|By Admin1 (admin) on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 11:10 pm: Edit Post|
CELESTE BLAU JOKI - Volunteer in the Peace Corps - Colombia '69-70
Celeste Joy Blau Joki
State Senator; District 3
The information on this page and on all pages linked below is provided by the candidate.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate.
Party: Natural Law
BCLAD, bilingual (Spanish) K-8 credential '96 Dominican College
B.A., Development of Community Consiousness, '72 UCSC
Castro Valley High School '67 Valedictorian
Dixie School District Primary Education Task Force and Parcel Tax Committees
Group For A Government, Washington DC. '95
Marin County Office of Education, Sr. Admin. Sec
Top Priorities if Elected
Integrating quality of life issues, involving land, water, housing development
Supporting inclusive education that develops the full potential of our diverse
student population, including multiple intelligences (incl. emotional
Health care that creates a healthier community, not dedicated to high tech, end
of life/disease care
Positions on legislation in general
Legislation versus programs that support and guide, health, environment,
education, land use, transportation, housing, criminality, rehabilitation and
citizens' quality of life.
Celeste Joy Blau Joki Natural Law Party State Senate, Third District
I do not have firm stands on certain issues, I have not been convinced that sponsoring or opposing through legislation is called for with so many issues. In general I do not feel that common sense or morality can be legislated. I feel that the government has made too many micro-management laws in an attempt to address issues that need a broader focus, guidance and support. An integrated vision is lacking. There are programs which have been proven, and are cost-effective, to enhance the health of the citizenry which in the long run would reduce the costs to society. There are certain stances that I favor in general. I feel that decisions about an individual's healthcare and quality of life issues should be determined by the parties most concerned, (e.g., regarding abortion: the woman who is carrying the child, the father, the medical consultant) and less by government interference. In a world where families are under greater stress with less means and support, what is important for the society to do is offer more assistance and options, rather than determining by law the medically appropriate definition of viability. Why force people to bring more unwanted children into the world?
Similarly, I'm not sure why this society is so schizophrenic about chemical alterations of one's state of mind. It does not make sense for alcohol and tobacco to be legal and recreational drugs to be banned. In the US, the allopathic form of medical treatment has become the dominant mode. Prescription drugs are used over more natural, holistic forms of treatment. The side effects of drugs, and hospital treatments are more malignant than helpful in the long run. What the government should do is encourage support of healthier lifestyles through education and prevention. Currently prevention coverage is outlawed. These issues should be addressed by programs that offer proven results in overall positive changes in quality of life through the least invasive procedures. The government should enable citizens to become more fully educated, self-reliant, and to develop their full potential. If the citizens were able to engage in a more productive rather than destructive lifestyle, the consequences would naturally result in an integrated, balanced society. Education that addresses the abilities and varied learning styles of the individuals and develops their full potential is needed. Currently Califiornia not only spends less than the majority of states on education, but also offers an educational program that does not prepare its citizens for a world that requires several changes in jobs over a lifetime, and the continuing ability to learn and think rather than learning a predetermined body of knowledge or skills.
There is a combination of factors that should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner, rather than piecemeal as has been the general approach. Land use, water use, and development superstructure (population/housing/transportation) should have an integrated general plan for the region, not just county-wide, as the SF Bay Area counties are tied together in the effects of legislation and programs in these areas. There needs to be a balance in considering the needs for people and the environment. All people need to have access to housing, healtly food and water, employment that pays a living wage and the means to reach them. Marin and Sonoma have sizable agricultural concerns, housing and transportation are tied together with employment and all of these affect water use. We need to insure a healthy balance which reconfigures our reliance on cars to transport commuters. We need to reconfigure the location of affordable housing and employers/employees. There are short term solutions to support current problems, such as widening the freeway from Novato through Snoma, but this needs to be tied in with development of alternatives such as ferries, rail, buses, electric cars and clustered living/ working communities. We need to support the continuation of agriculture, but not necessarily in the same historical crops or livestock, but perhaps encouraging programs which give opportunies and support to change to more sustainable, less damaging to the environment, products qnd practices such as organic farming, reducing the use of pesticides and practices which use up, poison or erode the soil rather than replenish it. These issues are health related too, there should be governmental regulations on at least labeling the foods we buy to allow indiviudals who are concerned about the possible effects of Genetically Modified Organisms affecting their future, that of their children and the enviornment, to have a choice. No long term studies have been done on GMOs, and unlike past mistakes (like the use of DDT which created the "Silent Spring" effect) these unnatural organisms cannot be recalled once they have been released in the environment.
|By aditi on Tuesday, August 26, 2003 - 4:36 am: Edit Post|
i am an Indian and have come across your page while searching for information on the net for GMOs.while every second person in the world is against GMOs then why are the governments funding such projects.in every country there is atleast 3to 4 committies for GMOs.my question is,what is actually the policy for the GMOs.none of the nations are sure about it.alreary a lot of time, energy and money has been spent on such crops.some are also ready for the market.but they are stalled by the committies of the respective nations. so can we come to the conclusion that all the policy makers of the world are incapable to come to a decision!!
so it is better that the world's common man to think about it!