Jackie Speier's Hollow Candidacy

I use Gmail, and frequently see ads for Mike Huckabee, Mike Bloomberg, and Jackie Speier. It appears that they are all working to improve their campaigns, but Ms. Speier is not running a national one. She's running for Congress in California.

Her ads have shown up for 3 months now, and still her issues pages state "coming soon." This is her entire issues summed up: She's against the war. The war is destroying the American economy. Something must be done about health-care. Better access to student loans.

That's it. Oh, and she's a Democrat. She's vague. But she's fund-raising nationwide using the internet. Big on hype, little on substance. That reminds me of the technology hype of Silicon Valley, movie and music hype of Hollywood, political hype of Arnold Schwarzenegger, and housing hype where homes cost over $500,000. Greens there endorsed Ralph Nader by large numbers, while the rest of America's Greens prefer Cynthia McKinney. Sounds like California to me.

It's good to be a little different and stand out. But what do you stand for? And how effective will you be if you have all hype but no substance (Speier) - or too much substance but little support (Nader)?

I have e-mailed her campaign several times, and have received no reply. I have called her campaign's phone number ( (650) 347-4370 ) and left voice mails twice. When I receive a reply, I will post it - because my focus was on issues and not "what will Jackie's hair look like at the rally? I prefer curly hair.." or other such drivel.

Ms. Speier's campaign reflects current American politics - little on substance and a lot of hype. When asked the tough questions, they prefer to be on both sides of the issue - assuming they answer the question. At a time when America needs serious leadership, we get power-hungry phantoms who prefer to look at the latest poll in deciding what to support and how. Put your finger in the wind and seek the direction of least resistance.

What true leader will stand up and say that America's heading for bankruptcy? Where will solutions to Peak Oil and Global Warming come from if no leader states bluntly that we should stop using energy excessively - and put teeth in legislation to make it happen. "America is addicted to oil" as Bush stated back in 2005. Yet he does nothing to ameliorate our situation. People eat unhealthy foods and buy bigger digital TVs, then wonder why their health-care expenses are so high. When will a true leader tell America that on President can't change the world - that we must all do our part to make America better. And when will Americans of all political stripes band together to solve the myriad of problems facing humanity?

I am not involved in the Greens just because their values match mine. Their members actually do what they politically believe in. They are a vast combination of: vegetarians, who buy organic, garden, live carfree, subsidize wind energy, recycle, strive to live nonviolently, are community and social activists, and won't keep quiet in the face of injustice.

When I see someone in a car toss their Starbuck's latte cup on the street, I calmly walk over and pick it up and find the nearest trash receptacle. When I walk home from work, I pick up cans and trash with a plastic bag I keep with me. I invest in my son's future education and for my own retirement. I don't expect government to do everything for me - because that is now why it exists. Our government is a reflection of our society, and our society is greatly ill. I pray that we wake up, hope that better future can be realized.

But campaigns like Jackie Speier undermine grassroots democracy, in support of a powerful elite with no intention of real change in America. I hope the Greens run against her in California. Though he is NOT a Green, Ralph Nader could run against someone like her. He would still garner media attention and might even get more votes!

Gas Taxes could be called a USER FEE

It is ridiculous to think the Minnesota gas tax should never increase. Some say gas prices are so high an added tax would be regressive, hurting families. Others chide in that the roads are still there, why worry? And some would rather cut all such taxes and rely on income tax alone to fund our roads.

Let's get past the simplistic rhetoric and talk actual facts:

1) Oil prices will never fall again to $1 a gallon ever ( yes, even if Obama or McCain are elected ). We should be happy that they are below $10, because that is what they pay in Europe and what we will pay in 10 years.

2) Adjusted for inflation, Minnesota trunk highway spending in 1998 was $1.4B, with 66% funding from from motor vehicle and fuel taxes. In 2007 we spent $1.5B with 50% from vehicle and fuel taxes. In essence, we have become more reliant on state income tax to pay for roads, meaning less spend on health and education.

3) If we are serious about mitigating the pains of Global Warming and peak oil, we must tax oil more not less. Any tax should be indexed to inflation indefinitely unless we decide roads are unimportant. Or we can create a carbon tax and use that money to further reduce our reliance on hydrocarbons. If a road "user fee" is unacceptable, then why fund them with income taxes?

What is truly shocking about the entire transportation debate in Minnesota, is that it took our largest corporations to influence our legislature that they needed to do something! Are the citizens of Minnesota so far behind the times that they can't understand we are losing our competitive edge?

"No new taxes" means a Minnesota resembling a low-tax Mexico in 30 years. Mexico has plenty of jobs. Yet not enough to keep up with population growth or pay well. I suggest the "no new taxes" people compare low-tax nations with ours. Then we could see for ourselves what they truly suggest.

All the DFLers voted for this change. The Republicans who did risk losing support from the anti-tax wing of their party. I commend them. The Republicans who chose a better future for Minnesota transportation are:

Senate:

Dille (Dassel); Frederickson (New Ulm)

House

Abeler (Anoka); Erhardt (Edina); Hamilton (Mountain Lake); Heidgerken (Freeport); Peterson, N. (Bloomington); Tingelstad (Andover)

It is interesting to note that Laura Brod of New Prague chose to not vote. Her calculated voting record probably means she is a future prospect for governor, but is more a liberal/neoconservative than her colleagues.

Superdelegates and Grassroots Democracy

For a political party that claims to believe in democracy, why do they insist on allowing superdelegates? The people who are supposed to be above and beyond the actual delegates are the elected officials and long-term partisans. Their power yields even more power within the party. From my perspective, this wreaks of corruption.

But then again, what is corruption? I consider it the misuse of power. Others only worry about it if they feel hurt by it, because if it helps them it is justified. So much of the US government is corrupt, but we don't worry about things like the National Debt and the environment because our children can worry about that, right?

So when Amy Klobuchar and other party insiders can't decide who they support, while elected from Minnesota, that is okay - right? After all, they have the power and can do with it what they want. Accountability for voting against Minnesota's wishes won't hurt you in a US Senate election because it's not like we have a choice in a two-party system. Minnesota voted for Obama over Clinton at a ration of 2 to 1, yet Amy is having a difficult time deciding how to wield her significant power.

While the hypocrisy of democracy in a two-party system is quite noticeable, we do have options. We can support change where we can, and the Green Party already states its position on Grassroots Democracy:

1. GRASSROOTS DEMOCRACY Every human being deserves a say in the decisions that affect their lives and not be subject to the will of another. Therefore, we will work to increase public participation at every level of government and to ensure that our public representatives are fully accountable to the people who elect them. We will also work to create new types of political organizations which expand the process of participatory democracy by directly including citizens in the decision-making process.

Superdelegates add to the abundant cynics of our election system. It also shows the true colors of the Democrat Party - stay with us to gain power and we will give you more. Makes one wonder who Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller would support as a superdelegates if they hadn't willingly left the party.

I was initially astonished that Obama is now catering to them. He is asking his supporters to convince them to support his campaign. Obama realizes the corruption within his party can't be ignored if he wants to be on the ballot. But Howard Dean was also the candidate for change in 2004, adamantly supporting the idea of superdelegates. Can we assume that Obama will undo this undemocratic method?

The DFL is also turning against the caucus system in Minnesota. The caucus saves taxpayer money and allows for party members more control over their party. It also alleviates the heavy burden on independents and third parties to get on primary ballots. The Illinois Green Party has received several complaints about their state primary: voters were told that there was no Green Party ballot, or they were given a Democratic ballot on green paper, or they were told to vote on a touch-screen machine while other voters cast paper ballots. So again, the Democrats are turning their back on Grassroots Democracy to allow for more government control of the political process.

Greens, Independents, and like-minded Republicans and Democrats should fight for the caucus system in their state. In Minnesota, we have a presidential preference primary during the initial hours of the caucus and then start party business. If the DFL or other parties wanted to have the presidential vote all day, they could choose to do that. But they will need volunteers, not anyone employed by the state or the use of taxpayer money to assist them. Support Grassroots Democracy by insisting on a caucus and ending superdelegates.

Coulter endorses Clinton?

Okay, I was hanging out with my Mom last night and were having fun checking out videos on YouTube. I decided to actually check out the main page and scan for anything interesting. You can imagine our shock when we came upon an actual video of Ann Coulter endorsing Hillary Clinton! I guess McCain must be quite the polarizing candidate for the Republicans.

My mother is a die-hard Bush fanatic, while I am obviously an ardent Green. Yet we both like Barack Obama, and would prefer to see him President more than any other front-runners. We both watched the live video of the Minneapolis rally at the Target Center.

The truth is, Ann Coulter is right. Hillary Clinton is by far the closest candidate to Dubya. He even stole right from Clinton's speeches after 9-11 and prior to the Iraq War. Hillary was touting the link between Al Qaeda and Iraq more than Bush was! McCain is only going along with the surge to allow himself to be still called a Republican. He's a moderate who is moving the party to the center on many key issues. But the Clintons surpass McCain in their move to the far-right on issues of trade and the US military empire. Anyone that hasn't realized this hasn't done the research!

While I will not be attending a caucus in February, I still urge those who do to consider supporting Barack Obama (and Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer) in the DFL. I know my mother will, my friend Habtamu Ansha, and several others. Instead myself and dozens of others will be campaigning for Farheen Hakeem in House District 61B. ( I currently live in 61A )

Meanwhile, I ponder how awful a situation America could be in if we only have a choice of McCain or Clinton. And how Ann Coulter would be campaigning for the "liberals" she has for so long hated. Ironic, but it shows how far the Democrats are willing to move to win. Which is why the "electable" argument shouldn't always be the most important one.

Edwards and the Upper Class

I think it quite horrifying that Americans are so utterly clueless about presidential candidate John Edwards. He is like the personification of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - not someone I would want for President. He talks about the two-Americas: one very rich and one at a standstill and getting poorer. He claims to be on the side of the poor and middle class as a candidate. But in real life he worked for a hedge fund named Fortress Investments Group.

Hedge funds are very lucrative for those multi-billionaires who want their assets invested with a bit more secrecy than for normal investors. Fortress also benefits from being incorporated in the Cayman Islands, reducing possibilities for paying US taxes.

Edwards was paid 500K for a few meeting with Fortress, to the benefit of the ultra-wealthy he claims to be opposed to. If he were truly committed to change, would he not be working for organizations that invest in Fair Trade, Organic foods, and renewable energy. I understand that this may not be instantaneously profitable, but it is the energy put into something that can make it more effective long-term. I also understand that many talented individuals lament the possibility to do this yet make less money. Why not do it part-time until it takes off? And any true leader would do so more than he does for unsustainable firms.

If John Edwards is indeed working for more sustainable firms, then I would like to know about it. We need a president fully involved in the Socially Responsible Investments market, not the profit-at-all-costs market of the previous centuries.

Hope for Kenya

If you look at they typical American media, you might think that the latest election in Kenya was solely about tribal politics. Delving further into the news there, I have found more than that. I recommend checking out the Daily Nation, The Daily Standard, and the ODM-Kenya Party.

Odinga believes in Universal Healthcare, reducing the size of Kenya's military, and improving the livelihood of Kenya's poor. Yet he also drives a Hummer, as the Governator does in California. He wants taxes reduced but opposes trickle down economics. He wants a Marshall Plan for Kenya, that could only be financed through a progressive tax. He sounds like an FDR populist.

When officially announcing his run for Presidency, Raila Odinga stated " To paraphrase Nelson Mandela, I dream of a Kenya at peace with itself; a country free of hatred. As Martin Luther King Jr said, hatred paralyses life while love releases it. Hatred confuses life, while love harmonises it. Hatred darkens life, while love illuminates it."

Also stating in his announcement speech, "Tribalism is today tearing this country apart." If Odinga really wants to end the bloodshed, he should ensure that his rally in Uhuru Park does not incite more hatred than hope. Though Kibaki is against the rally, it is important that freedom of speech and right to assemble are allowed for democracy to flourish.

His supporters have a right to be angry if the election was rigged or tampered with in any way. But to use the announced results as an excuse to riot, pillage, rape, and murder are not to be condoned. Odinga should extinguish the cycle of tribal warfare in Kenya. He should heal the wounds through word and then action if he is the true winner of the election. There will be hope for Kenya if its chosen leader acts with the highest of wisdom and compassion for all Kenyans.

2007 Blog Disclosure

Name of Blog: Multipartisan Minnesota
Organizer: Kevin Chavis
1168 visitors from 11 October 2007 until December 31, 2007

Purpose: The primary intention of this blog is to gather those from all active political parties in Minnesota to focus on one main issue: energy - particularly Peak Oil and Global Warming. I would like an active member of each party to blog at least once a year on this particular subject. The diverse perspectives would be a welcome voice on this important issue, as we rarely see our media discuss more than two sides.

As a member of the Minnesota Green Party, my individual blogger focus is on: 1)Envisioning a society that values compassion and wisdom 2) Supporting peace and justice for all beings. and 3) Preparing for a post-oil world. I consider these issues to be intertwined and do my best to connect the dots.

No profit is made (apart from knowledge) and sources are always stated explicitly.

Participation in this blog is available to those interested. Please e-mail KevinChavis AT Yahoo dot com with subject line:"Multipartisan Blog"

Blogger Political Contributions:

Kevin Chavis:

$100 to Neighbors for Cam Gordon
$50 to the 5th Congressional District Green Party
$50 to the Barack Obama for President campaign
$50 to the United States Green Party
$25 to the Cynthia McKinney for Congress

Who has military support?

This has been covered by the media, but not as frequently as false claims of military support come from candidates such as John McCain. McCain has stated that he has the most support - when in fact two candidates have much more support: Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Both candidates adamantly against the Iraq War since 2002. This says more about the shape of our military and the policies that have put them there. Overextended tours in Iraq and Afghanistan are crippling our military strength and soldiers want it to end now! As a veteran of the Iraq War ( OIF III ), I also support any candidate who will get us out of these conflicts.

The clip from USA Today:

WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Ron Paul have little in common politically, except their opposition to the Iraq war.

Both top a new list of presidential candidates receiving campaign contributions from people who work for the four branches of the military and National Guard, according to a study released Thursday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Obama, an Illinois senator, brought in more donations from this group than any White House contender from either party. The Democrat announced Wednesday his plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2008.

Paul, a Texas congressman and the only GOP presidential hopeful who supports an immediate troop withdrawal, comes in second.

This does not put into perspective with other candidates. I found one website looking solely at Republican candidates. Obama beat them all, but nonetheless here is a list from July:

NAME: TOTAL [ARMY] [NAVY] [AIRFORCE] [VETERAN] [USMC**]

RON PAUL: 24,965 [6,975] [6,765] [4,650] [5,075] [1,500]
McCain: 17,475 [6925] [6305] [1795] [800] [1600]
Romney: 3,551 [2,051] [0] [1500] [0]
Giuliani: 2,320 [1,450] [370] [250] [250]
Hunter: 1000 [0] [1000] [0]
Huckabee: 750 [250] [0] [500]
Tancredo: 350 [350] [0] [0]
Brownback: 71 [71] [0] [0]
Thompson: 0 [0] [0] [0]

Units are contributions in dollars by employees of the respective military organizations.

Source: Finance Reports for the 2007 July Quarterly.

Percentages**:

49.5% Ron Paul
34.6% McCain
7.0% Romney
4.6% Giuliani
2.0% Hunter
2.3% Others

The once maverick McCain clearly has support from the military. But if anyone has a mandate or political capital gained from military support - it is Barack Obama, then Ron Paul. McCain takes 3rd place, yet you only hear him talk about how isolationist Paul is.

A McCain Administration would dishearten our military if elected. He would make recruitment and retention goals that much less attainable. Veterans and service members can take comfort in the latest polls, because McCain is looking more tired politically than ever before.

Regressive Ron - Progressive Greens

If I were a die-hard Republican and against the Iraq war, my only choice for President would be Ron Paul. He is an old school politician known as a Libertarian. To someone of a liberal mind, he doesn't make a lot of sense: let states decide major issues not in the Constitution. And also income tax is "unconstitutional" even if authorized by the 16th amendment.

This is a very defining moment for the Republican party. I believe it marks the take-over of their party by the Neo-Conservatives. 9/11 illuminated this wing, and brought it fully public. The Project for the New American Century had ideas, including the spreading of democracy globally, starting with Iraq. Republicans have embraced these ideals, including many liberals. The anti-tax and fundamentalist wings were disregarded for the most part, as government spending outpaced economic growth. Our national debt is now over $9T, and even Hillary can't remember what Ross Perot was grumbling about.

The major issues that no party wants to discuss are Peak Oil, the National Debt, and the inherent racism in our society. We can pretend these are not issues, as both parties currently are. Oil production most likely peaked in 2006, the National Debt is out of control, and we have not yet dismantled the tools of discrimination. How can we move forward as a nation when these threaten our economic and social security more than terrorism ever will?

Ron Paul does deal with these issues, but not with the intent of a progressive or Green. He envisions an America far different - even if he dismantles our militant empire. I cannot live in an America that varies so drastically from state to state. Paul still thinks we are a nation of nations, but the Civil War ended that utopian vision. We need to be a progressive rather than regressive nation.

There is only one party that vigorously takes on these issue: the Green Party. We already know what the major two parties will do: nothing or exacerbate these problems further. The Libertarians and Constitution Parties would move our nation backward, and allow the magical "free market" solve these problems. Unity08 is still in conceptional stages in creating a new party. The only one left standing and capable of change are the Greens.

Cynthia McKinney, Elaine Brown, and Jared Ball are all running for the Presidency within the Green Party. The average amount each American will donate to a Presidential candidate is less than $3. Small donations by a committed group can sway an election, unlike how the media portray big donors as the primary catalysts for change. Any amount you can assist them with or the Green Party is more than most citizens care to give. You can participate in changing the direction of America, or you can sit on the sidelines and watch others do so.

And sorry Ed Felien, I will not attend a Republican caucus next February. Thanks - but truly no thanks to this particular invite. The Republicans need to find who they are in this century. America needs a party to stand up to them, and we know the Democrats will not cut military obligations or funding so as not to appear "weak." Therefore I support the Greens adamantly. Let's debate the purpose of American militarism and whether it really makes us more secure long-term.

GOP YouTube Debate

The night after the YouTube debate, I decided to log onto YouTube and check it out myself. I was surprised at how lively this debate was, considering how much Republican's were initially reluctant to try the new format out. GOPers do not like to be asked questions by fictitious characters such as snowmen.

The worst candidate was easily Mitt Romney, who waffled more questions than I thought possible. His lack of answers makes me believe he supports torture, will enforce marriages through various schemes, and a police state. This after he states he is "more liberal than Ted Kennedy." Anyone who adamantly supports Romney after this debate, is fooling themselves and supporting an opportunist.

The candidate who held is own was probably Guiliani, though he is despicable on the issues, but actually answers questions the majority of the time. McCain seemed like an angry white male the entire time. Huckabee made a humorous statement: that Jesus would never foolish enough to run for public office. ( which is why Ajahn Brahm has stated numerous times that any President of the United States probably does not have good karma )

Ron Paul was clearly the most divisive of candidates in the GOP currently. He states the obvious and the crowd is shocked. Would America be okay if the Chinese were occupying the United States to free us from a dictator? Even after this dictator were deposed, would we be happy with such an occupation - especially if they were then importing massive amounts of our coal? The crowd remained rather mute, apart from those who agreed with him. The question has yet to be answered by GOP supporters, that is if they didn't ignore it completely.

The fact that the military overwhelmingly supports Ron Paul is not enough for those who control the GOP. They can make the claim that he is hated by the military instead, and because Americans are so disconnected from those in the service, many will believe it. Yet this veteran supports him enthusiastically if he is able to do what he says. And if you pay attention to how the media attacks Paul, it becomes obvious that as one put it "an increasingly authoritarian establishment feels threatened." As it should, because not all Americans are going to continue being complacent in our current environment.

National Debt Clock

The Republican Party is clearly not going to end its debt spending crusade. The only things they plan to cut are "non-defense related." If you are going to cut government spending, you cut ALL of it. If we are overspending by 10%, then cut all budgets by that amount. If you need more for the military, then negotiate cuts from other places in the budget. The only solution to this is a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget, with no provisions for war and no excuses. If America goes to war, then the extra money should come through taxes or other such fund-raising - not through debt. Excessive military spending comprises the entirety of our national debt, and the GOP refuses to acknowledge this fact. Their solutions to our National Debt is currently non-existent.

A Republican president cannot make abortion illegal, make guns available freely, or deport immigrants. The President can easily shape the size of our military overseas. If we bring home the troops from Iraq, Korea, Japan, and even Iceland we can begin to reduce the strain on our troops and Federal budget. Our National Debt could be paid off and Social Security made solvent. By the time the Baby Boomers all retire, we can say we solved the crisis and didn't have to raise taxes. We may even be able to reduce taxes! But our imperialistic empire cannot sustain itself on the backs of the working class, and must be reigned in now or we will all pay the price.

Many take issue with Paul's stance on immigration. He would like America to remain sovereign, and send those outside of our system back. There needs to be a way for temporary workers to come to America. Yet our immigration problem reflects a lack of discipline on the part of other nations to improve the conditions of their people.

A simple issue that reflects a lack of government planning is population growth. Estados Unidos has 14.16 births/1,000 population while in Mexico it is 20.36 ( 2007 CIA estimates). Mexico needs to promote family planning. Only when birthrates drop can jobs growth catch up with population growth - or surpass it as it has in the US. So is enforcing immigration laws and implementing comprehensive solutions can make nations more accountable for such inaction. Liberals tend to forget this frequently, but also believe we should not force other nations to do what we want them to.

Peak Oil Production - July 2006

There are many in America scared about energy. I am quite concerned. In America, we have little to fall back on. We do not know our neighbors, nor what their strengths and weaknesses are. We have abandoned proximity for mobility.

James Howard Kunstler once said we would see Peak Oil in our rear-view mirror. If that is true, then we have peaked in July 2006, with global production of 85.5 million barrels a day. Saudi Arabia is producing less each year, as predicted by Matt Simmons. It is hard to dispute an energy crisis is now, and the Long Emergency has begun.

Though I do not own a car, this does not make me immune to the price of oil or the economy. And while Europeans already pay more for oil, they have not reduced their consumption. Therefore peak oil will affect them, albeit less than America.


Our road and transit infrastructure need more investment in Minnesota, yet we are reluctant to increase taxes because oil prices are significantly higher. But how do we fund fixing our roads and bridges? Can we disregard m and wait until they catastrophically affect the trucking industry and average drivers? To me, it seems foolish - yet this has been current Minnesota policy. That and Governor Tim Pawlenty borrowing money to fund road projects ( at excess of $2B ). Funding our roads with debt makes our roads a liability not an asset. If they are an asset, we should pay for them now and not later.

Energy research has also been lagging. Had pressure not been put on the Bush Administration, much of our energy research projects would have been axed. The priority of non-hydrocarbon research and development has increased in the last two years, but still needs to be at least tripled. It should be our top priority if we wish our quality of life to maintain and eliminate CO2 production.

I would like to find solutions to our energy problems. A possible solution would be drastic action to reduce our consumption, starting with rationing. This would wreak havoc on our economy in the short-term but reap enormous benefits long-term. The Oil Depletion Protocol is one such option. Does America or any other nation have the stomach for such foresight?

Hate Crimes Laws in America are spelled W-E-A-K

According to statistician Caroline Harlow, an ordinary crime becomes a hate crime when a perpetrator chooses a victim because of a particular characteristic. It can be skin color, sexual orientation, physical disability or religion. And there must be evidence that hate prompted the crime.

I would argue that we should not base hate crimes solely on physical attacks. The psychological damage is as bad if not worse than physical violence. Intimidating and threatening others through symbols or language of hatred are intolerable. How would you feel if you were attacked for who you were, and then when you tried to do something about it were told to "keep quiet" or "not to worry about it?" Would you not feel and intense mix of outrage and helplessness? To have these situations exist anywhere is intolerable. We cannot be called a civil society unless we confront them directly.

Let's say someone displays a noose in front of African Americans or says all Jews should have died in Auschwitz. What this person saying is that something is inherently wrong with these groups of people. Somehow they are inadequate or inferior. It may just be pure hatred, all of the above and more. Either way, to have this communicated is violence. It is the same as holding a gun to someone's head and saying "you must die today because you exist." But it is worse because currently, you really cannot do much about it.

Would punishing someone in America for these types of hate crimes go against the admirable First Amendment? Many would say neo-nazis and skinheads have freedom of speech, and I agree. But everyone must be held accountable for their actions. You can't go into an airport and start talking freely about bombs and hijackings. You can't even joke about it - terrorism is a serious matter. No one disputes that. But when you talk about race relations or homophobia, people think minorities are whining or asking for special treatment. White Americans frequently get angry about the perceived "special treatment" because they have no personal experience on the receiving end. White Americans consider the vague threat of terrorism more a priority than the immediate fact of hatred permeating throughout our culture.

The outrage over this issue in White America is quite pronounced, the unapologetic apathy that is. Few seem to think that the remarks by Don Imus were much to worry about. Please forgive me for repeating them, because they illustrate this situation more clearly. He called women from a college basketball team "nappy-headed hos." Not only did he degrade them for being women, but also for being of African descent. And White America remained mute, until asked by the media what they thought. Then a majority simply said they did not care, a majority of 90%.

Polls show that when Don Imus was fired over his remarks 48% thought MSNBC was too harsh, 47% thought it was about right, and 4% thought they were too lenient. Imus attacks the existence of African American women and all he loses is his job. Gabriel Keith displays a noose to fellow college journalists, and only loses his job. Don and Gabriel and start working on something else, but their actions have left wounds and scars that they refuse to acknowledge.

America's hate crime laws do not stand on their own. They are simply attached to existing laws that threatens a persons physical existence that are no less important (i.e. threats,assault,rape, ). Are we really supporting a person's right to exist? Intimidation - AKA criminal threatening - is defined as fear of imminent bodily injury. Displaying a noose is not within the current parameters, unless we include mental and emotional disturbance. These explicit changes are necessary, lest we ignore the elaborate system of racism inherent in our society. And by ignoring them, we are complicit in allowing them to continue.

Racism is defined as prejudice plus power. One measures racism in society by results, the facts and statistics that give us a portrait of where we are. The polls of Americans clearly show we consider hatred to be a non-issue. We must confront the fact that we are essentially a society that is filled with hate and have yet to confront it. America is in denial of the problem, and therefore cannot face it.

So when you see acts of bigotry, hatred, and bias in yourself and others - make it known to as many as you can. Confronting such acts have a ripple effect in a nation like ours, still basking in ignorance. Shine a bright light on the wrongdoings and wake our society up from its complacency, in what capacity you can.

Twin Cities in a transit pickle

While my suburban and exurban counterparts may be unaware, the practicality of their habitation is highly threatened by the rising price of oil. Never in the history of the Twin Cities has this happened. In fact, our history is very short indeed. Minnesota is just 150 years old, and began very simply.

"Transit and the Twins" was published by the Twin City Rapid Transit Company in 1958. They went bankrupt, were bought out by the state, and are now known as MetroTransit. After reading, it becomes apparent that both Minneapolis and Saint Paul were developed using solely hydrocarbons. The primary energy source being coal. Transit using streetcars became the preferred method, and was a for-profit venture.

In the early 20th Century, oil was cheap and America was the world's biggest producer and refiner. Cars became sought after and roads were subsidized heavily to promote their usage. Transit companies paid the taxes to build the roads we now drive on, and were not subsidized until governments bought them out. Those that became public assets soonest, tended to benefit the most - as is the case in New York City.

But during the growth of both Minneapolis and Saint Paul, as soon as a streetcar line was built - so was nearby development. Both cities were beneficiaries of was is now known as transit-oriented development. Often the planners of streetcar lines would succumb to corruption by investing in the lands near where they were to be built.

But either way, we had a much more urban atmosphere concentrated in a clear manner. There were cities and there was the rural country. One could get to most places using transit, as jobs, home, and shopping were highly concentrated. Just looking at the 1950 census map, one can easily see where the true cities are compared to now.

The best analogy of what has happened is the Big Bang. As a city, we have spread out as energy was cheap and abundant. When oil surpasses $100 a barrel, the suburban inertia will persist. It will even as its inhabitants go through the economic turmoil once thought impossible.

But the collapse will be more painful to America and capitalism than that of Communism. A unipolar juggernaut will not exist. Resource wars may become commonplace and brutal.

Initially I do see large cities like Minneapolis reacting sooner to higher oil prices - with higher crime and violence. But this is a city much more capable of withstanding long-term changes than say Maple Grove. Cities are like animals. They need to evolve or face extinction. Any part of the Twin Cities surviving the Long Emergency, will be the most economically and therefore energy efficient.

I highly recommend one find and read this very informative book! At least it gives one interesting facts of the Twins creation. I had no idea that Saint Paul once had more millionaires per capita than any other city on Earth! ( this largely due to the plundering of rainforest lumber in what is now Washington state ) I also enjoyed the competitive history of Minneapolis vs. Saint Paul and the annexation of Saint Anthony. After all, I do benefit from all the amazing parks in both cities!

And a solution to our mess? Many and multiple. I believe in more transit options and renewable energy such as wind for starters. But with a sprawled population, we need all those who can to start taking the bus and trains to work, shopping, etc. You can't support solutions solely on paper ( or carbon offsets). You have to live them and find what best works.

Target's Lackluster Response

It seems that Target cares more about selling lead-coated toys from China than organic foods from the Midwest. Their response to my questions over their Archer Farms brand makes one cringe at their pathetic attempt. They don't even bother to check the context of their reply! ( what is that DVD about and why are they talking about Horizon Organics?)

The primary concern now is that Aurora has a giant farm in Gill,Colorado ( Weld County) that bothers its neighbors in many ways. The county commissioners want the farm to shrink down its number of cows from 3000 to a more manageable number. Aurora says it will bankrupt them and cost millions. But do factory farms really help the environment and local economies?

The bottom line: we need more corporate accountability. And those who support Organic should ensure that its standards match their values.

My original letter to them is here: http://textclips.blogspot.com/2007/09/target-sells-non-organic-at-organic.html

This is their response:

TARGET ( insert bullseye logo here )

October 26, 2007

Dear Kevin Chavis:

-Thank you for contacting Target® Corporation regarding your experience with returning your son's DVD. Robert Ulrich, Chairman and CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, President, and Troy Risch, Executive Vice President have received copies of your letter and have asked me to respond on their behalf. Please accept my apologies for any frustration and inconvenience you experienced.

Target works to provide guests with quality merchandise at affordable prices. By utilizing an extensive qualification and review process, Target ensures all required organic certifications are valid and up to date. Additionally, Target remains confident that the Archer Farms organic milk we provide guests adheres to the national organic program (NOP) regulations.

Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) dismissal of complaints, Target will continue to utilize Aurora Organic Dairy as an organic dairy provider. For additional information regarding the USDA's dismissal, visit www.ams.usda.gov/NOP/TodaysNews.htm

Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention. I'll make sure to share your comments with our Buying, and Quality teams for review.

Sincerely,

Lindy

Target Executive Offices
PO Box 9350, MS 1A-X, Minneapolis, MN 55440-9350

The Lies of Joyce Meyer

Joyce Meyer Ministries attempts to portray itself as a humanitarian and Godly organization. Yet its magazine from April 2007 contains blatant lies, misrepresentation, and subtle ignorance. It contains more political discussion than one would assume from a so-called nonpartisan religious group.

The primary concern of mine is the obvious American Exceptionalism. Somehow America is great because we are Christian, and other countries need to be converted. The example in Joyce's April 07 issue is Thailand, Burma ( they call it Myanmar), and Laos. They call it "The Golden Triangle."

They claim that it is a region "known for its abject poverty and drug addiction." Personally, I do not think of nations solely for by their negatives but also by its many positives. If I only looked at America through this negative view, I would hate my country for its malicious treatment of others for greed. But I think America has many positive traits that can overcome these negative elements.

But Joyce conveniently ignores current statistics such as:

1) The global drug trade does not center on this region. Nor do its users represent a vast portion of its nation. According to the BBC:

Fewer people take illicit drugs than smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but the numbers are growing, and the figure is currently estimated at between 3% and 4% of the world population. Most widely used is cannabis, but synthetic stimulants are booming in popularity - especially among urban youth. Meanwhile, in some countries, heroin is finding a new market among the fashionable and wealthy.

Many Americans smoke pot, at least 34% have tried - a lot higher than in the countries stated. Afghanistan produces 90% of the world's heroin and is trafficked primarily through the former Yugoslavia to Europe.


The poverty of this region is falling. If Joyce wanted to focus on nations not improving, she might want to focus on the Christian nation of Ethiopia. The current regime in Ethiopia is American friendly; Meles Zenawi is nonetheless a tyrant. Christians in America have decided to support a tyrant rather than assist the people in Ethiopia to improve their lives.

The photo on the left shows where poverty is increasing and decreasing as of 2004. Notice that the nations Joyce is targeting are not increasing in poverty, yet their Christian numbers are not rising dramatically.

3) The attack on Buddhism. Now Joyce notices that Christianity is having a hard time in growing here. Christianity denies many tenets of Buddhism such as reincarnation, karma, and the fact the people are not primarily evil. Buddhists see humanity as essentially good, but ignorant.

The fact is that Joyce Meyers is just another James Dobson. Her magazine is against stores such as Victoria's Secret, because it promotes sex. Homosexuals, because they should be "cured." And the American preoccupation with "sensuality." While Buddhism has perspectives on theses, none are essentially evil. It is how we live our lives that can keep us in this ignorance. Simple adherence to rules without knowing why we follow them seems more foolish than questioning them. You won't read this in her magazine, because questioning her interpretation of the Bible is deemed a sin by her and her legion of followers.

Making a difference through Coffee

I already buy Peace Coffee, Cafe Fair, and Equal Exchange coffees frequently. But I recently found Yuban coffee at Rainbow. Instead of being Certified Organic, Fair Trade, and shade grown - it is Rainforest Alliance Certified. What does that mean?

According to their site it means: Rainforest Alliance Certification is a comprehensive process that promotes and guarantees improvements in agriculture, forestry and travel. Their independent seal of approval ensures that goods and services were produced in compliance with strict guidelines protecting the environment, wildlife, workers and local communities. To receive the Rainforest Alliance Certification, farms are inspected yearly and the certificate is only issued if the specifications are met and continuous improved is demonstrated. By following Rainforest Alliance guidelines, coffee producers can improve worker conditions, provide training, reduce waste, reduce costs, implement better farm planning and monitoring, and use the resources nature has provided without damaging them for the future. These things make a farm more stable and generally more prosperous for years to come.

On the Rainforest alliance website they state:

Kraft Foods, Inc.

As one of the world’s leading food and beverage companies, Kraft, with brands such as Maxwell House, Yuban, Kenco, Jacobs, Gevalia and Jacques Vabre, is passionate about coffee. In 2003, Kraft and the Rainforest Alliance launched a partnership to move Rainforest Alliance Certified sustainable coffee to mainstream markets. To date, Kraft has purchased more than 50 million pounds of coffee from Rainforest Alliance Certified farms and has successfully launched six coffee products in Europe and the US that feature the Rainforest Alliance seal. Kraft’s commitment to Rainforest Alliance certification has had an impressive impact on coffee producing regions, where thousands of farms have adopted the sustainable agriculture standard, resulting in better worker housing, healthcare, education and the protection of forests, wildlife and rivers. Farmers have invested the premiums Kraft pays for its Rainforest Alliance coffee in an array of improvements ranging from a school in El Salvador that the Ciudad Barrios Coffee Cooperative built for a nearby community to reforestation by farmers in the severely deforested Convencion Valley of southeast Peru, where shade coffee farms provide the only refuge for many threatened animal species.

I am going to buy these products, not just because I tried them and still enjoy their taste. But I want to reward these large corporations for actions that move our society forward. This is a fine example of how capitalism can work if consumers are constantly vigilant about change. I want to see Yuban 100% Rainforest Alliance Certified in the decade! They have done so in European nations, but the US market is much larger. We need more consumers to switch to the sustainable alternatives forged by both small competitors and mainstream brands like Yuban!

Greens and Libertarian candidates for President?

Now I know this is controversial - but there are opportunities for those who support the Green and Libertarian Parties to change the major ones. This is apart from running against them - but within. Both candidates are almost like mirror images of Libertarian and Green tendencies.

Ron Paul raised over $5M in the 3rd Quarter - putting him in 4th place after Guiliani, McCain, and Romney. Paul is the chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus in the House of Representatives, and a former presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party. He has never voted for a tax increase but adamantly opposes pointless war and the National Debt.

Dennis Kucinich also is in 4th place among Democratic support, after Clinton,Obama, and Edwards. Kucinich was previously chair of the Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives. He supports Single-Payer Universal Health Care and having our troops represent the United Nations in Iraq instead of solely American interests.

I think that BOTH of these candidates deserve to be President only because they would radically change the direction we are currently moving towards. While they may have radical ideas on some issues, it is the Corporatocracy we must truly confront.

The Corporatocracy feel that Americans cannot truly change their objectives. These two campaigns are proving them wrong. Both have started grassroots campaigns that have been lit up in the past few months. While neither is in the top 3, they have surpassed what the MSM ( mainstream media) claimed their potential was. They denounced both immediately as "long-shots." They cannot say that any longer.

If anyone truly wants change in American politics, but don't want to support a third party - these are your candidates. Donate to them now. There is no point in being afraid to talk about them openly. After having mentioned both of them to members of their respective parties, it became apparent that their name recognition was beyond what the media would like to tell us.

Below are a list of their important issues. One can read more about them at their sites.


Ron Paul
American Independence
Border Security & Immigration
Debt & Taxes
Health Freedom
Life & Liberty
Privacy & Personal Liberty
Property Rights
Social Security
The Second Amendment
War & Foreign Policy

Dennis Kucinich
Strength Through Peace
A Healthy Nation
Survival of the Middle Class
Securing Constitutional Democracy
A Sustainable Future
End to Poverty
Saving Capitalism

Target should improve its Organic Standards

I think it is important that stores like Target sell organic products. But they are just profiting without truly informing consumers of the benefits to the environment, economy, and health of consumers. Now it turns out their standards really aren't as great as we had hoped.

Rather than reiterating what I have already written to them on this post, please visit my recent post if you want more information regarding the Target organic issues. Until you know all the facts, I urge you to shop locally first, organic second, and big box stores last.

Phillip Morris strikes again!

I walked into my block's SuperAmerica to get a Coke Zero today. Waiting at the long line of customers at the counter I spotted a bright red handout. It stated boldly "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH." About what you may ask? A cigarette tax hike of $6.10 a carton. Is that 60 cents per pack?

The brochures have been printed by Phillip Morris and have a spiffy website that looks grassroots. But it is corporate, and they know that each tax increase decreases future addicts (AKA customers).

I think smokers should first consider how much they are paying currently for their addiction ( or habit). Calculators like this one are really great!

Once you see your annual costs, you may decide to cut back or quit again soon. ( you should, even though it takes 7 times of quitting to actually do so)

But if you are a smoking advocate, then I urge you to use the same calculator and add in the extra 61 cents per pack and see how much of a difference that makes. It makes quite a dent, but still won't deter you to quit until you are ready.

But teenagers and younger children will be deterred by high prices. But do higher priced cigarettes help all consumers who purchase them? After all, we are imposing a tax whether called it by name or not.

In Minnesota we have a "Health impact fee" that has been supported by our legal system. Why is this legal? Because a pack of cigarettes does not count its actual cost to its consumers - primarily its health costs. Therefore, to give Minnesotans a taste of a packs true cost, we charge them more and call it a fee. If smokers paid the entire health impact, it would be around $9 a pack. Now that is a cost children an adults will dislike, but it gives us the costs upfront of what we choose to do now. Don't you wish every product did that for you - rather than banning them? We'd all make healthier choices through capitalism, rather than against it.

Hopes of Obama dashed

The Pakistan comment was disgusting. Invading Iran is also not an option. A true peace candidate would have never proposed something so vile. Instead of invading them we should work with them to create a stable society and root out terrorism?

His support for "clean coal" and turning coal into fuel will not put America on a sustainable energy track. These issues alone mean an Obama America would prosper only short-term - if at all.

My support for Kucinich diminished upon realizing that he gave up his delegates to Kerry in 2004. I have never or will ever support such a pathetic politician - one who never authored a groundbreaking bill in the Senate. Kucinich supports the Department of Peace, opposed the Iraq war from the beginning and was the only Congressperson to support Keith Ellison in his primary here in the 5th District. He's a great guy, working to change his party.

But how can I support a party that allows wiretapping and increasing military spending? A party that won't pay down the national debt. Only the Green Party supports what I do. Unless Michael Bloomberg brings up the important issues in his election bid ( i.e. peak oil) I support the Green Party candidate for President in 2008.