Minneapolis Libraries - Best in America

The Minneapolis Library System is more than a center for research and academia. It is a cultural asset to the diverse residents of Minneapolis. The depth of its catalog appealing to young manga fans and those of classic literature. And music from the Dixie Chicks to Chicks on Speed.

The library enhances culture here by its the willingness to purchase materials requested by patrons. Rather than questioning the merit of each purchase intensely ( as outstate systems do) they prefer to obtain them. Instead of buying 100 copies of Harry Potter, they buy 50 and purchase 5 copies of 10 additional books/cds/dvds that are much less "mainstream."

And yes, I ended up buying the Harry Potter books because I couldn't wait months to get one at the library. I have lent it to friends, so it has gotten use. But I would rather have it this way than deprive the library of its inclusiveness.

A prime example of a fringe item the library purchased that few suburban counterparts would is Doctor Who:The Complete First Season. I requested this through my local library on Franklin Avenue. Doctor Who is my favorite TV Show: a British, science fiction, drama. Only shown on cable and not mainstream Americana. The single copy was requested so many times they ordered 5 additional copies ( one criticism is that all copies will go through the one branch on Franklin Avenue). This type of situation can be multiplied many times throughout this amazing library system.

The Minneapolis Library System embraced the concept of the Long Tail long before it was coined. Many conservatives claim that government should be run more likes businesss. While government is not a business, it can learn from their effieciencies. And the Minneapolis Library System has shown innovation long before businesses took on its concepts. A merger with the Hennepin County Library System will diminish this priceless institution.

I challenge anyone out there to check out their website at mplib.org and search for things they consider "fringe." Search an author/musician/actor you love but few know of , I bet they have nearly every copy of their published works . You can request items online and have them delivered to a local branch - similiar to Netflix. One can easily see this is all proof that the Minneapolis Libraries are the best in the entire United States.

Global Warming - more facts needed?

What more do the skeptics need to hear?

Why do some claim that we should use whatever resources we want abundantly? But we must borrow endlessly to do so, and ignore the consequences of such actions.

Global Warming is a direct consequence of such affluenza. The First chart was taken from An Inconvenient Truth, and depicts a much larger graph than the smaller one published prior. Notice how we are trending much higher in temperatures right now.

Now there are the Antartic ice cores to cover. The second graph quite clearly shows that temperatures there have a relationship to global CO2 levels. Since CO2 levels are exceeding 300ppm, we will experience warmer Earthly temperatures than the last 400,000+ years! That doesn't seem to bother the skeptics.

It's hard enough to get thousands of scientists to reach concensus on anything - and yet they have.

RELOCALIZATION - a wiser reaction

What should appear blatantly obvious to Global Warming adherents, is that humanity will not give up this collision course with reality. Perhaps it would be wiser to focus on relocalization and preparation for this time? Mitigating it appears a nonstarter with the 3 most populated nations on Earth not participating. These nations alone represent nearly half of humanity and half of its material wealth.

It isn't meaningless to work to curb your carbon footprint. Nor is it pointless to reduce our societal impact. But the fact is, even if we curb Co2 emmissions drastically, we still have a rising temperature to deal with. It is possible to do both, as the two can overlap in many areas. But as ecosystems change, preparation will take a more urgent precedent - especially by the most ardent conservative skeptics of today!

A Global Warming challenger?

I have recently heard of the The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary by Martin Durkin. Only through a website of a friend, who I know questions the issues thoroughly. ( but our own perspectives exceedingly differ )

The graph at the left depicts world temperatures for the last 120 years, as opposed to Al Gore's of a much greater stretch of time. What I find most disturbing about it is that humans have been using hydrocarbons longer than 1940 - they were called coal and oil. The first billion humans would have not have existed by the 20th century if hydrocarbons not been used until 1940.

Next, temperature changes that are ascribed to Global Warming are long-term. 20 years is not long-term. If we go back to the original usage of coal, we have been adding carbon to the atmosphere for hundreds of years longer than the Model-T ever existed. In 1748, America first delved into coal-mining. 50 tons were extracted from our Earth that year alone. When we look at the long-term effects of carbon in our atmosphere, they do not appear for about 100 years. So temperatures in 1940 to 1960 were affected by carbon put in our atmosphere around. It just so happens this is a time when the world and America went into an economic depression.

The primary argument in the documentary appears to be that the sun is more of a factor in Earth's temperature fluctuations. While the sun does affect us, here is a response from a scientist working for Britain.

Peak Oil - the markets vain attempt to ignore it

I am also concerned about this very charged statment: "Global warming is natural and will occur no matter how much we destroy our economy in a vain attempt to stop it."

The Global Warming argument is a good for those who believe in it to reduce hydrocarbon consumption. But others needs to hear about Peak Oil and its economic ramifications.

20% of American wages are spent on cars. That comes to around $700 a month per person. If we cut our vehicular consumption, where would that savings go? Back into the economy, and not to the Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela who sell us oil. Not as much to Japan, China, and Korea who make our cars. Why not conserve for these reasons alone?

Obviously cars have negative environmental consequences. One can greenwash this fact by stating that 95% of a car is recycled. But also 90% of the time it remains idle in a parking spot or stop light. If 10,000 people got together and pitched in $3000 each, they could build a light-rail line. They could support it for far less than $700 a month. But this economic model does not exist, because individuals cannot build light-rail lines anymore than interstates. ( individuals seldom have the right to take land as government does - looking out for one's self interest are not public-oriented )

America is so dependent on oil, we are heading for an economic dowturn. 100 years from now, we may end up selling all of our own coal to China, while stuck without oil in our engines. That would be the real tragedy of an addiction - having to quite cold turkey due to economic circumstances than choice.

Overpopulation is an issue, intertwined with immigration,family planning, and geopolitics. When you add that many people to the world over a short period of time, hydrocarbon usage whill increase exponentially. That is why it is so hard NOT to believe that Global Warming will not come about. We cry about 40,000 "overpopulated" wolves when a city of 40,000 humans is called a "large town."



What the Global Warming and Peak Oil skeptics appear to lack is perspective. It is smart to question when and to what extent these events will create. But it is utterly ridiculous to write them off completely because your political ideology does not accept it. Nature and Earth doesn't give a damn about your political beliefs, the truth cannot hide forever. Though when we all know for certain, it is probably too late to mitigate it.

Why this blog?

I changed the description of this blog:

1)Envisioning a society that values compassion and wisdom.

The global society has lost its moral compass long ago.The pursuit of money appears to trump all other issues. If you have money, you are expected to spend it as lavishly as you can afford. Yet marriages falter primarily due to economic stress. When we do things to help others without reward, we are called fools. Compassion must be valued and not ridiculed for being altruistic or utopian.

The American people have long been ignorant. We may be able to read, but we don't read much. American Idol and 24-hour cable news have dulled the senses of the public. We can do whatever we want and think that the outside world does not affect us. To assume that politicians and scientists will solve all our problems is blind faith. We must question their intentions and ideas before having faith in them. We need to be a society that values wisdom, and also cultivates it on an individual basis.

2)Supporting peace and justice for all beings.

All beings deserve a peaceful life, with basic freedoms. The world's people need more rights. American should support this wholeheartedly, along with the United Nations. Implementing The Universal Declaration of Human Rights globally is a good place to start.

All beings deserve a decent future and life - including animals, plants, and the planet. While it is difficult to do no harm to any being, it is ignorant to not value them. We should value all beings and thank them for the sacrifices they make for us. If we feel the sacrifice is too much, we work to change things starting with ourselves (i.e. chickens who live caged and de-beaked their entire lives )

How can one support war or lethal acts towards other beings? It is not possible to prove that they are skillful acts. It is equally ridiculous to think that they improve our collective karma. We must cultivate a society that values life and practices nonviolence.

3) Preparing for a post-oil world.

While oil has not peaked yet, the fact it will is inevitable. We must conserve what oil we have and build a society that can outlast it. The post-oil infrastructure must be built and supported now. If we procrastinate, this may be mankind's last century.

Mankind was not the first beings of its kind on Earth. We were just the most successful thus far. If we die off, there will be other beings to inhabit this Earth. May we use these bodies we currently inhabit wisely, and pursuade others to do so as well.
---

If anyone wants to blog on this post, I invite them to join me. There are no other pre-requisites than the above listed. No one is barred from joining, apart from those who feel incompatible with the above listed values.

Downloading Music for free is spelled T-H-E-F-T

I have been "online" since 1996. Got a copy of Doom 2 for "free." Purchased my first cd online from cdnow.com and books from Amazon in 1997.

In 1998 I downloaded my first MP3 - and fell in love with digital music, though broadband was nowhere in sight. Also bought my first cd-writer and began making and trading music.

In 2000, living in Saint Cloud I installed my cable internet myself, and never paid for it because they never did come to install it. I first downloaded Napster and Gnutella. I loved "free" stuff - and found not just music but videos and software.

Kazaa in 2001.

But I slowly got sick of the poor quality and reliability of "free" stuff. Some were the wrong files. Many files were cumbersome to install, and when installed didn't work perfectly. Some didn't work at all. Some even contained viruses.

But the PC world is morally corrupt. It is the culture created around it. PC Owners from America in 1990 to China in 2006 all have enjoyed pirating and copying files of all types. Though many do pay for these programs, many more enjoy using them for "free."

Not that buying an Imac changed my opinion. Purchasing most of my music used, I didn't really think I was supporting artists much anyways. The library doesn't mind assisting either.

But not all music is easily accessible. Itunes makes it easy to find music I like. It isn't that expensive and money still goes to the artists. I can find what music tracks are popular - buy those ones and forget the rest of the disc (unless I get it).

But I cannot find myself downloading a filesharing program on my Imac. I have no worry about viruses. But from an ethical standpoint, if I don't purchase what I appreciate who will? Who will pay for the next season of Doctor Who? Okay, yeah British taxpayers - but still. What you like should be supported when you can. Otherwise no one will.

So that is my stance. If you can support your favorite artists, please do. Even if you got an album online for free, buy it and give as a gift. Whoever you give it to will appreciate it, in addition to the artist being supported.

I love independent music in addition to a select few popular artists. The American Assn. of Independent Music in addition to others support paying for music. I used to hate the RIAA, but it is true that the industry is facing hard times. Support the music you love, with more than a click of the mouse but a few quarters from your piggy bank.

Visit Music United for more details on the issue.

Pierre Bottineau should be light rail

The Twin Cities is already the best metropolitan for anyone to live in Midwestern America. But it lacks decent transit. This will have to be improved upon in the next 20 years for it to continue its high livability standards.

The Hiawatha Light Rail opened despite constant criticism from skeptics. It was touted by one Republican as the "train to nowhere." Yet it has achieved more than its proponents ever imagined. The University LRT will have at least twice the ridership of Hiawatha, and wouldn't started sooner if Hiawatha had not been such a success.

I believe in living carfree, and supporting the foundations of a post-oil world. But transit isn't just for those who choose not to own cars. 2/3 of bus riders and 80% of train riders own a vehicle. Transit gives drivers a break from not just high gas prices but stressful traffic and accidents. It would be wise to continue building a system that our citizens can be proud of.

That brings me to the Pierre Bottineau BRT project in northwest Hennepin County. I think it should be light rail, because it would have much higher ridership. There are more benefits to a LRT line than BRT. And the demographics of this area are ripe for a line. North Minneapolis and its adjacent suburbs do not deserve to be ignored in the future transit makeup of the Twin Cities. I would even consider moving to this area because it is more lower middle class. Without easy access to the amenities of Minneapolis I will not.

Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat agrees with me on this issue. A Republican who is a true conservative. Republicans can't continue acting as if the next 3 months are more important than the next 3 centuries. We need leaders who will work for a better future for our families. We need more true conservatives who understand the value of government and are wary of it being wasteful/corrupt.

Keith Ellison the only Non-Christian in congress?

Some believe having a Muslim in Congress is bad, but allowing him to proclaim it with the Koran is too much. It reminds me of the GLBT Republicans, that when running for have to pretend to be straight. But anywho, a notoriously "pro-family" organization has a new survey: about Islam. It seems a bit skewed in its results already, unabashedly against Muslims.

One thing that disturbs me are the claims that Islam gives women few rights. Okay, maybe the Taliban was harsh - but they do not represent Islam. That would be like the Inqusition representing all of Catholicism and Christianity. Women have had the right to vote in Islamic democracies and a say in society long before the feminist movements of the 20th AD. What is ironic is that Muslim nations have produced more heads of state than Western Nations. Examples:

• Indonesia, the most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Megawati Sukarnoputri as President
• Pakistan, the second most populous Muslim-majority country, twice (non-consecutively) elected Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister^[1]
• Bangladesh, the third most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina as Prime Ministers
• Turkey, the fifth most populous Muslim-majority country, elected Tansu Ciller as Prime Minister

Moving beyond Islam, what about my own philosophy: Buddhism? There will be two sworn in the same moment that Keith Ellison is. And you hear not a peep from the media, well maybe a small NY Times article. But we Buddhists do not truly enjoy controversy as much as perpetuating truth and uncovering falsehoods.


Representative-elect Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat will use the Bible citing it as an American tradition. Mazie Hirono, a Hawaii Democrat, has stated there not to be a Buddhist equivalent to the Koran or Bible. Even the Dhammapada, originating from the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, doesn't cover all of Buddha's teachings.

What does this say about the multi-religious future of America? Probably what Ms. Hirono says that we should have "respect and tolerance for other religions.” That is something Representative Virgil Goode,the AFA, and others of various faith and non-faith could work towards. A nation that truly values peace,freedom, and all it entails is where America needs to be.

Is Ethiopia a true ally against terrorism?

While debate over whether Somalia will become a terrorist state ensues, few in America question the legitimacy of Ethiopia. The current Ethiopian regime was elected democratically. In a New York Times article, that may seem legitimate enough. Reality states otherwise, because our so-called "liberal press" leaves out context.

Just as the Kurds and Tibetans have had their lands seized, history shows the Oromo also had their lands taken unjustly. The Oromo have a distinct culture, language , and even religion. Contrary to beliefs of some Abyssinian scholars, the Oromo have been in the region for some time. The Oromo language shares 20% of its words with Somali, and no one disputes Somalian heritage.

The Abyssinians believe they are, and might even be, descendents of Cush. They had faith that God was on their side. Therefore their kings were appointed by God, who justified war with the Oromo many times. Using their Christian credentials with European traders, they were finally able to crush the Oromo.

Abyssinians are the most ardent Christians in Africa. Being so before Europe "colonized" them, were able to postpone take-over. Italian Fascist Mussolini invaded Ethiopia using Oromo slavery as justification, without League of Nations approval, in 1935 and controlled the country until WW2 resolved.

The Oromo have steadily regained rights as time has progressed. In some circumstances Oromo are able to speak their language without punishment, but not yet in most public schools. They have used both political and violence to push for their cause. The most visible organization in their struggle is the Oromo Liberation Front.

How is the current Ethiopian government illegitimate?:

1) European Parliament resolution on Ethiopia

2) Human Rights Watch - Abuses and Political Repression in Ethiopia's Oromia Region

3) Amnesty International report on Ethiopia

4) US State Department codemnation




How is Ethiopia to justify war against Somalia when it is terrorizing its own people? How can Americans sit by and excuse human rights violations that are facts? How can America assume Somali will become a nation hellbent on American destruction? It takes quite a leap from reality to justify a war with Somalia.

Abdi Galgalo, an Oromo, makes his point against a war with Somalia. Siddise Abamagal believes genocide against the Oromo will be committed if war with Somalia breaks out. The American media ignore Oromo viewpoint, because they contradict Executive intelligence. But American citizens deserve to know what supporting a Somalian war entails.

If America supports Ethiopia, it supports terrorism and lethality against Oromo. This situation is not unfamiliar territory in American foreign policy. We ignored the Kurds, supporting Iraq, while at war with Iran.

Wake up America! We cannot support terrorism and human rights violations in any form - even from our so-called allies. We cannot drag our flag in muddy water and immediately fly it with pride!

Holy War or proxy war in the Horn of Africa?

Ethiopia, an ardently Orthodox Christian nation, is declaring war on Somalia - with U.S. support. The primary reason appears that Ethiopia fears a neighboring nation being an Islamist State. The United States does not want that either, for the irrational fear that it could become a "terrorist" state. For some odd reason, all Somalians have the unpolitically correct label of "Islamofascists." That is who we are are war with, according to many.

Eritrea, having just regained their lands from Ethiopia, supports the Islamist government because Ethiopia does not. Isaias Afwerki , President of Eritrea, wants a proxy war with Ethiopia. With Osama Bin Laden claiming Somalia as primary front for his war on the West, America will want a proxy war through Ethiopia. Somalia, having just regained some stability in 2004, faces the prospect of another harsh conflict.

When nations insist on war as a solution in Somalia, they key questions:

1) Do Ethiopian and Eritrean citizens gain from such a war?

Their money would be better spent diversifying their economies and tending to their own citizens. Their governments seem hellbent on destabilizing the entire region. The people of both nations and Somalia lose.

Ethiopia can certainly slaughter all of its opponents, especially if America chooses a more active role supplying weapons. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi probably assumes more aid from America if he does its bidding. This is quite foolish, like attacking a bees nest assuming you will get help. Neoconservatives may care about foreign aid, but Conservatives do not. And Democrats won't likely give Ethiopia more aid because they follow Bush as blindly as Kazakhstan.

Eritrea is rushing headfirst into fatalities. But they only want a way to hurt Ethiopia without officially declaring war. Foolish, but very ego driven.

2) Does lethality really solve anything?

I have long felt that we need to change the culture of lethality. For too long humans have generally lived peaceful family lives, but accepted that "their" nations military was on "their" side. Lethality is on no man's side but deaths. We need to see militarism for what is it - a last resort and not just a big stick worth wielding at the "other" AKA "the enemy of us."

Somalia is a stabler nation, and even if Islamists control it - will lethality make things better? Somalian Women, children, in addition to men of all ages await war. They wield machine guns ready to die for their nation. They will obey the will of Allah, otherwise the Americans have won.

3) What would no war in Somalia mean?

Imagine that all sides backed off from war. Bin Laden would have nothing to rally around except "Nation Building" in Somalia - what we are supposed to be doing in Iraq. Eritrea and Ethiopia could focus on domestic needs instead of fighting a pointless and irrational proxy war. The United States could focus on real issues, rather than supporting lethality further. All other nations not directly involved, the most signifcant being Kenya, would have no refugees coming caused by a regional war.

I can't imagine why any American would think they could change the mind of another country by use of lethality. Did we end Communism through brute force? How about Socialism in Latin America?

If China becomes the next superpower, would we want them to act as we have - spreading authoritian regimes around the world? America has a reputation and legacy to rebuild. If we are to pass the torch of global power to another nation or region we must become create the standards we want them to abide by. We should start by supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ensuring the UN enforces them.

Kucinich for America

Who is best fit to be the next President? The media is already in a frenzy over Hilary vs. Obama vs. McCain vs. [ insert latest hot candidate here ]. But yesterday someone stood up and said he would fight for a better America. One that would value all its citizens and enable greater equality. One where hope would triumph over fear. Dennis Kucinich declared his candidacy for President in 2008.

Why would I endorse a candidate this early in the game? Because Kucinich is the real thing. He is in this for the long haul, and has continually worked to gain each political office he eventually attained. He will make it to the oval office.

What issues does Dennis stand for? Simple:

1. Universal Health Care
2. International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in
3. Jobs and Withdrawal from NAFTA and WTO
4. Repeal of the "Patriot Act"
5. Guaranteed Quality Education, Pre-K Through College
6. Full Social Security Benefits at Age 65
7. Right-to-Choose, Privacy, and Civil Rights
8. Balance Between Workers and Corporations
9. Environmental Renewal and Clean Energy
10. Restored Rural Communities and Family Farms

1) America needs some form of universal healthcare. Even Costa Rica has understood the value of this institution, and it has enabled its citizens to thrive in the 21st Century.

2)The United States cannot solve Iraq alone. Even if Kazakhstan and our "coalition of the willing" send all available troop strength - we will still be outnumbered. We need a stronger United Nations, if anything to preserve international order. It is unwise for America to undo the UN when it can be used as an international institution promoting human rights globally.

3) Free trade is not free. The environmental and labor regulations are trade partners do not have endanger our planet and local workers. NAFTA is not solving Mexico's economic woes, but exacerbating them - making America seem the only hope for the desparate.

4) The Patriot Act was passed after 9-11 through emotional fear rather than rational dialogue. It hasn't made us safer, and its effectiveness as a band-aid is beginning to wear off.

5) America is the only industrial nation to NOT offer its citizens free college. Do economically disadvantaged students really have to take out loans just to get what the rich already have? The only Federal program we have currently is the Pentagon, promoting lethality in conjunction with tuition.

6) Social Security does need some revision - it needs to be strengthened, not repealed. If SS benefits were offered on the free market, no citizen could afford it. But our government is able to provide this at a much lower cost than the financial market, to the benefit of our entire society.

7) Do we really need to undo the work of 30 years of human rights activism? Let's support the work already accomplished and a part of our culture. What isn't perfect can be reformed without dismantlement.

8) Corporations and business provide us all jobs - at least those not self employed or work for the government. But they cannot flout labor laws and treat its employees like cattle. Nor can employees expect to be useless to their employers. We need accountability on both sides, and a ways to ensure families and communites some economic stability.

9) Let's face it - oil and other hydrocarbons are starting to become more detrimental to our nation. When President Bush stated that America is "addicted to oil" we have made the first step towards ending the addiction - admitting it exists in the first place. Renewable energy can replace our needs more than we realized even 10 years ago. Further R&D in renewables will ensure a more sustainable future.

10) I can't agree more - we need a better agriculture policy than merely subsidies. We need incentives that have multiple bottom lines: more locally produced, biodiversified and nutritious foods, produced without chemicals that treat our soil like dirt.
I cannot think of reasons why Dennis Kucinich doesn't deserve the Presidency. The Democrats have become complacent, but have the opportunity to change that in 2008. I'm not talking about a further tilt to the left or center - but a tilt towards opportunity and hope. The mid-term election this November was a taste of what can be. Dennis Kucinich offers a glimpse of what is further possible.

The big question is: Will Democrats be bold enough to endorse a candidate not deemed "electable" as John Kerry or Mike Hatch were?

Government marketing marriage?

The US Government has decided to market marriage with taxpayer money. If there are clear benefits of marriage, then perhaps promoting it will benefit society. With 4/10 children born out of wedlock in 2005 ,would marriage benefit these children? Does it make a difference when a majority of these births are not to teenage mothers, but women in their 20s?



Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution claims there are
Four Simple rules to not be poor ( AKA end poverty ) :

1) Graduate from High School
2)Get a job
3)Get married
4)Have a child

The Federal government will spend $100M per year for 5 years promoting marriage, $17B a year for welfare, $35B year for food stamps. The theory is if all those unmarried with children got married - and took on characteristics of those currently married - the poverty rate would drop by 30%. Children would gain because two parent heterosexual and homosexual homes are more stable. Children thrive in an environment low in conflict, which usually have sufficient incomes.

This is quite an undertaking by the Federal Government, because currently there is more emphasis on marriage than education in welfare laws. While all this occurs 10M Americans went hungry , 38M intermittently hungry in 2005. Would marriage have saved them or not?

In reality work,education, and childcare would reduce poverty greater than a marriage certificate. 80% of the fathers of children out wedlock make a median income of $16K, only $4K more than the Federal poverty level. Getting these men a decent education and assisting them in doing so would reap greater benefits than marriage.

Getting married will also not reduce odds of domestic violence. A person does not change their internal characteristics indefinetely once they gain a marriage certificate.

The funding for this project ( $100M annually ) has come from refugee resettlement and Native American development projects. I would rather the money be returned to these programs than squandered on a social experiment.

Is this idea really in existence to reduce poverty or promote a social conservative perspective of marriage? I have no qualms with marriage, just the idea that it is a cure-all for poverty. And if it is a cure-all will this notion be applied to those who cannot currently marry - both homosexual and polyamorous?

When a homosexual couple adopts, would their child be better off if they were married? What about bisexuals who get together after having a child with another partner? If this experiment proves correct, that marriage is of utmost importance to reducing poverty for children, social conservatives will be in a predicament regarding homosexual couples. They would have to support them marrying, while denouncing their relationship. How odd reality can be!

And if two incomes are better than one - what about five? What's wrong with a polyfidelitous relationship if it is stable and provides loving nurture to its offspring? That is an avenue few have thought to explore and truly should. These groups exist in America because we are a free nation. To promote only one form of marriage using taxpayer money is not American. You would have to promote all those that work to reduce poverty under this program.

But if you don't agree with my few points, an organization that supports the unmarried has a few more.

Illegal Minnesotans

Listening to Governor Tim Pawlenty on MPR yesterday, a caller stated his fear for undocumented immigrants. He didn't want illegal immigrants or their children to get his entitlements or tax money. This caller also attacked the Governor for not deporting illegal immigrants and their families.

If only the situation was simple - it isn't. Immigration is not a black and white issue - very few things are. If we wanted to solve the problem of undocumented workers using the criteria of this caller - we would see this:

1) Children of undocumented workers no longer able to attend school.

What makes these children different? If they are born in the US, they are citizens. But if we punish them for their parents, we create a new class in our society. We become like India and create our own class of "untouchables." While it will not be as dramatic as a caste system, it will have negative repurcussions nonetheless.

2) We force local police, especially Minneapolis and Saint Paul, to enforce Federal immigration laws

The Minneapolis police force is not the INS. If they become the INS, it will increase crime. Crime is the sole purpose for a local police force, unless you feel immigration a bigger issue than rape, drug use, and homicide.

If you were an illegal immigrant, would you EVER call the police if you thought they would deport you? Would you hide in fear if you thought the police were after you? If you witnessed a crime, you would pretend you never saw it.

What to do about illegal immigration?

Immigration has occurred for as long as human beings have existed. All Americans are immigrants, because these are truly Native American lands. And even the Native Americans emigrated here from Europe and Asia. We outnumbered natives and therefore earned the "right" to their lands.

There is not much value in undoing what American ancestors have done with our current generation paying the price. But their is a possibility to accept those who are here, either by being born or immigrant.

Ben Powers, Constitution Party candidate for Senate this year, stated that if all the unborn children had been born rather than aborted - we wouldn't have a worker shortage. Therefore undocumented workers were of no value and should be deported.

His logic is insane, but it does shed light on a solution. The primary source of illegal immigration is Mexico. What are solutions?:

1) Mexico needs jobs

Why not prevent the problems that lead to them leaving their homeland? Would YOU want to leave where you had been born, raised, and where you feel at home? No, but if you had no job and a family to support - you would.

2) Mexico needs family planning

If all women in this world had access to family planning, we could reduce the population growth to below the replacement rate. This would alleviate pressure on economic and environmental constraints. Mexico's current population: 106M In 2030 it will be 1432M


3) Mexico needs higher taxes

At 19.8% taxes, Mexico could be doing more. America's taxes stand at 26.8%. A lot of people make a claim that Mexico and latin America are moving to the left. With such low taxes and few services, why wouldn't they? America may not like it, and both political parties in our homeland work to stop their left from winning. ( But they cannot buy votes as easily as they do here. )

You can't educate all children on the free-market system. Nor can you build roads solely using that method, while ensuring transit to those unable to own or use cars.

Their government should be serving their people, not those who do not want to pay taxes.

If Mexico alleviated population growth and focused on its own people, it could drastically reduce those leaving for America.

Midwest Conference of Spiritual Progressives

Politics and religion. The left-leaning elements in our political culture despise the idea of religion or spiritually intertwining in secular politics. But what secular politics is devoid of is a solution to living a life beyond a pursuit of money and power. They don't seem to see a problem in our society, and the problems are vast.

Rather than fearing those we do not know, Spiritual Progressives seek a world based on radical hope. The enemy is not the Republican Party but the cynical realism that has entrenched both major political parties. It is that realism that prevents the hope we all carry inside us of a better world.

Do we want to live in a world where we base the value of our life and others on material wealth? Should friendships and relationships be based on what they can do for us? Sadly, they are. This is a tragedy, and we need to refocus on the value of each human being - regardless of how society currently interprets worth. It is time for humanity to seek its full potential.

What is the purpose of the Spiritual Progressive movement? :

• We are a grassroots movement creating a culture of purpose and meaning deeper than the mere pursuit of money and power.
• We are working to reshape our economic, political, and social life in accord with a new bottom line of love, compassion, community, fairness, peace, and awe and wonder at the universe.
• We invite everyone who believes in the power of love and generosity to join us in this process of healing and transformation.

When I tell my friends that Israel and Palestine have the possibility to live peacefully together they scoff. Nonviolent social change is a difficult thing for "realists" to grasp. They forget the power can be wielded not by the sword, but radical ideas fought sans lethality and excess violence. They forget Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. , and dare I say Jesus. There are many more unrecognized who have also paid the ultimate price without any fame. There will also be many more who take on such an important role.

Many participants were very hopeful and optimistic we would make a difference. But two weeks ago, there were only 40 people registered for this event. They were at least 500 people packed into the Wesley United Methodist Church. I think the Democrats winning by such a large margin in the election has empowered many in the Progressive community.

Many Democrats I spoke to prior to the election were very hurt, angry, and upset over the direction our nation was heading in. They wanted things to change with this election, and were doubtful that they would. I always told people that there was hope, that things would get better.

There were many cynics, and still are. I for one am doubtful the Democrats will embrace the ideals of the New Bottom Line this year. That is where activism comes in. That is where prayer comes in. That is where cultivating lovingkindness comes in. That is where hope will transcend such "realities."

Does it really matter which party embraces Spiritual Progressives? If the Republican Party stood by our values in 2010 or 2025 - it would be a victory for humanity. The movement has begun, please join us.

Chris Stewart - Racist comedian or just Racist?

The newest member of the Minneapolis School Board thinks it funny to attack Tammy Lee with racial-based comments on a mock website.



I am rather sickened by the site, but perhaps many feel the same about white candidates. Race should not determine who one votes for, but issues. Some choose to identify themselves in a particular race ( or religion, class, party) rather than on the side of humanity. I consider myself a Minnesotan first, an American second, but interconnected to all beings on Earth.

There is always bias, be it subtle or glaring, in everyone for those outside our limited experiences and knowledge. Personally, I would like to see more community activists in general who fit better the communities they serve. But more often than not, community and political organizations in Minneapolis appear whiter than the areas they represent.

Chris Stewart has already shown us his perspective. Perhaps he made the "satire" page because Sabo didn't endorse Keith Ellison, and assumed it was racist. He claims to want a better Minneapolis, and I hope we all truly do in Minnesota. Our city has residents of all races and backgrounds, most of which Chris seems clueless about. Our democracy is more than about ones skin color or other such tribalism mentality. A better Minneapolis would include the perspective of all these citizens, not solely a racial-based viewpoint.

Comment has come from neither the Stewart campaign or the DFL.
( I thank the Lloyd Leta blog for posting about this and further information )

Vote YES! Minnesota!

Why shouldn't one vote Yes?

It is unfortunate, but this imposes rules on the Minnesota budget by adding it to the state constitution. Other states like New Jersey have done this to such an extent, that their legislature has no say over the state budget. Minnesota should not go down that road, though this bill is only the first to do so.

Why SHOULD you vote YES ?

Republicans in Minnesota and in the Federal Government have shown contempt for fiscal sanity. They play around with budgets using transit and other such projects as wedge issues. By voting YES you ensure that transit has stable funding - something that has never occurred in Minnesota History! It would mean a decent transit system would be built, and Minnesotans wouldn't have to depend on foreign oil forever.

Pawlenty has also decided that loans are a better way to fund our highways than consistent funding. Of course, he's a Republican and not a fiscal Conservative, therefore he has no qualms doing this - or supporting this constitutional ammendment. It makes him and his party look like the "good guys" though they did nothing to shift MVST funding to roads and transit. They wanted Democrats to do the heavy lifting and get this bill passed.

Want to know where to vote?

Don't support transit?

If all current bus riders immediately began using single-occupant vehicles, an additional two lanes would be needed on the busiest corridors to accommodate the new traffic at current congestion levels. Of transit riders, 81% report using transit to get to work and 75% ride during rush hour.

Who should YOU vote for ( based on YOUR preferences) ?

Minnesota Public Radio has a decent "Select a candidate" program that I highly recommend. They aren't two-party centric, but contain major and minor parties.

Jay Pond and Keith Ellison appear to be identical on the issues. Of course they are both progressive, as is this district, but Keith has DFL endorsed. ( which Jay will not seek)

But Tammy Lee does have 24% of probable voters. Unfortunately, Democrats have this "spoiler" mentality and will not consider her because Alan Fine ( who truly has no chance in this race) could beat their candidate. It will be interesting to see the votes come in.

State office - House 61A

Karen Clark

An avid supporter of Keith Ellison and city council member Robert Lilligren. Clark is a progressive who believes that the DFL will honor her values. I do not see her as the "enemy" solely because of such partisanship, but I wish she would find at least ONE Green to support in the future.

Honestly, are councilmembers like Paul Ostrow progressive? One party cities don't allow the public to truly see the direction its city is headed in, nor challenge its leaders in a debate. That is why the Greens exist, to give Minneapolis residents a voice and build a decent party in Minnesota.

Terry Borchardt's campaign is run from Golden Vally, has no website, and is a MCCL owned Republican. Need I say more? ( why not? Terry is another Alan Fine token candidate )

State Auditor

There are only two you should consider in this race (unless you believe that the Taxpayer's League and MCCL should run this position): Dave Berger and Lucy Gerold

Dave Berger

Single payer health care, equal rights, Green Audit

The Green Audit is something that Minnesota should be championing. By promoting ecological wisdom we reduce harm to future generations on our lands. By purchasing products that promote fair trade and reduce poverty, we can improve the lives of many others in this world. Economic security globally would greatly reduce physical security needs locally.








Lucy Gerold

( taken from her site):

No office in state government has as its main job to pay attention to local government - except the Auditor. Unfortunately, traditional auditors have used that role only to call press conferences to highlight mistakes or misdeeds. We should expect more for our money. The best auditors use their access to information as a tool to actually improve the performance of local governments. 60% of all governmental resources in Minnesota are managed by local governments. To deliver better results, we must do it with - not in spite of - our towns, cities, counties, and school districts.

Lucy Gerold is a change maker with a track record of turning around organizations and inspiring outstanding performance. She has worked in the Minneapolis Police Department in several capacities, including in her current role as a Deputy Chief. She led the implementation of the department's pioneering CODEFOR crime reduction and accountability strategies. In the 1980's she was at the forefront of the city's transformation to community-oriented policing - moving police officers out their traditional reactive role into a more proactive, partnership-based relationship with the community they serve. We need this same kind of transformation in the relationship between the state and local governments - a relationship that has become strained if not outright hostile in the past few years.

-

I think it fair to end with Dave's comments on the Auditor race:

Pat Anderson and Rebecca Otto have been supportive of the Minnesota Taxpayers League’s legislative agenda. Ms. Anderson has signed this special interest group's "no new taxes" pledge. Ms. Otto states that the Taxpayers League is a "special interest group funded by wealthy conservatives" and that this "Special interest group has taken control of Minnesota Finances" (see her website at www.rebeccaotto.com/Vision/mnfinances.html). As with her views and actions on equal rights, these unkind words do not match her actions. While in the State Legislature Ms. Otto had the highest rated Taxpayers League voting record of any DFL House member in 2003 . She now claims she is against this special interest yet she voted with them 55 percent of the time in a year when the average Democrat voted with this group a mere 17 percent of the time! While Ms. Otto desperately wants to paint herself as a progressive to solidify her base within the DFL, she has a great deal in common with the politics of the conservative Ms. Anderson. In addition, at least on these two issues, Ms. Otto states one thing and does another. Integrity and consistency is an important part of public service.

Both Pat Anderson and Rebecca Otto have received thousands of dollars of special interest PAC money for their campaigns (see the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board website ). Dave Berger does not accept PAC money. Such special interest money has an undue influence on candidates. Especially State Auditor candidates. "The State Auditor must be objective," states Dave Berger. "How can you be an effective and fair State Auditor if you support special interest groups and do not believe in equal rights and equal treatment for
everyone?"

Minnesota US Senate Race 2006

Michael Cavlan - US Senate - Green Party Endorsed

Michael is a populist Green who deserves a spot in the Senate. He would never last as a Democrat, because he believes in making Bush accountable for his actions. Nancy Pelosi may be the next Speaker of the House, but she is determined not to make Democrats appear to be obstructionists.Many Democrats want to investigate and make known various Bush and Republican secrets and illegal activities. Nancy Pelosi instead wants to position the Democrats for 2008 to appear as though they have a vision and will back it up with legislation. ( Nevermind that Bush will veto any major changes to our nations current path. )

Cavlan believes in withdrawing from Iraq ASAP, while Amy wants a more "comprehensive" solution. While on MPR, Cavlan agreed with Constitution Party Senate candidate Ben Powers that America needs major structural changes. Libertarians should take note: Cavlan wants to return to the Gold Standard and change our electoral system to be truly representative.

Ben Powers - Constitution

If one cannot vote for Cavlan due to his stance on abortion, love-based marriage, and faith-based initiatives, I highly recommend a vote for Ben Powers. He agrees with Greens on more issues than your average Republican. it also sends a message to Kennedy and his corporate owned party.

Robert Fitzgerald - Independence

Very young to be a politician in the Senate. I truly hope he does well and that he continues working against the corporate owned two-parties in Minnesota.

The following is from his site:

U.S. Senate candidate Robert Fitzgerald supports energy soveregnty, a balanced budget, a reduction in the national debt, and a more open government process. He believes government must demonstrate fiscal responsibility and service competency. He also believes the Federal government has lost its ability to be flexible and responsive and that state and local governments need to be the vanguard of good government.

Fitzgerald believes in returning fairness and balance to a government over-run with special interest legislation.

Amy Klobouchar - DFL

Not voting for her but I truly adore Amy's stance on fiscal sanity. She wants to not only get back to a balanced federal budget but PAY OFF THE DEBT! This issue has been part of my political dialogue since I first learned what the national debt was. All future generations in America will be hindered by this burden unless we sacrifice NOW by paying off Republican over-indulgences. ( political cartoon from the Tammy Lee campaign - she would be a good ally in Congress for Amy )

Amy will also win the election, because Kennedy is just another Rubber-stamp-for-Bush. Put aside the fact that Bush is not very popular, would YOU want to be represented by a politician who cannot articulate his state's values?

The last candidate, Mark Kennedy, claims that terrorists cannot be negotiated with, yet never defines a terrorist. Maybe Minnesotans can't negotiate with Republicans any longer for the same reason?

5th Congressional District House

Jay Pond - Green Party

Out of Iraq - Renewable Energy - Universal Healthcare

Three issues that Democrats have a hard time understanding coherently in this VERY Progressive district. Keith Ellison gained endorsement mainly because of his stance on these issues. Jay Pond also pointed out on an MPR debate that Keith believes in a draft . While Keith opposes a draft for the Iraq war, he believes in a "shared sacrifice" with regards to the Long War. Therefore when Democrats and Republicans join hands in a war against Iran and North Korea, Keith may promote a draft proposal.


Ellison is part of the DFL, who has a monopoly on Minneapolis politics. If he really stood for democracy, he would ask the Minneapolis DFL to split itself in two. Then their endorsement conventions would stop being city elections. That's okay Keith, you don't have to believe in local democracy. That's why the Greens exist.