Amtrak Surpasses Northwest Airlines

In the past week, Amtrak , for the first time ever, has surpassed Northwest Airlines in traffic to its website. Americans are well aware the traveling by air is getting more expensive, as it consumes an immense amount of fossil fuels. Hydrocarbons and valuable commodities, are not going down in cost anytime soon. Trains are much more efficient, but in America, they are still slower. Not a very practical attribute in a fast-paced society.

This is changing, and the Midwest

High Speed Rail Association is at the forefront. They are advocating for high-speed rail starting at the current rail hub of Chicago. Many Minneapolitans are familiar with our current Hiawatha line. But the future corridor between Minneapolis and Chicago bears the same name. It would be wise to support such a line, especially as Northwest Airlines has no qualms about moving its headquarters to Atlanta. That and the Twin Cities will cease to be of value in a post-cheap oil world without transit.

Adri Mehra, Green Party 5CD Candidate, Responds to Republican Inadequacies on Energy Policy

Barb Davis White: wrong on energy, wrong on peak oil, woefully wrong on any solutions.

Ms. White also appears to not know or, worse, respect her own party’s history with regard to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 1960, the administration of PresidentEisenhower – a Republican – ordered the preserve federally protected. Currently the area supports more wildlife than any other protected habitat in the Arctic Circle, featuring six different eco-zones and thousands of migratory animals. Even the most optimistic pillagers acknowledge that ANWR’s total exploitation would only buy the nation a few more years at current consumptionlevels – sort of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic in hopes that the ship will stay afloat.

Furthermore, extracting shale oil through tar sands, sometimes known as “strip mining,” has proven to be about as useful as a Republican in the Fifth District. Besides causing 10 percent more environmental damage than drilling for crude oil (including excessive land and water destruction), the process is painfully unreliable and horrendously slow - thus rendering it costly and inefficient, and a grand waste of the energy we were supposed to save in the first place.

Finally, nuclear energy development should be off the table until we find a safe way to dispose of the thousands of tons of viciously toxic radioactive waste that will continue to radiate cancer-causing emissions for thousands of years. In addition, nuclear power relies on highly enriched uranium, yet another air-choking fossil fuel – but much more expensive and dangerous to mine than all other options combined. It is true that France has had some success with reprocessing its spent fuel for further energy usage, but even they acknowledge that they cannot reduce the toxicity of the waste. This is all to say nothing of the constant risk of an “incident” resembling the 1986 meltdown of the reactor in Chernobyl, Russia, which resulted in thousands of cancer-related deaths estimated in the years that followed.

Barb Davis White’s “solutions” for the global energy crisis are just another example of the zero-sum game the Republicans love to play with our planet’s future. Peak oil is more than just a theory – it’s a clarion call for all of industrialized humanity to seek the development of new renewable energy resources in this late autumn of our dialogue with Earth’s oil. U.S. oil production peaked forty years ago, and the rest of the world is less than a generation behind. The time for denial, mitigation, and simple conservation is over. We need to fully fund sustainable solar and wind energy NOW to prevent famine and global economic collapse tomorrow.

Adri Mehra
Minnesota 5th Congressional District Candidate for US Congress
Seeking Green Party endorsement

Barb Davis White for 5CD

I decided to meet the Republican's 5th Congressional District's candidate for U.S. House: Barb Davis White. In 2006, when the 5CD was an open seat, Alan Fine ran. He made attacks on Ellison his primary issue, which was a mistake because one could not remember what Fine stood for. I was also unable to meet him and find his perspective on energy.

Keegan's Irish Pub is located in Northeast Minneapolis. It is located just north of downtown and has a very fun and unique environment. An interesting fact is that it is the first and only Irish Pub Concept pub in Minnesota. The Minnesota Organization of Bloggers ( MOB ) meet there Thursdays around 7 P.M. They can easily be found to the rear of the building, outside and thereby easily accommodating smokers.

My primary mission in getting to this event was to discuss energy with Barb Davis White. She is a very charismatic person and definitely someone you can instinctively trust. But her answers on energy are from a perspective that is quite prevalent in America: one that refuses to change to fit a new reality.

I first stated that I was a blogger who is specifically focused on Peak Oil. She does not believe in the concept of Peak Oil, brushing of years of American oil production falling ( since 1970). What I think that many Americans are concerned about is "when it runs out" and it NEVER will. What is important is whether you can afford the last trillion barrels of oil. And America is only beginning to understand that it can not afford as much oil as it used to.

So, within the scope of not believing in oil as a finite resource, her answers to our energy problem are quite symptomatic of an addict: drill ANWR, process tar sands, build nuclear power and create a French model electrical system. Basically get as much energy as possible as soon as we can.

I have issues with these solutions, but I also do not want to see our society collapse. As much as I oppose any measure that would create more nuclear waste, Barb claims the French found a solution in re-processing them. I will have to read further about this, as I thought America just wanted to stuff all this waste in Yucca Mountain for the next 10,000 years.

When we talk about ANWR and shale oil, we are talking about very expensive oil also. Expensive for biodiversity and expensive for topsoil. While again, if society were to collapse these may be required. But we have to realize that these are temporary solutions to a long-term dilemma. Politicians are very often for status-quo and against radical change in a societal paradigm.

Discussing with Lynne Mayo about Barb's solution to Peak Oil: "ANWR and Shale oil." Her response: "Did you say she would end the war and share the oil?!?" If only this Freudian slip were true!

Solar power at Little Earth

I attended this wonderful event at Little Earth yesterday, where solar panels were installed to offset energy expenses. The plan is for the entire community to have a panel on each home.

The keynote speakers were Van Jones and Winona LaDuke. What I found interesting to note here is that both were adamantly opposed to the Midtown Burner proposed by Kandiyohi Partners ( R.T. Rybak no doubt felt uncomfortable). Both also feel we can change course nationally on energy policy, putting forward initiatives like this one.

Van Jones observations that our younger generation need better alternatives than they currently are receiving. He stated that many are entrepreneurs and leaders already, but are doing the wrong things. Selling the wrong resources in a society that needs what it does not and that our society needs to move from a wasteful pollution-based economy to a zero-waste green one.

Winona discussed how White Earth would be setting up a 250 kilowatt wind-turbine with the help of SMSC. Hugo Chavez is supporting this project more than they are, but she isn't concerned with this. Winona is quick to point out that over half the potential wind-power in America is on Native American reservations. These tribes have more potential power than they can currently use, making them potential exporters of their local energy resource. I also appreciate that she used the word "relocalization" as this is what we need more than a corrupt top-down system that Americans consider as standard.

Jason Edens of RREAL spoke briefly. His organization brings solar-heating systems to families on energy assistance. His analysis is that we are subsidizing the oil and gas companies with these programs and not focused on long-term energy assistance. Local energy production would alleviate low-income families more than fossil fuel dependency does. Jason also believes we are going to face Peak Oil, and should have local solutions that do not leave the poor frozen in their homes.

I can't help but remember seeing SMSC Vice-Chair Glynn Crooks sitting next to Annie Young, Minneapolis Park Board - At Large - Green Party. I do not know where Glynn stands politically, he's more of an investor. I do know that SMSC donates large sums of money to the major two parties. They hedge their bets like any large business would. But if the new eco-jobs are to have any meaningful expansion in this century, they will need more individual investors. Government grants, be it from the US or Venezuela, should not be seen as the basis for a future society.

Glynn did not stay for the food, music, or visit the booth for supporting organizations. He's quite busy and I do not blame him. But for the sake of "green jobs" in the future, we will need investors like him engaged in the communities through projects similar to this. Peak Oil is a serious matter for those unable to hold jobs during the chaos that it will entail. Those with jobs will find they are "priced out" of a middle-class lifestyle. The American way of life will change or die, and conscious investment in our future will determine a more positive outcome.

Post-oil Dark Ages?

With oil skyrocketing, is it difficult to surmise that we will plunge into another dark age? Many Americans think this is not possible, but after the Roman Empire collapsed, Europe stopped building homes, writing history, producing art, and embraced Christianity to the literal detriment of its former faith's adherents.

There are people and countries already in a Dark Age. Countries that are allies of America and considered "enlightened" compared to other nations on their continent. Prime example: Kenya. This nation is an ally of America's, and is considered a stable nation. But their elections are based on tribalism. And anything except Christianity and Islam is seen as "evil."

Just as in America, Kenya has two major parties running for president. These are coalitions of different parties, based on tribal lines. There is a difference between rural and urban voters, as many in Nairobi chose to vote for another candidate than their rural tribe did. But when a similar situation to Bush v. Gore occurred, the nation fell to chaos. Few Kenyans participated in the disruption compared to those who were affected. As terrorism reminds us, it takes but a few extreme and organized people to bring a country to its knees.

In Kenya, witchcraft is illegal. Is anyone then surprised when women are burned after being accused as witches? This is 2008, and Monty Python could still make a modern sequel to the Holy Grail. Do we really need politics so intertwined with religion? Or can we choose a better world.

While I do see a Dark Age as distinct possibility, it is not inevitable. Humanity can embrace a more peaceful approach to this situation without succumbing to aggression. Various different ways of looking at the world are possible, if we give them a chance.

Oprah just finished her show on A New Earth with Eckhart Tolle. Rather than seeing the world in the competitive paradigm of the ego, seek the intuitive understanding of your own being. The biggest obstacle to this is living in the present moment. If you can not get a glimpse of this, it would be difficult to further go down this avenue. But Eckhart is quick to note that if humanity does not live more consciously, we will destroy ourselves. The fate of humanity is being held in the balance, and we cannot keep going down the same egoic path.

I also recommend nonviolent forms of communication. Simply by stating in a sane manner what you are feeling, you prevent and even dissipate conflict. You may not get instant results as you might think you would in a direct verbal attack, but you prevent long-term harm and foster healthier relationships with those you come into contact with.

And even if one dismisses or ignores these, it is hard not to imagine Americans coming together to face such a burden. We will unite in ways currently unthinkable. Getting to know our neighbors better, starting gardens, and starting businesses that allow for the economy to continue.

Before hydrocarbons made life much simpler and individualistic, we lived in more tribal settings. Many of these were around 150-300 in size and did not get much larger or smaller. Each member of a tribe had a niche that benefited their tribe, be it hunter, farmer, or water collector. I think this will also be a possibility, though not as much in urban settings as rural. These newer tribes will most likely occur organically through like-minded individuals coming together in creating intentional communities, that will morph into what needs to work rather than what was initially imagined.

What these world views have in common is one thing: trust in humanity. If you think humanity is incapable of anything but war and corruption, then peaceful means of living are alien to you. I certainly do not believe that any one person, organization, or political party will be able to move America through the perils of Peak Oil alone. It will take all of our collective ingenuity to face such an obstacle that man has never faced before.

Jesse Ventura ( Or None-of-the-above ) for U.S. Senate!

Did I get to meet Jesse Ventura at the Mall of America tonight? You betcha! And of course, got a nifty autograph of his in his new book. I even got to the mall using light-rail that would not exist yet but for Jesse.

He was able to state much of his beliefs on the current state of our political system: it isn't working. The politicians and media are owned by the interests of making money. They are focused on short-term gain rather than long-term sustainment. And if there is one person who can create a truly multipartisan campaign of supporters, it's Jesse Ventura.

He discussed how NOTA (None of the Above) should be on the ballot, and would give voters the right to show their disapproval of those running for office. He discussed how the two-party system supported by an entertainment-based news media feed a corrupt system. Few wish to question how sad a state our nation is in, but a leader is one who asks the hard questions and demands better results from our government.

If he were to run for U.S. Senate, he has one issue that neither major party can dispute: the National Debt. How can they claim they didn't support this? It is holding America back, and the interest alone is just under 20% of our annual taxes! Democrats want to continue spending unchecked without new taxes, and Republicans want to cut the governments income without cutting budgets! Pathetic! Both Norm Coleman and Al Franken are highly supportive of maintaining the status-quo.

What we need in Washington is a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget - and no exceptions. If there is a war or economic depression - tough, raise taxes or cut spending. Our national budget has been living in fantasy land and reality will hit us hard when this illusion can no longer be maintained.

One of Jesse's ideas that I disagree with is that we should stop giving aid to poorer nations. I think that it is imperative that the wealthy nations improve the lives of those that are not. It would reduce human populations growth, eradicate malaria, and reduce the future likelihood of terrorism. I also believe it is the right thing to do, and will continue to support a Global Marshall Plan. We can easily do this by ending our imperialism and bringing ALL of our troops home - even Germany and South Korea. The United Nations should be the global peace-keepers - not the USA or China.

One of Jesse's media opponents decided to try to ask a question. But Jesse made clear that he would speak to no Minnesotan media. He was especially angry at one Star Trib columnist known as CJ. It is odd, I read the Star Tribune a few times a week and never really read her columns. I notice those by the awful Katherine Kersten and the decent Doug Grow among others. Who is this CJ? Anyways, she is someone who decided to make up a story about Jesse's son having parties in the Governor's Mansion. It was bogus, but she ran on this sensational story anyways. The rest of the media used her column as a source, and Jesse has hated the Minnesotan media for this very personal attack on his family ever since. Can't say I blame him, but the media don't always get their facts correct. It's amazing how they choose to only show so much of a story, or cut out illuminating context. But sensation sells right?

One issue Jesse doesn't really go into detail in his book or in any public appearance is Peak Oil. This is something that is important, especially if we are at the point. Okay, call it an undulating plateau - but it is still Peak Oil. But fortunately Jesse is paying attention to Global Warming and believes we must act - and he actually means that he would. Does he unplug his "vampire energy" sources? You betcha, and he noticed his energy usage drop immediately. I think it imperative that we elect a leaders who actually would enact a carbon tax and end our hydrocarbon addiction.

I highly recommend anyone interested in populist politics or simply the state of America read Jesse's book - Don't Start the Revolution Without Me! But read it one chapter at a time and stop to reflect a while before beginning a new chapter. I do not think it is meant to be read all at once. As a Minnesotan, I am still proud that he was our Governor. Would Norm Coleman or Skip Humphrey really have helped the future of Minnesota as Jesse did? No, they would not. And reading this new book gives one an even better appreciation of his time in office .

Jim Ogonowski's campaign - A Major Party theme?

I am sensing a trend here. And it crosses both sides of the political "aisle" so I can't complain right? That is what a political pundit or even an "activist" journalist might say. But I am not beholden to partisan co-workers or corporate advertisers while writing. I am appalled at the state of our democracy and how candidates for US Congress can choose to beg for money but not state where they stand on issues.

My initial statement on this issue was Jackie Speier, whose supporters have attacked me for blogging about their most worthy candidate because she begged me for money for months. When you beg for money you should state your issues. Some of what her website now states as her issues were taken from e-mails I sent her, and that is fine with me. ( In example energy is a national security issue. )

Speir fans should take note, she has a photo of soldiers wearing DCUs on your website. Those have been out of commission since 2005, maybe you haven't heard about ACUs, but that is what the ARMY wears now. But her thoughts on Iraq are like Hillary Clinton's: fund the war indefinitely and end the war someday over the rainbow.

Now we have a Republican running against John Kerry in Massachusetts for US Senate. He has no issues page at all. The Speier fans went into a frenzy claiming I couldn't justify saying she was a non-issue candidate because she now has issue statement. Well, she didn't for 3 months while she badgered me for money. Now Mr. Ogonowski is begging and has no issues page at all. Unlike Ms. Speier who had one but each page stated a synonym of "coming soon. " At least she tried.

Mr. Ogonowski makes a cheap flash movie on John Kerry and tests its fund-raising ability. Nice way to run a campaign! So what do you stand for again? Oh, whoever gives you the most money can decide. Very Major-Party-like of you.

So to "prove" that he has no issues, I have taken an image of his website and will post it here. At least we know that West Coast Democrats and East Coast Republicans have something in common: they want money and power and won't let the public truly know how they will use it. And immigrants think America is less corrupt than their homeland!

DLC vying for Vice President

It is generally believed that Obama will win the Democrat Party nomination for president. Yet Hillary continues to run while some would like her to drop out. I think it foolish for anyone to drop out if they are to attain the highest office of the Executive Branch. Dennis Kucinich would still be in the race had he not received competition for his seat in the U.S. House. Hillary should also stay in for all the women who want to see her win, and for the sexist men who think no woman can fill the role.

But it is hard to forget that this is not just any woman but Hillary Clinton. And it is not hard to forget what wing of the Democrat Party she represents: the right. She is part of the Democratic Leadership Council or DLC. These are essentially the Neocons who never left the Democrat Party. Few realize it was initially Hillary Clinton who claimed Iraq and 9-11 were somehow connected. Few know that it was Clinton's speech after 9-11 that was plagiarized continually by Bush to calm the American people. And it is with this mentality that the DLC and the Neocons wish to continue the American Empire and its wars further in this century.

Then there is Barack Obama. The strongest organization that he associates with, and few know of, is the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Obama is pushing for a bill in the Senate that Keith Ellison is in the House: a Global Marshall Plan. Rather than funding the Iraq War or any other such waste, the Global Marshall Plan would enable the billions of poor humans opportunities many of us take for granted: free primary education, vaccines for malaria, adequate food, etc. This would prevent not only future resource wars, but allow humanity to recover from impoverishment and be given the tools to make wiser decisions.

The DLC knows that Obama belongs to a wing of the party opposed to its strategies. But the also know that Obama is beholden to party interests and maintaining the "big tent" strategy of the main two parties. They have a quite simple goal if Hillary is not going to win: ensure that his running mate is a member of the DLC. If he were willing to do this already, Hillary would have little reason to continue running. But I suspect he has not given in, just as he did not cave to the money of PACs or Corporations.

There are many positions that I disagree with the Obama campaign on. But if he solidifies the chasm of difference between the DLC and the party in the Executive Branch, then he has made a positive impact on American politics. Let us not forget that the Republican version of the DLC is known as the Project for a New American Century with George W. Bush as their current leader. We need a better vision of the future, rather than a war-mongering corporate Empire.

Greens against the Override

One would assume that any Green in the Minnesota House would instantly approve of the recent transportation override. They might vote for it, but not after arguing about the intent and process of the new taxes. As it currently stands, these new taxes are not within the party's values.

2 Penny Gas Tax ( on April 1st )

I don't really have a lot of problems with the gas-tax, except that it has to be used for roads and bridges. It is Constitutionally mandated, and perhaps the Green Party should add to it's platform that they want this changed. Republicans wouldn't know the difference, because all those who I've spoken with believe it goes into the general fund. So why not make it official?Let the roads crumble - and build more train lines instead. Future generations will thank us for allowing the car-culture to collapse locally before the rest of America will have no choice but to.

The DFL may lose some seats this year over the "outrageous" 2 penny gas hike. I wonder if they will think it was worth it. The Republicans who supported the override, especially those from Edina, may find their predicaments a bit harsh. But at least Laura Brod can still run for Governor in a few years. No need to attack her since she "forgot" to vote on it.

Transit Sale Tax

This tax will be imposed without a voter referendum. This flies in the face of grassroots democracy, and would be fought by Greens. If residents were allowed to vote on this, I know it would pass in a majority of counties - even Scott and Carver. So why not vote on a new tax? Hennepin County hands taxpayer money to Minnesota's billionaire Carl Pohlad, but might not if its residents were given a choice.

The tax creates a transit renaissance in the Twin Cities that will attempt to rival the original system abandoned last century. Streetcars built these cities, but LRT and bicycle paths will be more energy efficient than even that system.

I don't expect the fools in my old homes of Carver and Scott Counties to join in the festivities. They will engorge themselves on auto-dependent development until long after it's days are over. Then they will cry for even a couple bus routes to the Eden Prairie LRT, while their residents fill the park and rides in neighboring counties. Maybe Rice county will join before Scott? We could then build a LRT route right through the county,without any stops there, to Fairbault and Northfield, or even commuter rail to Mankato.

In Summary Greens believe:

• The transit sales tax should be approved by counties through a voter referendum, rather than imposed by county commissioners.

• Gas taxes should not be spent solely on roads and bridges - but added to the general fund or used for transit

• A carbon tax would be more beneficial to reducing CO2 than a gas tax alone.
  

Green Party Caucus

The Green Party caucus went smoothly in south Minneapolis today. I was able to pass a platform change that would support the Global Marshall Plan and we passed a resolution opposing the Midtown Burner.

We supported Cynthia McKinney's bid for the Presidency over Nader 7 to 1. Impressive, though Nader is not formally seeking Green Party endorsement. He is seeking any endorsement he can get, and feels the Greens are not a threat but a progressive ally. Had he run as a Green, I doubt he would have won in Senate District 61 today.

We heard from US Senate candidates Michael Cavlan and Thomas Harens. Both are strong on Green issues. Though they both have their weak spots. Thomas is more business oriented, while Cavlan more the anti-corporate type. I supported Cavlan in 2006, but feel Thomas is more than ready to spread the message of our party to a wider audience. An audience that is more a part of the green movement than the actual party, with his goal to bring us together. There were no attacks against each other, though Cavlan did stress his long-term commitment to the party, while Thomas could make no such claim having recently joined. Thomas has also done little work toward racial justice,but has remained more focused on sustainability issues. Both candidates know the seriousness of peak oil and how higher crude prices drag our economy down.

Farheen Hakeem attended and is still running a campaign that has the DFL scared witless. I doubt they will have a candidate who has the experience or knowledge that Farheen has. Mr. Hayden assumes that the DFL machine will hand him the seat. But if any challenger shows up on the primary ballot, he'll need as much help as he can get from them. His record in such primaries hasn't worked to his benefit in the past, garnering third place behind Elizabeth Glidden and Marie Hauser for city council Ward 8.

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.