Attorney General

Papa John Kolstad

I have no qualms voting for Papa John. He is more than competent to be the attorney general, having dealt with that office many times.
He is also the founder of the Minnesota Universal Health Care Coalition, and will promote UHC while in office. In addition, he will support the small business community and not give special favors to the corporate donors of the other parties.

Enforcing Minnesota Environmental Laws

Clean air and water are our most important resources. I will work so that we can eat the fish from all of our 10,000 lakes. Minnesota needs a strong energy efficient and renewable energy policy. We can lead the nation in reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. We need a policy of zero discharge of persistent toxic chemicals in our state, especially chlorinated compounds like dioxin which are key contributors to cancer and birth defects.

Protecting Minnesota Small Business

I propose we create a Small Business Division within the Attorney General's office. This Division will level the playing field between small business and the abusive large corporate conglomerates. This would allow me, as your Attorney General, to be an aggressive advocate for small business, as well as for consumers. The cost of health care and property taxes are two major problems for small business. Both of these problems are the result of bad public policy.

The wasteful health insurance companies dictate care and raise rates 10 to 15% per year, and this is retarding the growth of the economy and the creation of new jobs. As Attorney General, I would continue to audit and investigate the health insurance companies, and, where warranted, would aggressively pursue criminal charges against the CEOs and officers of these companies for fraud and abuse. I'd also propose new laws if the current ones are insufficient to prosecute these abuses. MORE

Minnesota Guard Home Now!

We must disengage from the immoral war crime we have committed in Iraq. This war has now lasted longer America's engagement in World War II. Each and every single premise for starting this war of choice has proved to be wrong.

----






John James

The Office of the Attorney General is the public's law firm. The AG's job is to represent the people of Minnesota. AGs traditionally want to be seen as the enforcer or prosecutor-in-chief - using the law to get justice for citizens. Enforcement is important, but if all we get from the AG is enforcement, we're not getting all we are paying for. We want people and organizations to comply with the law -- and laws to comply with the needs of Minnesotans and their communities. The AG should deliver both.

Minnesota needs an independent Attorney General. One who rejects the partisan DFL and Republican agendas that produce nothing but gridlock and finger-pointing. One who will be the people's lawyer, rather than working to protect the special interests and big campaign contributors.

As Minnesota's independent Attorney General, John James will:

Focus on Children

• Enforce child protection laws
• Crack down on domestic abuse
• Keep kids in school

Focus on the Environment

• Reverse a decade of increasing environmental degradation
• Clean up Minnesota's waters

Focus on Fair Treatment from Government

• Demand fair treatment of citizens by state and local government
• Demand basic honesty from our leaders-taxes and fees are not the same!
• Challenge unnecessary and preferential subsidies to businesses, so your tax dollars are spent on the things that matter

Protect the Interests of Average Minnesotans

• Fill the vacuum of leadership on public safety to make Minnesotans safer from crime-without the death penalty
• Protect consumers from dishonest businesses
• Maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of the Internet

State Office - Senate 61

Linda Berglin

She is the creator of MinnesotaCare. She understands the needs of Minnesota's least fortunate residents and Minneapolis. There are few Greens that find it important enough to run against her this election cycle, and it is wiser if we did not.

Lucky Rosenbloom is running under the guise of the Independence Party, though a long-time Republican activist. I considered him for the half-second it took to research him. I don't disagree with his stance on gun-ownership, but he snorts GOP dogma like the substances he claims to be against.

Why waste time discussing Mark Dolski ? Only Linda has bothered to even HAVE a website!! Vote for Linda!

Hennepin County Commissioner

Farheen Hakeem deserves much more support than Peter McLaughlin. Peter supported the Stadium Tax, and should have considered his constituents more. Minneapolis libraries and public schools are having difficulty maintaining financial stability. Yet we build a sports stadium for a billionaire?

Farheen has the endorsement of the Green Party and support by many within the independent voter movement. She received 15% of the vote for mayor in the 2004 primary, and 40% in this year's County Commissioner primary. She will not allow the DFL Machine to dominate our city indefinitely, and deserves support for doing something about it.


What else does she stand for than against the imposed stadium tax?

Wind Energy

Wind energy was an issue I championed during my 2005 campaign for Minneapolis Mayor. I am pleased to report that since then, the County board has decided to explore the options of bring renewable energy to Hennepin County. With my expertise, and commitment wind energy will become a reality in our community.

Wind energy will not only lessen our burden on nuclear and coal energy, but it will save the county money. Right now, Hennepin County spends $7 million on electricity. Wind Energy is approximately half the cost as nuclear and coal, resulting in a savings of $2-3 million dollars.

As Commissioner I will advocate renovating our county buildings with energy-efficient technology — a short-term expense with long-term savings.

Child Protection

Hennepin County needs strong and healthy families, regardless of their socio-economics, race, religion, sexual orientation, or citizenship. As County Commissioner I will insist that we examine the ways in which our government programs fail to keep children safe, and work to transform the root causes of that failure.

The racial disparity in child protection is shocking. For example, many children who are taken away from their homes are people of color. In addition, county services are not friendly to families of color, and families very quickly get lost in the system.

According to a March 29th issue of the Spokesmen-Recorder, there are 267,000 children in Hennepin County, where 69% are Caucasian and 14% are African American. Yet, of the children that are served in Hennepin County Child Protection, 29% are Caucasian, and 44% are African American. In addition, with newly arrivals and immigrants in Hennepin County, there is a lack of translated materials and cultural competency within Child Protection services. We also need to increase recruitment of more people of color to be guardiem ad litems. This will not only increase the cultural competency of county services, but also decrease the number of cases in which families are unnecessarily separated after case workers misinterpret traditions outside of their own culture as being inappropriate or harmful to children.

Education

As a former math teacher and a current youth coordinator, I’m very passionate about the education of all our children. Hennepin County schools must be well funded and well staffed. This will not only improve the quality of education to our students, but provide more jobs to the community.

One of my teaching positions was with Hennepin County court-ordered youth. The system is broken for our young people and we need to make more strides in preventing these children in entering the criminal justice system. We need give them the tools that they need so that they can build a future for themselves that does not included the revolving door of a corrections facility.

As county commissioner, I will implement proactive steps to get our children away from juvenile detention and on their way to being active members of society. Those steps include offering opportunities in supplemental education to our youth and an increase in before-school, after-school and during-school programming.

other major issues :

Transportation

Public Safety

Public Finance

Homelessness

Minneapolis IRV Referendum

A proposal to use Instant Runoff Voting in elections

VOTE YES! Why? It eliminates the so-called "spoiler effect" in multipartisan elections. Citizens can vote for any candidate they choose by ranking them.

Indepedence , Green , and DFL endorsed

Republican indifference.

The only known opponent: MCCL ( Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life )

Why does MCCL oppose IRV when it is not an abortion-related issue? Fear and their lack of support from voters. Less than 22% of the Republican voters truly care about outlawing abortion, but the GOP needs these votes as an edge to beat the DFL. If IRV becomes standard, expect the GOP to ignore MCCL because they know they will get a #2 vote from this minority. Expect MCCL to organize around the issue better, or become less extreme in order to gain political foothold.

MCCL, will continue to be the biggest opponent to Minnesotan electoral reform. But a true citizens organization would promote causes that benefit society and harms few.

IRV proponents have this to say to MCCL fearmongers:

FairVote Minnesota has issued a line-by-line rebuttal to the blatant distortions and outright falsehoods propagated by the MCCL. Key points in that response say that Instant Runoff Voting :

• has been used in pro-life, Roman Catholic Ireland since the founding of that republic.
• would assure that the winner of an election has the support of a majority of voters
• strengthens the effectiveness of every vote
• is attracting the interest of a growing number of civic-minded Minnesotans

MCCL has no comment at this time.

Tammy Lee's growing momentum

Tammy Lee doesn't have endorsement by Martin Sabo - but nor does Keith Ellison. The fact that he is willing to have a photo taken with Tammy reflects the resentment this Old Guard DFLers has against Progressive DFLers.

Tammy's tagline is "Fiscally Responsible. Socially Progressive" and offers a very unique and refreshing campaign. Certainly checking out her issues page, one realizes it will appeal to disaffected DFLers.

But I can't help wonder if the many anti-Ellison suburbanites will worry about a lesser-than-evil vote. Do they think Alan Fine even has a prayer,? He appears a token candidate to make all DFLers look bad through one candidate. Katherine Kersten has wholeheartedly taken this stance in the Star Tribune. Yet, how can someone who believes in family values vote for someone who commits domestic abuse?

Jay Pond is getting nil publicity in the media lately, and Tammy has not only taken more space - she's gaining through a positive campaign strategy. While Ellison deals with Fine's negativity, he loses some positive momentum. Tammy doesn't have any such baggage, though she doesn't have the DFL Machine working for her either.

So will her new unity ads add any new endorsements by the Big Two partisans? I am not sure, but she certainly would stand a better chance with Instant Runoff Voting. IRV is poised to become the official voting technique for the city of Minneapolis.

What Tammy needs is more publicity, more supporters/volunteers, and more money. Will she be able to get those quickly without a large political operation behind her? The most important objective is getting votes, and the Big 2 know that third parties can get them cheaper than they can.

Muslim cabbies, Christian pharmacists, Hindu land-owners - what do they have in common?

It is hard to not find the irony in this debate. The founders of America KNEW this would be an issue, and thought to put it to rest by creating separations for religion and government. From that day forward, it has only become more contentious an issue with religious extremists. There is nothing wrong with being an extremist, but every piece of agenda should be scrutinized.

One should aks "does this act of government benefit the whole society?" instead of the belief that one should impose their version of God's will on others, an lack such societal benefits.

In Minneapolis, taxi drivers are imposing their will on those who wish to transport alcohol. If you have a can of Heineken, sorry, find another cab. The wrath of Allah will fall on me if I do my job.

Then you have the Christians working as pharmacists. A college student goes to Target to pick up a birth-control prescription and is told "sorry, I cannot help you." Because the wrath of God and/or Mary will come down upon the pharmacist if they do their job.

Some Hindus in India will not sell homes to you or let you live in certain neighborhoods unless you are a vegetarian. The evil karma of carnivores surely cannot be stood for.

What about sex offenders moving into a neighborhood with a high population of children? In Minneapolis, there are many offenders who move here thinking they are safe, only to find a rain of bullets impact their skulls. Vigilante 'justice' is not called for, but it happens.

I could go on, but you get the point. Imposing your religous beliefs on others, without consideration for freedoms and the benefit others may get, is immoral. People of many faiths understand this, and are confounded by those who share their faith don't understand secular values.

Does this mean we do not impose rules on those who could harm others? Of course not, society must condemn all harmful and detrimental actions treating the perpetraitors humanely. For if we lose site of humane treatment for the inhumane, we lose the possibility for positive transformation by the inhumane, thereby becoming what we so disdain.

The 5th Congressional District race for US House continues being very interesting. Though many are still confident that Keith Ellison will win, Alan Fine has taken the race to new lows. Saying Keith Ellison supports terrorism and is antisemitic.

IMHO many are afraid to vote for a black Muslim, and need some odd excuse to cover their hidden feelings. Mike Erlandson and Ember Reichgott-Junge split the anti-Ellison /pro DFL-establishment vote. Ellison activists were very critical in getting out the vote in Minneapolis. I met quite a few, and they were full of vibrant energy. It was wonderful seeing them exhibit the positivity of the Progressive Ellison campaign.

But will "moderate" DFLers vote for Alan Fine? His primary issues are as follows ( according to his website):
[my comments]

Priorities

• Protecting the environment

[thinks he can steal Greens? Doubt it...]
• The welfare of our children
• Making our neighborhoods safer and more
cohesive
• Producing jobs and keeping our economy
strong
• A return to fiscal prudence
• Reducing the deficit

[but not eliminate it]
• World peace

[most likely through pre-emptive wars]
• Dramatically improving U.S. diplomacy and
international relations

[by eliminating enemies, maintaining a strong global military presence ]
• Affordable healthcare

[notice ambiguity - similiar to curent DFL beliefs ]
• Improving our transportation systems and
reducing our dependency on fossil fuels

[mantra for decades by BOTH major parties, yet doing little]
• Strengthening social security

[by investing it like a 401K , with no individuals allowed say in how invested ]

Basically Alan Fine could appeal to many DFL voters, especially wavering ones who dislike Ellison. His biggest liability is being Republican, and association with Bush policies. My bet is more on Independence Party Candidate Tammy Lee. Time will tell if she can gain any momentum in the race. If she doesn't , moderate DFLers will vote Ellison in grudgingly.

My hope is that Ellison sparks a renewed Progressive movement in the DFL. They can't keep coasting along without pushing for ideals that Minnesotans want, such as Universal Healthcare and preventing wars with a Department of Peace.

Where do the Greens stand with regards to Keith Ellison earning endorsement? That is quite the question, considering several greens I know have endorsed and are working on Ellison's campaign. But...

Jay Pond is still in the race. We need to have decent candidates that stand for the Ten Key Values that are inherently Green. Working within the Democrat party, one feels pressure from "important" contributors. I hope that Ellison can stay true to his values untainted by negative influences. But if he strays, that is where Jay will come in and focus on a positive message for 5CD voters.

I truly hope Ellison is as amazing as he appears in Congress. If he is anything like Dennis Kucinich, he will be an amazing voice for peace in all its forms.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's greatest achievement is challenging Islam to overcome its Dark Age tribalism and accept secular values. Just speaking about such a subject in Europe is quite taboo, and even American liberals pretend its a non-issue. But reforming Islam should be a priority for all of mankind, and not through physical force but nonviolent social change.

I rode the bus back today with a co-worker, Fato. She is younger than myself ( I am 24 currently), is married and has an 8 year old son. Her son is still in Ethiopia and husband living in Colorado, but he is in control of her life, as she is Muslim.

She wears clothing to cover her body, and most of her face. I understand the value of modesty, it is quite attractive to see it in women. But I do not understand why her husband forbids her any friends. That is correct, she is lucky enough to be able to have a job outside of her sister's home. At Mystic Lake Casino, she can chat and joke with others. But outside of work, she is to remain forever lonely. She can't even give out her phone number or call those her husband does not approve of. ( which is only Fato's relatives ) She is allowed to go shopping, alone and never with anyone but her sister.

I asked Fato if she was lonely, she is but "I love my husband - that is where my heart is." She has not seen her son for nearly 6 years, and she was visibly starting to cry but holding back any gush of tears. She talks to her husband and son twice a week, and has photos of them. But she yearns for the day he can be in America with her.

Fato's husband is liberal in allowing his wife to work outside the home, but his archaic antifriend stance hilights how ancient tribalism still entrenches upon Muslims.

An excerpt from The Caged Virgin:

The biggest obstacle that hinders Muslim women from leading dignified, free lives is violence - physical, mental, and sexual- committed by their close families. Here is only a sample of some of the violence perpetuated on girls and women from Islamic cultures:

• Four-year old girls have their genitals mutilated: some of them so badly that they die of infections; others are traumatized for life from the experience and will later suffer recurrent infections of their reproductive and urinary systems



• Teenage girls are removed from school by force and kept inside the house to stop their schooling, stifle their thinking, and suffocate their will



• Victimes of incest and sexual abuse are beaten, deported, or killed to prevent them from filing comlaints



• Some pregnant victims of incest or abuse are forced to have abortions by their fathers, older brothers, or uncles in order to keep the family honor from being stained. In this era of DNA testing, the girls could demonstrate that they have been abused. Yet instead of punishing the abusers, the family treats the daughter as if she had dishonored the family



• Girls and women who protest their maltreatment are beaten by their parents in order to kill their sprits and reduce them to a lifelong servitude that amounts to slavery



• Many girls and women who can't bear to suffer anymore take their own lives or develop numerous kinds of psychological aliments, including nervous breakdown and psychosis.They are literally driven mad

I have no doubts that this type of control is being exerted over Fato. She knows that her life could be better, but her family and her past experiences make her feel helpless. I could see the pain in her eyes, sacrificing her feelings and needs for a Husband miles away.

In advance, I would like to state that I am not 100% knowledgeable of Shariah or Hudood laws, except that they seem harsh and comprehend the Koran in a fundamentalist manner. Though I disagree with their methods of punishment, I strongly disagree that they should form the base of a government anywhere. I would appreciate any comments from the Muslim community, as any dialogue will improve understanding of current Islam.

Forcing attachments on people through violence and intimidation is wrong. If we are to live in a truly free world, we must condemn all such acts. As a Buddhist and American, I cannot sit by and watch this occur. I must make it known that such atrocities exist, and that we must all work to eliminate them. This is not an attack on the Islamic faith, but on the underlying tribalism still inherent in its culture. It is time for them to abandon Hudood(Islamic Penal System) and Shariah laws, and embrace the right of individual freedom. Let the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights reign throughout the Earth!

I had the displeasure of hearing Mike Hatch speak on MPR. After hearing him, I am appalled that the DFL endorsed him! But listening to their convention, I understood why. Their mentality is "electibility" and choose a relaxed stance on core issues. Maybe Mike Hatch seems electable with the convention, but with average Minnesotans and DFLers Hatch is an arrogant and egocentric, and will not build a positive movement.

What Hatch will do is alienate the left from the DFL and embolden the GOP. Of course, perhaps the left is now morphing into the "anyone but GOP-party." This is an unfortunate turn of events, but it seems more true each election cycle. Would Republicans still get nominated and elected as the "non-Democrats?" Would they and do they reach for the so-called "center?" No, but the DFL is no different from the DNC, concentrating on funding and electibility issues first, then political issues second.

What I find most infuriating about Hatch is his anti-third party stance. He refuses debate with any non-Republican. He dismisses their issues and instead talks about a referendum on Pawlenty and Bush. Last time I checked, George Bush wasn't running for re-election. And a vote for Pawlenty, Hutchinson, or Pentel is not a vote for Bush - contrary to what Hatch believes.

I truly hope he loses in the primary to someone who can move Minnesota in a postive direction. Someone like Becky Lourey, who will work towards bringing home our Guardsmen and Universal Healthcare.

Discussion with a "pro-lifer"

I do not even know her name. I just know I saw her with a sign in front of a medical clinic, and I guess they perform abortions there on Saturdays. I do not even know what organization she is from, but I now know where that anti-abortion literature litter is emanating from in Ventura Village.

We had an interesting discussion. Unfortunately most of it one-sided. She really wasn't interested in anything but her own opinions and dismissing any of my reasoning. Clear arguments were dismissed such as:

-17 per 100,000 women who give childbirth die ( aka maternal death ) in the United States. Yet 1 in 250,000 die of abortion. This gives childbirth a 40 times higher risk of death than abortion. Pro-lifers scoff at such a claim.

-To her anything prohbiting the creation of a child from sex is evil. No birth control should be legal because it is against "God's will"

- Any form of sex outside of marriage and heterosexuality is evil. It is in her words "perverting the meaning" of a sacred act.

Yet she has never had sex. Nor is she married. She is celibate and claims to never masturbate ( because that is evil too).

The question I have is - should asexuals give heterosexuals and homosexuals advice on sex? Put this way, her stance is ludicrous.

Developmental psychology states that those who have not performed devolpmental tasks in a certain area lack competent wisdom regarding that subject. So does one go to a doctor who has never even practiced surgery? He may have read the books, but without any hands on - do you trust him with your life? Would you ask a single college woman how to raise a child at the bar?

So, asking a fervently religious celibate how to engage in a proper sex life is utterly ridiculous. Yet, she has made many turn away ashamed at their sexuality. She not only turns people away from abortions, but she heaps scorn and wrath upon those who engage in any form of sex.

In her eyes homosexuals should remain celibate. She also believes that the human body makes a person "who they are" because women and men are just so very different.

As a Buddhist, I can take heart in knowing these things are easily understood without harsh dogma. A homosexual can be theirself and not have to worry about the wrath of some unknown God. A man and woman can have "pre-marital" sex as long as they have the right intentions and know what they are getting into and obviously strive to be safe.

In fact, the Buddha never made any rules regarding marriage. He stated one should follow the secular laws put forth by their locality. This means in America, I am not bound to marry - nor should I worry about homosexual or polyamorous people from sharing in a secular yet emotionally bonding agreement. Many fundamentalist Christians cannot see the world in such a way. Instead they spread fear, anger, and hostility to those they do not understand.

BPF Statement on situation in Israel and Lebanon

During the past week, the world has been witness to a frightening drama unfolding in the Middle East, as Israel and Hezbollah are locked in an escalating conflict that neither party seems willing or able to diminish, and at the same time Israel’s operation in Gaza is creating a humanitarian catastrophe.

Each time such a situation comes to pass, we at the Buddhist Peace Fellowship are reminded of the Buddha’s injunction that “hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love.”

These words are easy enough to say for those of us outside the conflict zone. We realize that life must feel quite different right now in a place like Beirut, Lebanon, where men, women, and children are under fire by Israeli bombers. Just today--July 19th--news sources report anywhere from 19 to 49 civilians have been killed by these air strikes, and more than 200 have died in the past week. And we empathize with the citizens of Haifa, Israel, and in other areas along the northern border where at least 30 people have been killed. There, wise words from any religious tradition may seem irrelevant with rockets landing in backyards and people injured or dying. For those of us who have never lived in a war zone, it may be impossible to realize just how stressful such a situation is and how easy to succumb to the practice of retaliation in the name of protecting one’s own people.

Still, it is up to all of us in the global community to speak clearly for sanity amidst this insane march toward destruction, and to hold up the truth that violence only perpetuates more violence. And we must take actions to support this belief and to support our sisters and brothers in Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, and the entire Middle East.

One action that those living in the U.S. can take is to contact the Bush Administration and Congress to demand that the U.S. take immediate action to help the conflicting parties declare a ceasefire and begin negotiations. We can also organize delegations of peace advocates to Congressional offices. Call the White House (202-456-1111), the U.S. State Department (202-647-4000), and the Congressional switchboard (202-224-3121), which will connect you to your Congressmembers' offices,

Click here for more information on actions you can take to support peace in the Middle East:

http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3326

The Buddhist Peace Fellowship shares the perspective of the United for Peace and Justice coalition: “Just as in Iraq, there is no military solution to the current crisis. The only real and lasting solution is to resolve the source of conflict by negotiating a resolution based on freedom from occupation and equal rights for all as enshrined in international law… The Lebanese government is imploring the international community to press for an immediate ceasefire, for United Nations intervention, a negotiated settlement and release of all prisoners -- Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli.” We at BPF and in the peace movement can and should add our voices to this call, as soon as possible. We join in making this call with friends from groups of all religious traditions, including Jewish Voice for Peace, Tikkun, and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

We recognize that this is a complex issue, and the current situation has widening circles of involvement beyond Israel and Lebanon, with the U.S., Iran, and Syria all implicated. The weapons and financial aid these countries provide to Israel and Hezbollah fuel the fire of this conflict. All parties must be encouraged to see the utter futility of this approach.

BPF calls upon the U.S., as a world leader, to use its diplomatic influence to immediately help bring these parties together in dialogue and to make it clear that the current violent methods are unacceptable. We encourage the U.S. to support the efforts of the United Nations and the European Union to broker a cease fire.

While Hezbollah's attacks on Israel are unconscionable and we should certainly speak out against them, those of us who are Americans must recognize that we have some accountability for the acts of the Israeli defense force. Israel is our close ally, and Israel's weapons have been supplied by the U.S. government. The U.S. Senate has just passed a resolution endorsing Israel's military actions in Lebanon. So it is all the more incumbent upon us to raise our voices. Those of us who live in the U.S. need to pressure our government to withhold financial and military support from Israel when it violates international law by acts of massive retaliation such as the current offensives, and refuses to negotiate with the party the Palestinian people have elected.

Homeland security, in every sense of the word and for all people of the earth, depends on upon our participation in this process.

End the Suffering in the Middle East
By Rabbi Michael Lerner

The people of the Middle East are suffering again as militarists on all sides, and cheerleading journalists, send forth missiles, bombs and endless words of self-justification for yet another pointless round of violence between Israel and her neighbors. For those of us who care deeply about human suffering, this most recent episode in irrationality evokes tears of sadness, incredulity at the lack of empathy on all sides, anger at how little anyone seems to have learned from the past, and moments of despair as we once again see the religious and democratic ideals subordinated to the cynical realism of militarism.

Meanwhile, the partisans on each side, content to ignore the humanity of “the Other,” rush to assure their constituencies that the enemy is always to blame. Each such effort is pointless. We have a struggle that has been going on for over a hundred years. Who tosses the latest match into the tinder box matters little. What matters is how to repair the situation. The blame game only succeeds in diverting attention from that central issue.

Within the context of blame, there’s enough to go around. It all depends on where you start the story. Counting on lack of historical memory, the partisans on all sides choose the place that best fits them into a narrative in which they are the “righteous victims” and the others are the evil aggressors. Palestinians like to start the story in 1948 with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes during the war on Israel proclaimed by neighboring Arab states, and the refusal of the Israeli government to allow these people to return to once the hostilities ceased. Israelis prefer to start the story when Jews were desperately seeking to escape from the genocide they faced in Europe, and a cynical Arab leadership convinced the British military to side with local Palestinians who sought to prevent those Jewish refugees from joining their fellow Jews living in Palestine at the time. I tell the story, and how to understand both sides, in my book Healing Israel/Palestine.

Or one can start more recently, with this summer’s escalation of violence. But where exactly did that start? Please go to the website of Israeli Human Rights Organization B’tselem to see that each side can point to outrageous acts on the part of the other.

Since the death of Yasir Arafat and the assumption of power by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Palestine’s major political factions – Fatah and Hamas – observed a hudna, or ceasfire. Yet Israel, pointing to the fact that Abbas’ police force (decimated by Israeli bombings during the 2nd Intifada of 2001-2003) was unable to fully restrain the violence of Hamas, the Al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade and Islamic Jihad—and used that weakness as its reason to claim that there was “nobody to talk to” when the peace forces in Israel pleaded with former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and later with current PM Ehud Olmert that the Palestinian request for negotiations should be accepted. Instead, Israel announced a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and the northern West Bank (implemented in 2005) and from forthcoming sections of the West Bank (to have begun with the removal of illegal outposts this summer) that would de facto create new borders which would incorporate into Israel large parts of the West Bank that Israel had agreed to leave during the 1990s. Tikkun magazine and Israeli peace forces warned that the unilateral withdrawal, opposed by the Palestinian Authority, would add credibility to Hamas’ claim that all the Palestinian Authority’s efforts at non-violence had produced nothing more than Israel refusing to talk, whereas acts of violence by Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza had led to the IDF withdrawing to protect its soldiers.

It wouldn’t be hard to see why Sharon went ahead with the unilateral withdrawal. If his intention was, as stated, to hold on to as much of the West Bank as possible, it would be far easier to convince the world that “there is nobody to talk to” if Hamas would win the coming election, since Hamas was universally recognized to be a terrorist group. When the Palestinian people complied by falling for this trick and establishing a government run by people who refused to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, it was easy for Olmert to affirm the Sharon unilateralism and announce plans to withdraw from the West Bank that would be the political cover for Israel annexing significant parts of the Occupied Territory. Hamas played its expected role by lobbing Qassam rockets at Israeli population centers, thereby “proving” for the Israeli right that any withdrawal would only intensify Israeli vulnerability and give Israeli hard-liners reason to oppose Olmert’s partial withdrawal as appeasement that had already failed to bring peace in Gaza.

Of course, from the standpoint of Hamas, this was only part of an ongoing struggle to free thousands of Palestinians who continue to be “arrested” (or, from the Palestinian perspective, “kidnapped”) by the IDF, incarcerated without charges or trial for six months in huge prison camps, often subject to torture. Yet Hamas, faced with an economic boycott (including the withholding to Hamas of taxes Israel collected from Palestinians that Israel had previously promised it would give back to the Palestinian Authority) that was preventing it from being able to function as a government, made statements that indicated that it was exploring the idea of de facto recognition in response to the Prisoners document, which threatened to undercut everyone because it was signed by members of every major faction of Palestinians sitting in Israeli jails).

For Israeli militarists and the settlers, Hamas recognition of Israel, however partial, would have been a dramatic propaganda defeat. Within days Israelis began shelling inside Gaza (allegedly to stop Hamas’ firing of Qassam rockets against Israeli population centers). One such shell landed on a Gaza beach, killing a family of eight who were simply enjoying the sun and water. A few days later, a Hamas group captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and Israel used this as its excuse to implement a plan it had developed months before to re-enter Gaza and destroy the Hamas infrastructure.

At this point a huge escalation took place. Instead of narrowly focusing on Hamas’ capacity to make war, the Israelis chose the path of collective punishment, a frequently ineffective counterinsurgency policy used to eliminate public support for resistance movements. In the height of the oppressive summer heat, Israel bombed the electricity grid, effectively cutting off Gaza’s water and the electricity needed to keep refrigeration working, thereby guaranteeing a dramatic decrease in food for the area’s already destitute, million plus population. This act was yet another violation of international law that include the arrests of thousands by Israelis and the shooting of Qassams at population centers by Hamas.

In response, Hezbollah fighters who had occupied the land abandoned by Israel when Israel terminated its occupation of southern Lebanon in 2000, launched an attack on Israeli troops inside Israel in clear violation of the understandings that peace would be maintained on that border—understandings that made it politically possible for Israel to withdraw from Lebanon without fear that its northern citizens would once again be subject to rocket fire that had put many Israelis into bomb shelters off-and-on for years since Israel had invaded Lebanon in 1982.

From the standpoint of some in the Arab world, the attack on Israeli troops in northern Israel was an act of Islamic solidarity in face of the huge escalation taken by Israel against the entire population of Gaza. They argue that what really needs to be explained is not why they acted, but why the rest of the world did not act to demand that Israel end its outrageous punishment of a million people for the acts of a few (when the U.N. tried to act, the right-wing government of the U.S. vetoed a resolution supported by the Security Council majority).

Yet from the standpoint of Israel, the attacks by Hezbollah were a blatant violation of the understanding that had kept Israel out of Lebanon for the past seven years. And in fact, it was also a violation of international law and human rights, subjecting a civilian population to random bombings aimed at terrorizing the population. Hezbollah had shown itself to be the vicious terrorist force that Israel always claimed it to be. People living in Haifa or Tsfat or dozens of other locations in Israel are at this very moment living in the same kind of fear that rekindles the fears of earlier experiences in their lives (some, remember, are Holocaust survivors, others the children of survivors, and many have lived through wars that were explicitly aimed at the annihilation of Israel). Those fears are unfortunately likely to be played on by right wing politicians in the coming years.

Nor should we underestimate the malevolence of Iran and Syria in attempting to stimulate unrest and destabilization. While there are some in both of these countries who genuinely feel outrage at Israeli behavior toward Muslim co-religionists, the record of indifference to the plight of the Palestinians in their own countries and failure to provide material support for Palestine to build up its own economic infrastructure when it was needed suggests that their assistance to Hezbollah comes more from seeking political advantage and domination in the Middle East than from genuine moral solidarity with the Palestinian people. And the fear of Iran, a country whose president out and out denies that there ever was a Holocaust and who explicitly affirms the goal of destroying the State of Israel gives Israelis real reason to worry when his proxies in Hezbollah or Hamas develop the capacity to shoot rockets into Israeli population centers.

What was Israel to do?

Well, had Ariel Sharon been in power, having learned his lesson in Lebanon, he likely would have done the exact same thing he did two years ago when an Israeli businessman was captured by “the enemy”—namely, a prisoner exchange in which hundreds of prisoners are released for a single Israeli. That exchange had been asked for by Hamas and pleaded for by the family of POW Gilad Shalit, but was been rejected by the Israeli government. Please read the analysis of this error, and other articles analyzing the current situation at the daily updates of “Current Thinking” at www.tikkun.org .
The consensus among Israeli peaceniks is that both Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Labor Party Defense Minister Amir Peretz feel the political need to show that they are “strong” and hence the invasion and attack on Lebanon is their only politically possible strategy. For the sake of their egos and their future political viability, they “must” proceed with the wild escalation of the struggle against the Lebanese people, most of whom had exercised their democratic rights by rejecting Hezbollah’s electoral appeals, voting in a government that had only a small minority of Hezbollah within it.

What could Israel still do? It could redefine these issues as minor border irritants, exchange POWS, and unilaterally announce that it will no longer hold arrestees for more than 3 days without filing formal criminal charges against those who had acted with violence and releasing everyone else, giving speedy and public trials, and punishing any soldier or Shin Bet or Aman officer who engages in torture (or, as they call it, “moderate pressure”) on detainees. It could then immediately announce its intentions to strengthen the position of Palestinian Authority President Abbas by giving to him the tax monies withheld from Hamas, and opening “final status” negotiations within two months. Meanwhile, Israel could begin dismantling the Separation Wall, and promise to rebuild it only on the lines of an international border agreed to by both sides. And Israel could unilaterally censor anti-Palestinian incitement within government-controlled media and instead begin to build a culture of non-violence and educate Israelis about the need for reparations to Palestinian refugees.

What could Palestinians do? President Abbas could announce that he is inviting Israel to form a joint Israeli/Palestinian border force to ensure that there are no more violent attacks on Israeli civilians, in exchange for the immediate opening of “final status” negotiations with Israel before any further West Bank withdrawals are created. There were joint patrols and security coordination until Sept. 2,000 and they contributed to the low level of violence on both sides until Ariel Sharon made his famous provocative trip to the Temple Mount. Abbas could further announce that the Palestinian people who elected him are committed to a non-violent (not passive) struggle for ending the Occupation, but that anyone engaged in violence against Israel or against fellow Palestinians would be tried and, if convicted, would lose their Palestinian citizenship. Abbas could tour the West Bank and Gaza preaching non-violence, implement an immediate end to anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric in the Palestinian press and in their schools, and could announce that he is determined to build a culture of non-violence inside Palestine.

What could the U.S. and other Western states do? They could immediately establish an international conference representing all the nations of the world who were willing to accept the right of Israel to exist within the 1967 boundaries and the right of Palestine to exist within Gaza and the West Bank, and let those countries impose on both sides a settlement that is fair to both sides and enforce such a settlement, guaranteeing peace and security to both sides. Each participant country in this international conference would be allowed in after it had given to a neutral international bank a deposit equal to .01% of its GDP for the purpose of creating the beginning of an inernational fund for reparations as described below.

As the Tikkun Community has outlined in the past, the terms of that settlement should include:

1. Permanent boundaries for both states that roughly resemble the pre-67 borders, with some border adjustments mutually agreed to along lines developed in the Geneva Accord (Israel incorporating some of the border settlements into Israel, in exchange for Israel giving equal amounts and quality of land to the Palestinian State).

2. Sharing of Jerusalem and its holy sites, with each side entitled to establish their national capital in Jerusalem, Israel to have control over the Jewish and Armenian quarters plus the Wall and adjacent territory, and Palestine to have control over the Temple Mount with its mosques.

3. All states participating in the International Conference would dedicate at least .1% of their GDP toward an international fund for reparations for Palestinians who lost property, employment or homes in the period 1947-1967, and to Jews who fled from Arab states in the same period (however, reparations will not be paid to any Arab or Jewish family with current gross assets of more than $5 million dollars).

4. A joint Israel/Palestine/International Community police force will be set up to enforce border security for both sides. The U.S. and Nato will enter into a mutual security pact for both parties guaranteeing that each side will be protected by the U.S. and Nato from any assault by the other or by any assault from any other country in the world.

5. Creation of an Atonement and Reconciliation Commission which will unveil all records of both sides, bring to light all violations of human rights on both sides, bring formal charges against those who do not confess their involvement in those violations and testify to the details, and supervise a newly created peace curriculum for all schools and universities aimed at teaching reconciliation and non-violence in action and communication. The explicit goal of this Commission will be to foster the conditions for a reconciliation of the heart and a new understanding on the part of both peoples that each side has been cruel and insensitive, and need to repent, and that both sides have a legitimate natrrative that needs to be understood and accepted as a legitimate viewpoint by the other side.

Who are Israel’s friends and the friends of the Jewish people? Those who support this path toward peace and reconciliation. Who are its enemies? Those who encourage it to persist in the fantasy that it can “win” militarily or politically. Just as the objective enemies of America in the 1960s were those who egged it on to persist in the Vietnam war, and those who were its objective friends were those of its citizens who actively opposed that war, so similarly today the friends of the Jewish people are those who are doing everything possible to restrain it from cheerleadng for Israel’s militarist adventures and refusal to treat the Palestinians as equally entitled to freedom and self-determination as the Jewish people.

Who are Palestine’s friends? Those who encourage a path of non-violence and abandoning the fantasy that armed struggle combined with political isolation of Israel will lead to a good outcome for Palestinians. Who are its enemies? Those who preach ideas like “one state solution” or global economic boycott without offering the Jewish people a secure state in Palestine--paths that will never produce anything positive but continued resistance by Israel and world Jewry.

As for us in the Tikkun Community who are friends of both sides, our orientation is clear. Our goal is to speak truth to both the powerful in Israel and the powerless in Palestine, to tell them that their goals cannot be achieved without a radical reversal in the strategic directions they have been following. This truth will eventually be heard—the only question is whether it will be heard without another generation of Arabs and Israelis losing their lives. Because we care very much about the human suffering on both sides, we pray that this truth will be heard, and our strateges for a solution will be implemented. And we will do more than pray—we will also demonstrate against the governments of the U.S., Israel and Palestine till they all change their directions in the ways suggested here, we will organize and educate, and will take other non-violent stepts to get our message heard.

You can join us. Join the Tikkun Community as a dues paying member at www.tikkun.org . Or help us get our message printed in Israeli and U.S. media or broadcast on public radio and television in the US and Israel—by sending a tax-deductible donation of $300 or more (if you want your name added to the list of signatories who are putting out this message) or less than $300 if you just want to help us get the monies but don’t want to have your name listed). The reason for these funds: buying media space is very expensive, but it’s also the only way to get our message out to a population that has simply never heard anything like the message of Tikkun’s “progressive middle path.” Send donations to TIKKUN (yes, it can also be in the form of a credit card number, expiration date, and name on the card and billing address) c/o Middle East Peace Ad, 2342 Shattuck Ave, Suite 1200, Berkeley, Ca. 94704.
You can take this message and shorten it, write its message as op-eds or letters to the editor. You can ask elected officials or candidates for office in any and every poliical party to endorse it, setting up meetings with their aides if you can’t meet with them, establishing relationships, and continuing to push for this position every few moments. . You can create a local demonstration around this analysis. You can create a study group using Healing Israel/Palestine (North Atlantic Books, 2003) and The Geneva Accord and other Strategies for Middle East Peace (North Atlantic Books, 2004), so that you personally feel empowered to present a progressive middle path as an alternative to the partisans of each side. You can demand of the other peace groups that they work together with Tikkun to create a yearly gathering in Washington, D.C. of all these groups that support this kind of balanced perspective rather than having each meet with elected officials separately in order to build their own separate political power base rather than give the task of changing America’s policies the highest priority (which they’d do by merging with other groups and thus appearing stronger than any group can be on its own). And you can write letters to the governments of Israel and Palestine sharing this perspective, using my words or your own. So don’t just sit there despairing—there is much that can be done, and lives that can be saved.

But lets not abandon prayer, meditation, song and celebration either. We need moments to come together, to nourish our souls, to rekindle our hopefulness, and to joyfully recall all the goodness in the human race, including the goodness of the majority of Israelis, Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and everyone else on the planet!

*********************************************************
Rabbi Michael Lerner is author of Jewish Renewal: A Path to Healing and Transformation (Harper, 1995), Healing Israel/Palestine (North Atlantic Books, 2003), most recently The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right (HarperSanFrancisco, 2006) and seven other books. He is the editor of Tikkun Magazine in Berkeley (510-644 1200) and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue which meets in both San Francisco and Berkeley. www.beyttikkun.org or call 510 528 6250.

Is Israel in charge of world opinion or is it a terrorist police state?

I have never thought so low of Israel until their recent attacks on Lebanon. Hezbollah attacked Israeli SOLDIERS while Israel attacks Lebanese CIVILIANS. If this isn't terrorism, I don't know what is. If the United States government had any credibility, it would declare Israel a terrorist state and implement sanctions.

Hezbollah captured 2 Israeli soldiers, albeit after killing three. In return they wished to negotiate with Israel for the return of those captured by Israel. Israel retaliated bombing major roadways to Damascus, Lebanon's only International Airport, and other targets - killing 50+ CIVILIANS thus far.

In the past Israel has negotiated under these terms. But this time, as one Israeli minister put it, "the rules have changed".

What exactly has changed? Israel does not want sanctions against Iran - they want Iran eliminated. And America could step up and do this according to some. Extremist Israeli like David Horowitz proclaim "The world will not be a safe place or a decent one until the present regime in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Iran are gone. This is a war all Americans must support."

While the Lebanese government has done an admirable job and kicking Syrian influence out, they haven't eliminated Hezbollah. Hezbollah cannot be eliminated, as they provide needed humanitarian aid to southern Lebanon using Iranian money. They are also southern Lebanon's primary political party. To eliminate Hezbollah could mean civil war, but Israel demands they do so.

Ironically Israel is providing the breeding ground for future extremists and harsh resentment of its nation. They are destroying the infrastructure that Lebanon needs to thrive economically, imposing an economic depression on civilians. The ensuing poverty will make Iranian money that much more lucrative through organizations like Hezbollah.

Israel wants peace, but in doing so has decided it best to become what it hates: a terrorist state vowing for the destruction of another nation. Israel wants done to Iran what Iran wants done to Israel. Except the United States has Iran surrounded, and Israel is dictating what is to be done next.

If the price of oil continues its upward climb, the American economy will suffer. The American people will cry for a solution - and a war with Iran may seem fitting. After all, they have oil and "by gosh, they are making this mess in the Middle East." And if the Americans don't come to this conclusion, they media will make it so.

Though this is how it appears currently, I hope for a better solution. With the current American administration in power, the best I can see them doing is ignoring the situation in Israel. Instead they could push for conservation initiatives and end subsidies to oil companies.

I dream that America condemns terrorism in all its forms - including those performed by its allies. Only with a visionary and peaceful leader will this come to fruition. Not a penny of our taxes should support terrorist nations like Israel who wish the death of entire nations.

Republicans - not your primary supporters of rail.

Even though oil prices are skyrocketing, only 71 House Republicans think we need an alternative to airlines. Maybe they would prefer us to be at the whim of the oil barrons?

194 Democrats ( only 4 voting against ) voted for funding. It is obvious which party in America is at least willing keep Amtrak around.

One wonders what Republicans want to do to Amtrak? Bush wants to shut it down - at least everywhere except on the East Coast. The Bush Administration has proposed eliminating funding for Amtrak and spinning the railroad off as a private company. Republicans tried doing this in 1997, and it appears higher oil prices are no worry for them. America could do what Mexico did only a year ago and dismantle the core commuter rail infrastructure. It seems Republicans look to Mexico for leadership on such crucial issues as energy and transportation. But not in 2006 - at least with forward thinking Representatives supporting Amtrak.

How Minnesotan Representatives voted ( AKA 100% partisan ) :

	Representative Gilbert W. 'Gil' Gutknecht	Republican	No
2	Representative John P. Kline	Republican	No
3	Representative James M. 'Jim' Ramstad	Republican	NO
4	Representative Betty McCollum	Democrat/Farmer/Labor	Yes
5	Representative Martin Olav Sabo	Democrat/Farmer/Labor	Yes
6	Representative Mark R. Kennedy	Republican	No
7	Representative Collin C. Peterson	Democrat/Farmer/Labor	Yes
8	Representative James L. Oberstar	Democrat/Farmer/Labor	Yes

Remember when Tim Pawlenty signed that "No new taxes" pledge? A sales impact fee and public-financed stadium later - we know this a joke. It is quite foolish to make a pledge to political party only to be elected to serve all citizens.

Now we in Hennepin County must pay for a stadium owned by a billionaire - and people think Bush is bad for his tax cuts? Obviously Bush's fiscal deficits are bad for America - but both the Minnesota DFL and GOP conspired against one county. Are there not more important things for Hennepin county than a stadium? Is a stadium as worthy to build as better transit, affordable housing, education, and even preventative healthcare? To non-Hennepin politicians - of course not.

For those of us footing the bill - I hope we get free tickets for life. I want entrance at any time - day or not. After all - I am paying for it. And it isn't over. We can find who our Hennepin county commissioner is and contact them. Will that work? Probably not, as they feel they have nothing to lose. But the GOP has much to lose with Pawlenty dissing Hennepin Republicans, and the DFL ( apart from a few like Steve Kelley ) were just as complicit. But the DFL has a stranglehold on the area. Our only hope appears the Green Party in Minneapolis and the Independence Party in the suburbs.

The 2-party monopoly is not very popular in America right now - but few feel there is much choice. The corporate and aristocratic wealth is funding both - ensuring that whoever wins feels indebted partially to them. But while many feel powerless there is hope. Minneapolis could have instant runoff voting soon. IRV, a catalyst for change in how Americans vote, could make profound changes in our "lesser evil" and "spoiler" attitudes towards third parties. Many would consider more candidates and improve 3rd party credibility. It just needs to pass a November referendum. IRV could improve our situation in the 21st century, but we need to try it first.

In "How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America" by Cristina Page, one gets an accurate insight into the future of America. Our future, is not very bright if pro-lifers get their way. It all depends how certain events play out. But in America, when Roe is overturned, 30 states will have outlawed abortion.

Depending on how it is overturned will decide how extreme America will turn in its righteous cause. The fetus could be given the rights of a person. This would have implications beyond anything currently imaginable. How could you use contraception if you could kill a person each time? The guilt will overwhelm Americans, just like their guilt over not being perfect and sinful.

The implications of having abortion illegal go way beyond what your average citizen has time to envision. If a women has a child with birth defects like anencephaly ( no brain syndrome ) , she would be forced to carry it full-term. Infants born with anencephaly are usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain. 95% of Americans have abortions instead of giving birth to an anencephalic child ( about 95,000 a year ). Of the remaining 5%, about 55% are stillborn. The rest usually live only a few hours or days.

Keep in mind that the death rate for abortion is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions and birthrate is 1 in 2500. ( in places like Afghanistan an Africa the death of women giving birth is around 1 in 8 )

In America, the Constitution does not explicitly say we have a right to privacy. Most likely Roe will be overturned by deciding that women do not have the right to make private decisions about their bodies. Your right to contraception could be lost - both male and female. ( as some politicians might interpret them as being abortificants ) Since one no longer has the right to privacy, homosexuality may be outlawed again through sodomy laws. Will the loss of private decisions also be our first march toward fascism, or simply its main roadblock?

We chastise China for not allowing religious freedom, that people will believe in something anyways. We vehemently disagree with their lack of respect for freedom of speech. Yet we will go down the path to less freedom, because the ends justify the means against abortion. But it will not end abortion. (Quite the contrary, more will be aborted then ever before due to lack of contraceptions and sexual education.) You can make and enforce laws against sexuality, but people will keep doing it.

Pro-lifers also ensure their agenda is exported overseas. We promote abstinence as the only solution to AIDS in Africa, and cut all aid to UNPFA. This means more cases of AIDS, fistula, and unsafe abortions throughout the world. They adversely affect the poorest of the poor, just as it does in America - but to the detriment of all mankind.

The fact is countries that have science based sexual education and liberal contraception laws have the lowest abortion rates ( i.e. Sweden , Netherlands ). Also nations that are economically vibrant also contribute to fewer abortions ( unlike Russia ). America has the highest abortion rate in the developed world, and ranks in the middle of the devoloping world. In addition Americans are: 51% Pro-choice and 65% pro-Roe Vs. Wade decision. ( meaning 14% of "pro-lifers" actually support keeping Roe intact ) What it all means is that the pro-life movement isn't responsive to the needs of the American people and works to hinder the lives of all mankind. They squander Americas freedom to implement their agenda at the cost of those least able to afford it.

Pro-lifers heap vile comments against this book deeming it too asbsolute in its findings. Some have comments like this { with my comments} :

Never mind that both abortion and contraception were legal in some { meaning it will only be legal again in some } states well before the Supreme Court decisions that discovered constitutional privacy rights to these things. [ She claims] if Roe v. Wade is overturned, women will be reduced to trying to end their own pregnancies by having their boyfriends whack their bellies with a baseball bat. She never mentions the women who have died from legal abortions in this country. { again look at the above statistics, and you see abortion is 800 times more safe than pregnancy - and pro-lifers are shocked when their wives die giving birth }

Page criticizes crisis pregnancy centers, which pro-life groups have established all across America, because they don't give "accurate information." The thousands of pro-life women who have donated millions of dollars worth of free medical care, [etcetera] will not recognize themselves in her description. { this statement is off subject, and does not address the lies perpetuated by the so called "crisis centers" Those who work at these centers believe contraception IS abortion } In fact,... [ blah blah blah - I have nothing intelligent to say ]

The book explicitly details the individual pro-lifer. They will twist science , usually by taking out of context, to their own belief. And when science consistently dismisses their claims, they ignore it believing it is 'possible' that they are wrong. This is true with most Dominionist agenda, and it is scary how anti-human they have truly become.

A NEW Green movement?

Have you seen the new ad by General Motors? It proclaims: "Energy independence? The answer may be growing in our own backyard." They are promoting FlexFuel Vehicles and their website.

What about Kermit the frog being used to sell Escape Hybrid SUVs for Ford? "I guess it is easy being green" are the caption along with its SUV being the most efficient. They get 36mpg city!

Then there are ads by Chevron asking us to find solutions to our energy problems. They are dispelling a lot of myths with their ads like: "Russian, Iran, and Qatar have 58% of the world's natural gas reserves. The United States has 3%. Will you join us?" they ask.

Pick up the latest Wired Magazine and one could see these ads within the first few pages. They would first see the cover with Al Gore and captions of how we can fight environmental destruction with capitalism and technology. I am rather skeptical of this new movement. They want to ignore a radical change in our way of life and assume and easier route is possible. How much more ignorant could they be?

Here's a clip from an article about a 'new Green movement' or as I call it greenwashing gone mainstream:

"

Green-minded activists failed to move the broader public not because they were wrong about the problems, but because the solutions they offered were unappealing to most people. They called for tightening belts and curbing appetites, turning down the thermostat and living lower on the food chain. They rejected technology, business, and prosperity in favor of returning to a simpler way of life. No wonder the movement got so little traction. Asking people in the world's wealthiest, most advanced societies to turn their backs on the very forces that drove such abundance is naive at best.

With climate change hard upon us, a new green movement is taking shape, one that embraces environmentalism's concerns but rejects its worn-out answers. Technology can be a font of endlessly creative solutions. Business can be a vehicle for change. Prosperity can help us build the kind of world we want. Scientific exploration, innovative design, and cultural evolution are the most powerful tools we have. Entrepreneurial zeal and market forces, guided by sustainable policies, can propel the world into a bright green future."
~~

The electric zeal in which these writers proclaim a new era remind me of another ancient period: the dot-com boom. Journalists can afford to be glib about a 'green' future involving little personal sacrifice or change in our livelihoods while energy is cheap. But when oil prices continue skyrocketing, will converting food to ethanol be efficient? Will more starve so the rich can continue to drive their SUVs - is this a true green movement?

One way that is continually refuted by the tech-heads is to go carfree. This is not simple in our society of instant gratification, but it changes ones perspective. I dare anyone to try it for 3 months and still try explaining coherently of its ineffectiveness . The money saved alone can improve not just ones pocketbooks but ones community. You meet more neighbors walking and riding the bus, you become more immersed in a world you may not have realized existed.

Oil prices got you down? It seems that President Bush is still clueless as how to improve the situation. He is diverting attention from stemming our oil addiction to preventing price gouging, eliminating environmental regulations, and using ethanol. Of course, he has finally decided that oil subsidies are no longer necessary. Will these subsidies be diverted to renewable energy? Highly doubtful, unless congress somehow becomes enlightened.

We could save 18 cents per gallon by eliminating the Federal gas tax. This could happen, but it is penny wise and pound foolish. How would Federal highways be funded? Through income tax - whether you drive on them or not.

Of course, no one is discussing peak oil in the mainstream. Nor are we preparing for it - except for San Francisco. But we can learn what to do from an unlikely source: Cuba. A documentary has just been released by Community Solutions. The film documents the island nation’s emergency transition to energy-saving local organic agriculture, renewable energy, and large-scale mass transit following the loss of more than 50 percent of its oil after the Soviet Union collapse in 1990. Anyone seriously interested in a sustainable solution for our energy problems should view this video.

San Francisco - the first American city to address Peak Oil

San Francisco tends to lead many left-wing causes and has been leaning Green more lately than the average city. The San Francisco peak-oil resolution will not just change life in their city, but those wise enough to follow their lead. I truly hope that something like this is passed in Minneapolis and other cities throughout the region.

Our current Federal leadership isn't ignorant to this issue, they just would rather their oil buddies profit. They also believe the "free market" will solve our energy woes. Of course for the rest of the Republican Party, God will either save us or hasten the Apocalypse. Democrats are no better, embracing free trade and Globalization as giddily as their opponents. Yet Roscoe Bartlett is doing his best to convince members of Congress to take up the issue - and many Democrats are on board. May the Peak Oil Caucus grow as the public demands a response on this issue.

Of course we can all do our own part: reduce, reuse, recycle and live as green as possible. Politics can't force the American people to change their addiction habits. We must admit our addiction and work liberate ourselves.

Bush Is My Shepherd
Psigh 23

Bush is my shepherd. I dwell in want.

He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.

He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.

He restoreth my fears.

He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war I will find no exit, for thou art in office.

Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.

Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.

Thou anointest your wallet with foreign oil.

My health insurance runneth out.

Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy term

And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.

Hybrid Talk: Big Auto Bandies the H Word

By Bradley BermanTue Apr 11, 8:08 AM ET

Hybrids used to be the environmentalists' great shining hope for
combating auto pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and gas guzzling.
Those were the romance days for hybrids, the first two or three years
following their introduction in 2000. But the honeymoon is over. With
the emergence of performance-oriented hybrids and ultra-mild hybrid
systems, environmentalists now see the technology as one more example
of how Big Auto has hoodwinked consumers into believing their products
are as green as they can possibly get.

But it may be too late for the auto makers to put the hybrid cat back
in the bag. Everybody has seen what the best of hybrid technology can
do, shattering Detroit's myth that it lacks the know-how to greatly
extend average fuel economy. "Hybrids are the poster child for the
fuel economy debate," says Jason Mark, director of the Clean Vehicles
Program for the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, like the Sierra Club, BlueWater
Network, the Rainforest Action Network/Global Exchange, and others,
share the view that the latest hybrids are being used as greenwash,
but they appear divided on which car company is the worst culprit. The
UCS, for example, sees General Motors (NYSE:GM - News) as enemy No. 1.
They have applied the term "hollow hybrid" to GM's current hybrid
offerings.

"Bad Boys." "We think that hybrid technology ought to be reserved for
the environmental and consumer benefits [it] can deliver," says UCS's
Jason Mark. "Every quasi-hybrid under the sun is being labeled as a
hybrid for public relations benefits." Mark thinks that hybrid
technology should be put to better uses than turning a 16-mpg vehicle
into an 18-mpg vehicle. "The point is not to turn extreme gas-guzzlers
into moderate gas guzzlers."

What perturbs Mark and others is not only the mislabeling or misuse of
hybrid technology on the part of certain auto makers, but that those
same auto makers are lobbying and litigating to block any public
policy that will hold them accountable for the detrimental
environmental and social effects of their products. Mark calls GM "the
bad boys of public policy for fuel economy, emissions, and greenhouse
gases. In all public forums, they are the most aggressive in fighting
environmental regulations. If you ask anybody to rank the auto makers
on their policy performance, GM would be on the bottom."

The folks at Jumpstart Ford, a project of Global Exchange and the
Rainforest Action Network, might disagree. Their disapproval and
public protests are aimed at the Ford Motor Co (NYSE:F - News).
Jennifer Krill, zero emissions campaign director for the Rainforest
Action Network, thinks that Ford deserves credit for producing the
Ford Escape Hybrid. But, she said, the same year that Ford released
the Escape Hybrid, they "had the worst overall fuel-efficiency record.
One hybrid doesn't let them off the hook for being the most wasteful
auto maker."

Nobody'S Perfect. Don't think that Prius-producing Toyota has escaped
the attention of the environmentalists. Last fall, when Toyota (TM)
launched its "Hybrid Synergy Drive" ad campaign, BlueWater Network
launched its own campaign, entitled "Toyota: A Wolf in Sheep's
Clothing." The full-page ads in The New York Times and other
publications showed CEO Katsuaki Watanabe in the foreground and a man
wearing a wolf's head in the background.

"What people don't know, and what we wanted to tell them, is that
Toyota is not as green as it makes itself out to be," says Danielle
Fugere, director of climate change at BlueWater. "Yes, it has some
good green technology, like the Prius. But Toyota has consistently
lobbied against every attempt to increase vehicle fuel economy. It's
part of a group of auto makers suing against California's greenhouse
gas law."

While the various environmental groups have each chosen a different
company to target for their public education campaigns, they stand
unified in their criticism of the auto makers who have sued California
to block the enactment of AB1493, the greenhouse gas capping law known
as the Pavley Law. The regulation, which could affect as much as 30%
of the U.S. market (not just California), would be phased in from 2009
to 2016. It would require the auto industry to cut greenhouse gas
emissions from its new fleets by approximately 30%.

Major Lawsuit. The response from auto makers is that greenhouse gas
restrictions are a surrogate for fuel economy, because increasing fuel
efficiency is the only effective way to reduce the amount of carbon
dioxide released into the atmosphere. Therefore, they claim,
California is trying to regulate fuel economy standards, which only
can be established at the federal level. Otherwise, they argue,
manufacturers would have to produce vehicles based on two or more
different emissions standards. [In fact, tailpipe emissions are
already set at the state level.]

BlueWaterNetwork, Rainforest Action Network, Global Exchange, the
Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, and the National Resources Defense
Council have all joined the lawsuit to defend the Pavley Law against
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Alliance of
International Automobile Manufacturers, which includes all of the
major carmakers, including those who sell hybrids.

The state of California and the environmental groups say that
greenhouse gas emissions are not strictly related to fuel economy.
"The auto makers can comply by using alternative-fuel vehicles," says
Blue Water's Fugere. "In some cases, an alternative-fuel vehicle will
get less fuel economy. California doesn't care if fuel economy goes up
or goes down. We want to know how much CO2 is coming up from the
tailpipe."

Green Challenge. The legal contest, scheduled for 2007, is shaping up
into the biggest battle over automobile emissions and efficiency since
CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] was enacted 30 years ago. And it
highlights the fact that producing a hybrid -- however you define it
-- no longer makes a car company a green company. "I would like to
have a name like 'hybrid' denote this is a great, fuel-efficient
vehicle," says Fugere. "Point of fact, the auto manufacturers are
using the hybrid terminology to fool people."

Now the only way for a car company to be considered environmentally
friendly is to remove its name from the lawsuit blocking the Pavley
Law. Toyota? Honda? Ford? Anybody?

Only in a car-centric world do the elderly get ticketed for taking too long to cross the street. Hard to believe, but true:
---
An 82-year-old woman received a $114 ticket for taking too long to cross
a street. Mayvis Coyle said she began shuffling with her cane across
Foothill Boulevard in the San Fernando Valley when the light was green,
but was unable to make it to the other side before it turned red.

She said the motorcycle officer who ticketed her on Feb. 15 told her she
was obstructing traffic.

"I think it's completely outrageous," said Coyle, who described herself
as a Cherokee medicine woman. "He treated me like a 6-year-old, like I
don't know what I'm doing."

Los Angeles police Sgt. Mike Zaboski of the Valley Traffic Division said
police are cracking down on people who improperly cross streets because
pedestrian accidents are above normal. He said he could not comment on
Coyle's ticket other than to say that it is her word against that of the
citing officer, identified only as Officer Kelly.

"I'd rather not have angry pedestrians," Zaboski said. "But I'd rather
have them be alive."

Others, however, supported Coyle's contention that the light in question
doesn't give people enough time to cross the busy, five-lane boulevard.

"I can go halfway, then the light changes," said Edith Krause, 78, who
uses an electric cart because she has difficulty walking.

On Friday, the light changed too quickly even for high school students
to make it across without running. It went from green to red in 20 seconds.

Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said she has asked transportation officials to
figure out how to accommodate elderly people.

"We should look at those areas with predominantly seniors and
accommodate their needs in intersections" she said.