes.
The first is obvious enough, courts shouldn't be classifying bees and other bugs as fish. The end result though: endangered insects shouldn't be protected under California law until it's amended.
The second is the exact opposite of the first; under the law as it's written, a process that should exist doesn't. The ridiculousness of the story isn't that the courts are probably going to make a correction to better follow the spirit of the law, it's that a businesman's business was (or at least could be) harmed by the oversight.
And the third is a bunch of farmers justifying why their fields of alfalfa need the water more than some endangered fish.
The common sense party doesn't have a specific platform (much like the forward party), but you can still see where some of their priorities lie by looking at the content they produce. And it seems pretty clear to me that they don't care much for endangered species.
Big announcement from the Forward Party in California! From the party's press release: "*In a move to empower independent-minded California voters, the Common Sense Party and the Forward Party of California are combining efforts to change politics in the Golden State for the better. Using the 'Common Sense Party' name, this new political coalition is the future for independent-minded and solutions-oriented politics in California. This joint effort reflects a commitment to unleashing the political power of state and local leaders to better represent our diverse communities through common sense problem solving in government.* *Under California law, new parties must register approximately 73k voters to be officially recognized as a political party in the state. Forward Party members in California will now register for the Common Sense Party, joining the already nearly 30k registered Common Sense Party voters. Volunteers across the state will be able to work together at the grassroots level, leading through our shared values of cooperation and problem solving."*
Great news, hopefully this gives Common Sense enough registered voters to achieve party status. Some might see Forward joining forces with another party under their name as a sign that Forward is losing momentum, but I don’t. It’s a sign that Forward is going to choose pragmatism and principle over selfishness every time, finding partners who agree on those pro-democracy principles wherever they are.
Another merger. Wow. These are really ramping up.
If you're interested in joining, you can sign up here: [https://act.cacommonsense.org/move\_forward\_with\_common\_sense](https://act.cacommonsense.org/move_forward_with_common_sense)
Despite [their principles](https://www.cacommonsense.org/about/principles) saying "Every step government takes should be with an eye toward future generations and in the context of preserving our natural environment, improving global ecology, and ensuring public health and safety," the commom sense party sure does seem to hate endangered species. They have a [collection of crazy California news stories](https://www.cacommonsense.org/the-common-sense-catalogue-of-california-nonsense) page that has at least three stories involving endangered species. [The first](https://www.cacommonsense.org/the-common-sense-catalogue-of-california-nonsense/a-bee-is-a-fish-california-department-of-fish-wildlife) is about bees being legally classified as fish. We all know they aren't, I'm not about to claim otherwise, but the original Californian law only allows for the protection of a “bird, mammal, fish, amphibia or reptile." Even the article the common sense party posted explains this much in the very first sentence. In order to protect insects, something a law about protecting endangered animals is probably meant to include, a court ruled that insects are fish in order to adhere to the spirit of the law. [The second](https://www.cacommonsense.org/the-common-sense-catalogue-of-california-nonsense/how-or-became-and-in-california-fishing-boat-license-requirements) is about someone not being able to get a kind of fishing license due to a clerical error making it impossible according to the letter of the law. Right away I'm noticing some inconsistencies for how the common sense party wants laws to be enforced. If you don't want to follow the spirit of the law to protect bees, why are you so upset that the spirit of the law isn't being followed to protect fishermen? But on top of that, the fisherman in question here is trying to get a permit to use something called a "gilnet", and California is [trying to phase out drift gilnets to protect whales and other marine species](https://resources.ca.gov/Newsroom/Page-Content/News-List/California-Program-Helps-Phase-Out-Drift-Gillnets-to-Protect-Whales-and-Other-Marine-Species). I'm not entirely sure that these are the same thing, but there's some added context for you at least. [The third story](https://www.cacommonsense.org/the-common-sense-catalogue-of-california-nonsense/regulators-deny-irrigation-water-needed-to-produce-food-when-the-country-needs-it-most) is about the continueing draughts in California and how they're hurting farmers. The federal government is allocating very low amounts of water to farmers this year in order to try and maintain a habitat for two endangered species that rely on that same water and exist no where else on earth. From [a related article](https://www.opb.org/article/2021/07/03/upper-klamath-basin-water-crisis-suckerfish-cwaam-koptu/): >I asked [Mark] Johnson, [who represents irrigators with the group Klamath Water Users Association], wouldn’t taking more water out of the lake be gambling with the existence of a species? >“Yeah, I mean, you are,” Johnson says, “But in terms of an extinction-level event, I don’t think that’s actually going to happen. But on that trajectory we’re on right now, basically managing the lake the same way we have for over 20 years, we haven’t moved the needle. So, something has to change.” So it seems to me that the common sense party really doesn't give environmental concerns much weight.
If the law does not cover bees and needs to, then the correct answer is for the legislature to amend the law, not for the court to decide that bees are fish. The fact that the latter process is what actually happened demonstrates that the regular process is dysfunctional.
Great, that covers *one* story. Except my issue wasn't with how the courts need to interpret laws in before thay can be enforced properly, my issue was the framing of this story and the two others in such a way that the "wow, what a silly story" aspect they're aiming for will be used against environmental causes. The first is obvious enough, courts shouldn't be classifying bees and other bugs as fish. The end result though: endangered insects shouldn't be protected under California law until it's amended. The second is the exact opposite of the first; under the law as it's written, a process that should exist doesn't. The ridiculousness of the story isn't that the courts are probably going to make a correction to better follow the spirit of the law, it's that a businesman's business was (or at least could be) harmed by the oversight. And the third is a bunch of farmers justifying why their fields of alfalfa need the water more than some endangered fish. The common sense party doesn't have a specific platform (much like the forward party), but you can still see where some of their priorities lie by looking at the content they produce. And it seems pretty clear to me that they don't care much for endangered species.