Anti-Endorsements

Who and what NOT to vote for
( AKA the names to cross off your ballot )

President - John McCain: Four more years - really? Seriously? Honestly, can we really afford four more years?!? And do we really want a deer caught in the headlights to take over when he keels over? This is real life people, not some fantasy island where it would be entertaining if he were to win - there would be REAL consequences. One tiny example: he might, oh, end the world as we know it by bombing Iran!

U.S. Senate - Norm Coleman: A snake-like career politician. Or should I say chameleon-like? Once a "progressive" DFLer, then a staunch conservative Bush clone, now morphing his image into the likeness of a "moderate." Does he think Minnesotans are idiots?!?

U.S. Congress - 3rd District - Erik Paulsen: Come on. Ashwin Madia and David Dillon are far better candidates than Erik!

U.S. Congress - 5th District - Barb Davis White: Her energy and tax policies are worse than Bush. At least Bill McGaughey supports single-payer Universal Healthcare. And I have seen more Dean Barkley signs throughout the 5CD than hers! ( not that I have even seen any of Bill's )

U.S. Congress - 6th District - Michelle Bachmann - I thought this jester would be re-elected easily in this district. Her latest gaffe was one Bachmannism too many! Adios Michelle! She has enough fans to publish a book like that un-funny Anne Coulter character.

MN House 61B - Jeff Hayden: Does anyone even know who this guy is? He's not "scary" as some of the above clearly are. But his contempt for the electoral process is quite unsettling. Just because he has the endorsement up and down the DFL doesn't mean he is a shoe-in. Where is his political courage? Where is his long-term activism and name recognition? A Republican has no chance of winning in south Minneapolis, but Farheen Hakeem has shown she will engage her neighbors. This is what Vote Smart has said about Jeff Hayden:

Jeff Hayden repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff

This open seat previously held by Neva Walker is clearly not important to Mr. Hayden. The fact that Mr. Hayden has NOT received the endorsement of Neva says more about his campaign - that and no one in his district seems to know who he is. They do notice the signs - but know Farheen Hakeem because she actually has an active campaign.

One ironic liability for Mr. Hayden is his endorsement by the Northwest Sierra Club. This is the same Sierra Club that endorses Clorox products, and yet did not oppose the Mid-Town Burner to be built in Phillips - at all. Clearly, Mr. Hayden did not abstain from parading around this endorsement. Unfortunately, the Sierra Club does not worry about environmental justice, as they are another facet of the green-washing movement begging Americans to purchase "green" SUVs.

MN Senate District 61 in 2010 - Hussein Samatar: Come on DFLers, you know this is pretty sad when you endorse someone more than 2 years before an election! No one even knows that Linda Berglin intends to step down and you have the gall to hand pick like this?!? I understand it is part of your SOP but dang. Maybe I will write him in for Soil and Water or Hennepin County Judge - that way I can say I voted for him before I campaign against him in 2010.

Anyone who intends to run for Minnesota Senate in 61 should run as a Green. At least you would have a shot at winning, the DFL endorsement is always fixed before anyone even knows there's an open seat.

Mayor - New Prague - Craig S. Sindelar: This former mayor ran a paper campaign last election cycle, and lost to Bink Bender by less than 100 votes. Bink actually campaigned and had lawn signs. Sindelar did not. So what has this real estate agent and owner of half the homes in New Prague decided to do this year? Post his own lawn signs on his rental property! The town is littered with his signs. He isn't door-knocking, but assumes he can win with his lawn sign campaign!

Sindelar is a small-town advocate. That is, he believes it should stay small so he can control it. The anti-Wal Mart, anti-Coborn's, and anti-roundabout voters will support him. Anyone that knows him personally, outside the business community, will realize he is an angry and out of touch ego-centric man. New Prague deserves better than this sad man. Nothing personal, Craig, but you should stick to your shady business enterprise and stay out of politics! ( Does anyone know who Laura Brod is supporting? You can respond anonymously - she can always deny it later! )

Voting No - Why not vote yes? And I am talking about every amendment, referendum, and change on the ballot for Minneapolis and Minnesota. Yes for schools and the future of our students. Yes for Minnesotan environment and unique culture. Yes for school board accountability with fewer at-large seats. Is three-eighths of one percent increase in the sales tax really worth squabbling about when it leaves a long-term legacy? Minnesotans deserve more than what we get for our Federal taxes - let's keep more of our money working for us here! Vote Yes in November!

Of course, if the Minneapolis school referendum fails, Co-chairs Keith Ellison, R T Rybak, and Hussein Samatar will be the ones to blame. I personally have never seem them campaign for this, so perhaps they are just making it look better. I have seen many school board members attend neighborhood and political meetings to rally support. Nonetheless, I support more money for schools. Though I believe charter schools in Minneapolis should gain some of the referendum money.

Bipartisan Coalition Defeats Casino Socialism

The Wall Street Bailout bill failed to pass Congress. And the corporate media, Democrats, and President Bush are "shocked" that it happened. Bush said our economy would collapse within days. Democrats and Bush also wanted to ensure that their corporate donors get more of their money back. The corporate media said it was a "done deal." The American public were told it would pass, so don't bother try to call your Congressperson. The American people didn't capitulate as the so called leaders of our nation did. Now Wall Street is throwing a temper tantrum and dropping the values of stock they thought could be purchased with "free" taxpayer money.

Just a couple months before the election, the economy is looking in worse shape than ever. To buy our confidence, and our votes in November, the government wanted to bail out their long-term corporate donors. It appears that Americans are no longer fooled by such gimmicks. We defeated the biggest corporate handout of taxpayer money in world history! For once, the people of this country actually have had a say. It appears that for once, Americans are actually comfortable with change!

The Federal government has long felt its role was to end or prevent recessions. Unfortunately, by doing this they make future recessions harsher. After every energy spike, the US economy goes into recession. The Feds should have allowed it to run its course, assuming we believe in capitalism. But Democrats continually believe it is the taxpayer's job to "create jobs." And they were literally the party behind the bailout.

There were some leaders against the bailout. On the Republican side, our own Michelle Bachmann stated her opposition early on. The Democrat who best represents my own views is Representative Marcy Kaptur. Someone else the corporate media love to hate also took a stance against the bailout: Dennis Kucinich. Too bad the media determine who wins elections, because Kucinich could easily beat a insanely sad McCain-Palin.

In Minnesota, half of our elected representatives refused to give in to Pelosi's pleas to help out Bush's bailout. There were also many Republicans who enabled the American people to stop this corrupt handout of money that could be better spent elsewhere. In Minnesota, these representatives deserve great praise for their stance against George Bush and Nancy Pelosi:

Michelle Bachmann (R )
Jim Ramstad (R )
Collin Peterson ( DFL )
Tim Walz ( DFL )

This could be the issue that gains the Walz campaign some traction against the GOP. It is a very close race, and if he wanted to win he would vote with his constituents and not against them.

BAILOUT SUPPORTERS

Call these supporters of the Wall Street Bailout today:

Keith Ellison --- 202-225-4755
Betty McCollum --- 202-225-6631
James Oberstar --- 202-225-6211
John Kline --- 202-225-2271

Tell them that the only Americans supportive of the bailout are the corporations that stand to profit and the politicians who stand to get more political contributions. Everyone else stands united against this abhorrent form of government policy that is appearing before us.

These un-leaders deserve to be called out for their pathetic stance in handling our economic situation. None of them have proposed weaning the American public off of oil. Skyrocking energy prices are the primary culprit of our economic doldrums. They refuse to deal with the reality of Peak Oil and global energy demand, but want a "deal" with Wall Street before our government can no longer sell its T-bills to China.

America needs long-term solutions, not short-term election gimmicks. A rescue package for Wall Street is a future tax-bill for the working class. Democrats need to get the message.

Harry Grigsby supporting Farheen Hakeem

A day before the primary the Obama campaign made phone calls to its Minneapolis supporters, asking them to volunteer on a "get out the vote" initiative. They wanted members to show up at.... (drumroll please ) the Jeff Hayden HQ. Upon arriving at 9AM, they instructed their foot soldiers on the true nature of their calling: ensuring Jeff Hayden is endorsed. While on their valiant mission for a candidate they did not know, they performed an informal survey of 61B voters: it appeared that Hayden and Farheen Hakeem are currently tied. This doesn't worry Hayden as his main objective was complete, thanks to volunteers of a candidate not in the Minnesotan primary race.

Harry Grigsby, Jeff Hayden's sole DFL opponent, did not win the primary endorsement. Yet a plethora of average, and not so partisan, voters who tend not to participate in the primary supported him. His campaign did not focus on internal partisan organizing, but spoke directly to actual residents of 61B. His supporters, along with independents and undecideds, can easily vote for the candidate Harry Grigsby has now endorsed: Farheen Hakeem.

Harry knows that Farheen Hakeem is the candidate truly meant to represent the heart of south Minneapolis. While the Democrats tax us to build a stadium for a billionaire (Target Field should be Hennepin County Taxpayer's Ballpark), Farheen has fought against such unscrupulous acts. Her voice is consistently ignored by the corrupt powers that mock the needs of the working class. Fortunately, these powers cannot squelch her message as the campaign goes door to door to ensure victory in November.

Can the Obama and Al Franken campaign really spend much more time on this local Minnesotan race as November approaches? Not if they want to win. Fortunately, the voters in this small Minneapolis district can rest assured that one campaign will not ignore them. The volunteers on this campaign wear brown t-shirts that beg the question: "What does Farheen Hakeem mean?" It means fresh wisdom. In times such as these , when change is both crucial and vital, Minnesotans need such a leader. Vote for Farheen Hakeem on November 4th for Minnesota House 61B.

November Predictions

Yesterday was an interesting primary election! It says a lot more than polls do about how those invested in democracy choose to vote! Based on the election info, I would like to make some estimated guesses at the general election. These are using current statistics, as debates and other political unknowns will come into play.

With regards to my support in November, I believe that candidates should seek to solve our intertwined energy and economic crisis. More "rebates" from Democrats or "drilling" from Republicans are both insufficient. I'd love to hear someone try to prove, without blatant misinformation, that they will be. My solution is an annually increasing carbon tax in support of green jobs.

President - I do not see Minnesota as up for grabs. It will go to Obama. Assuming there is no voter disenfranchisement issues this time, only one hour waits in Cleveland this year, Obama should win nationwide.

U.S. Senate

Coleman - 45%
Franken - 35%
Barkley - 20%

There are about 10% of Republicans who voted for Jack Shepard. These Republicans would most likely not vote for Franken, but would consider Barkley. The biggest loser is clearly Al Franken, because he lost nearly a third of his support to Priscilla Lord Faris. I really don't think he can recover such a hit. He's been trailing Obama for a while in Minnesotan support, and this is a bad hit. And there are parts of Minnesota where she almost surpasses him in support ( in 25A, Franken got 49% of the vote, Faris 46% )!

If Dean Barkley is allowed in the debates, his support could improve. Franken is no longer seen as viable against Coleman, which reduces any form of political momentum. Barkley will need to attract Republican votes that Franken obviously can't if he is to beat Coleman. Being a former U.S. Senator helps Dean Barkley considerably, assuming the media refers to him as one.


US House - 1CD

This race will be close. Still, I think that Brian Davis will beat Tim Walz, who is in his first re-election bid.

US House 3CD

The Democrats shouldn't cry too much about possibly losing 1CD, as Ashwin Madia should win here.


US House - 5CD

Ellison - 84%
Davis - 10%
McGaughey - 6%

I could be overstating Barb Davis White's support. Ellison's opponent Gregg A. Iverson received more votes in the primary than she did. I could also be overstating McGaughey's support, though he may get the anti-Ellison vote. Keith will win easily by double digits.

US House - 6CD

This is another close race. I would really like to see the last of Michelle Bachmann. Perhaps Tinklenberg will be able to gain enough support from moderate Republicans who do not feel Bachmann truly represents them.

US House - 7CD

Blue dog Democrat Collin Peterson should easily win.


In Federal races, it is difficult to really change current trends months before an election. These races tend to be media dependent and less "activist" oriented. Though get out the vote efforts are still very important.

As far as local races go, we will see. It will be up to local candidates to ensure that they stay ( or become ) engaged with the residents of their district. Candidates who accurately reflect their community's needs stand the best chance to be chosen to serve.

Minneapolis School Board

The voters of Minneapolis always support DFL endorsed. My fave non-DFL candidate, Mary Buss, did not make it past the primary. However, Doug Mann did and is seeking Green Party endorsement. I still like Lydia Lee and Jill Davis. Anyone else will have to prove themselves, assuming I vote for a third candidate.

Green budget hero

I tried the Budget Hero Challenge at MPR today. I won all three of my badges and holding true to my values! I proved that you can balance the Federal budget, cut the National Debt, AND provide single-payer universal health-care to all Americans. I did what neither Dems or Republicans seems willing to do: improve the quality of our government, protect the environment, and cut the size of wasteful government. All we have to do is make major changes now and stick with them long-term. Try it and see how it works for you!

Of course, these would all be attainable if we elect some Greens to congress. In 2006, America had a paltry 29% voter turnout. If more Americans chose to participate and vote Green, we could change the direction of our great nation!

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.
  

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.

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.

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?

Forced to go carfree?

A lot of people consider Greens to be a bit like members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) instead of typical people who don't mind chatting on their deck while drinking a cold one. Having spent a year now working with members of the local Green Party, I understand many are a bit quirky - but not loony. Their political ideas are also more extreme than members of the DFL - but the DFL can be more extreme than Greens.

I won't go into details at this moment about every issue. But one issue I feel strongly about is promoting a carfree lifestyle. We all know what Bush said during his 2005 State of the Union Address: "America is addicted to oil." CNN likes to repeat that quote quite often. But that is only the first step in dealing with an addiction - and few can quit addictions cold turkey. Therefore having Americans go carfree won't involve outlawing driving - but it may include things like a carbon impact fee and support for carfree infrastructure.

Mallard Fillmore may annoy me at times, I have mixed-feelings about this particular strip. I think it great that the creator is more green than your average Democrat. Conservatives typically portray themselves as actually living by what they believe in. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised he thinks that supporting a carfree society is wrong. Or does he just oppose government intervention, taxes, and partisan tactics with regards to this issue? Unfortunately the government already favors cars more heavily than the anti-car mantra now gaining momentum.

If you look at the Green Party of Minnesota platform you will see in line H that:

1) We support more efficient gasoline consuming vehicles
2) tax incentives for alternative energy vehicles
3) more bicycle lanes and racks
4) free transit in downtown areas of Minneapolis and Saint Paul
5) automobile free zones

in line C:

1) That we want our government to prepare for Peak Oil and focus on relocalization efforts

Nowhere in our platform does it say that we will force everyone to give up their cars. When a society is addicted to a substance, it is quite difficult to ban it. Though contrary to common thought, the prohibition of alcohol was a success ( it took 30 years for alcohol consumption per capita to reach its pre-prohibition levels). It would be better to support the post-carbon infrastructure.

Before any carbon tax is enacted, it is best to start with simple measures. Oil producers should lose lofty tax breaks. Car owners should pay the actual costs for using roads and other subsidies. Then it becomes easier for users to see their actual financial impact. CAFE standards should be increased at a certain rate for the rest of the century. Putting 10 times more money into energy research and development would yield amazing results as well. These are ways Congress can deal with our oil addiction right now, in a bipartisan manner.

Government marketing marriage?

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illegal Minnesotans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to do about illegal immigration?

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

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

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

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

1) Mexico needs jobs

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

2) Mexico needs family planning

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


3) Mexico needs higher taxes

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

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

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

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