Wednesday, February 22, 2006



I am rather excited about the new changes at Xcel Energy. Hopefully this new pro-wind CEO of theirs follows through with his amazing announcement.

NEW XCEL CEO
BULLISH ON WIND POWER



Dick Kelly, who replaced Wayne Brunetti as CEO of Xcel Energy on July 1, told a receptive luncheon crowd at the South Dakota Wind Energy Conference on September 12 (see related story) that "we're a big supporter of wind. We think it is an important part of the United States energy policy. We just need to keep working on [renewable energy supplies]. And at Xcel Energy we will do that."


Kelly, who began working for Xcel predecessors 38 years ago as a meter reader, reviewed the purchase of electricity from wind power across the Xcel service territory that spans 10 states and serves four million customers. Xcel currently buys power from about 900 MW of wind power, and expects that to increase to 2,500 MW by 2012. In order to achieve that level of wind supply in the Xcel system, he said, more transmission lines will need to be built. "Where the wind blows - that's not where people live." Xcel Energy has launched a $160 million project to help solve that problem by adding high- and medium-voltage power lines to increase the transmission capacity from the Buffalo Ridge in southwestern Minnesota to the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn. Those lines are expected to be in service by 2007.

Kelly also called for changes in the regulation of utilities that would further facilitate wind power development. He suggested that financial ratings agencies are beginning to place obligations to buy wind power from independent power producers on the company's balance sheet, even though the company doesn't own the projects. He called for regulators to help the company address that issue.

Kelly also said that "the utility should have the same opportunity to benefit from wind development that independent developers have." However, independent power producers start receiving a return on their investment as soon as they begin producing power, while utilities must wait until the next rate case is heard by regulators before they can begin to recover their investment. With new rules for cost recovery, Kelly said, utilities can become directly involved in the investment in wind farms.

Finally, he called for coherent, cohesive policies. He cited the varying renewable energy standards that have been adopted in various states, as well as the inconsistency in federal energy policies. However, he said, given a consistent policy, regardless of what it is, "if you give us a challenge and say that you want [to meet a particular renewables goal], we'll deliver that. But the rules have to be consistent and apply fairly to everyone; then we can play the game." Kelly went on, "I don't know what the number is, whether it's 5% or 10% or 20%. In time it needs to grow, there's no doubt about it, because the science is pretty sound that we do need to do something. So, we need the rules to be clarified so we can play, then we'll play and we'll deliver what you need. We are very sensitive to what the customers need, and we're very sensitive to the environment ourselves. You don't have to drag Xcel kicking and screaming onto the side [of using renewables]. It's the right thing to do, and we will do the right thing. Whatever the community wants, whatever the customer is looking for, we promise that we'll deliver that to you, which is very exciting!"

Wednesday, February 15, 2006


Dick Cheney and the Quail that got away. Well, that is how it seems - or rather his shooting of another person has gotten away.

Yeah, there are concerns over whether the administration is secretive. How is this new? The Bush Administration is consistently secretive - I don't care as much about that as what their actual decisions are.

Some have brought up that the shooting could have been alcohol related. Also, the birds on this ranch are rather stupid and timid. They are easy shots. So why did he miss and hit another hunter? Oh, well. How about we put the story in a cartoon , maybe even a bumper sticker, and move onto more important issues like:

1) The National Debt and fiscal sanity
2) Fossil Fuel Dependence / Global Warming
3) Healthcare
4) Election and political contribution reform
5) War against terrorism / Global stabilization

I do not think many partisans would disagree that these are important issues that require thought. Let's not make a consistent every-day Watergate style coverage of this pathetic shooting. Let it works its own way out while we concentrate on more important matters.

Monday, February 13, 2006


Roscoe Bartlett - redeeming the Republican Party - or an exceptional radical?

Roscoe is no doubt a staunch Conservative. He believes in less government,is anti-choice, and homophobic. But he also believes that Peak Oil - or peak production of worldwide oil - is a BIG issue. The fact this looming crisis has gone ignored speaks more of the post-Carter political landscape.

In his State of the Union address last month, President Bush said the country is "addicted to oil" and highlighted the need to invest in alternative energy sources.

"I would have hoped that he would have said more," Bartlett said. "Two words were conspicuously absent, conservation and efficiency."

Representative Bartlett of Maryland founded the Peak Oil Caucus in 2005. He has created a bipartisan movement that will grow in momentum as oil prices spiral further to the sky. Members as of November 2005 are:

Time will tell how effective this Peak Oil Caucus will be. Representative Bartlett can get 2 individual visits with President Bush to discuss the subject. He has also collaborated with several of congressmen to get bills passed to help Americas true energy problems. I feel he is doing what he can to prepare our country. Regardless if the Republicans stay in charge or not - this group will become an important part of American politics for years to come.

Sunday, February 12, 2006


Sweden versus Minnesota in renewables... ( guess who's winning?)

It seems Sweden is VERY serious about kicking the oil habit - prior to peak oil production even. Interesting how a responsible an proactive government can actually improve the lives of a country long-term. Of course in America we sell ourselves to short-term interests - mortgaging the future generations standard of living. Example - the Minnesota Republican party:

"State Capitol lobbyists recently received a two-page invitation to a fundraiser for the House Republican caucus, signed by the influential chairmen of two House committees.

The letter listed the Republican majority's "accomplishments" for regulated industries, which included such pro-industry goals as blocking renewable-energy standards, and a reminder that the same issues will be before the committee in 2006." - Star Tribune 8-Feb-06

And even the House Speaker states: "I probably wouldn't have written the letter that way," Sviggum said. "I can tell you with absolute certainty that it is not pay-to-play in our Legislature."

SURE it isn't pay-to-play. All Republicans want to abort any attempts to increase the amount of renewables produced by our state. DFLers highly support the bill - along with ONE Republican:Rep. Dennis Ozment ofRosemount. (You GOPers are pathetic.)

Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul wants 20% of Minnesotan electricity to be renewable by 2020. Proponents say that fast-rising fossil fuel prices and public concern about global warming will help their cause and that almost 90 percent of Minnesotans back the principle of relying less on oil. Renewable energy accounts for about 2 or 3 percent of Minnesota's total, Anderson said, and the state imports a greater percentage of its electricity than any other state. ( Star-Trib )

Currently Sweden produces 26% of their electricity from Renewables and plan to be oil-free by 2020. It goes to show that politicians can talk all they want about being "energy independent" - but they must actually invest in that goal. I have seen too many Republicans tout this theme - they can make plenty of statements but I prefer action to words.

With such a pathetic track record - and with few Independent Republicans left - I must turn my back on considering the local Elephants.

-------

A little note on Independent Republicans:

The Independent-Republican Party (I-R) was the name used for the party from November 15, 1975 until September 23, 1995. The party added "Independent" to its name after the Watergate affair in an attempt to distance itself from the national party. During most of the 1970s and into the early 1980s more moderate leadership prevailed within the party, but the party gradually grew more conservative. Several more moderate Republican candidates and officeholders have now left the party (including former governor Arne Carlson and former U.S. Senator Dave Durenberger), with some of them moving to the Independence Party of Minnesota, which considers itself a centrist party.

Friday, February 10, 2006



Moving America Forward?

There is a California organization that thinks it can "prove" why we went to Iraq. They believe the same rhetoric even our President hasn't repeated very often lately:

**LIE #1: That Saddam killed his own people sorry -
the Truth: KURDS are not his people. He committed crimes against another ethnic group. )

**LIE #2: Saddam and Bin Laden were good pals
the Truth:When Iraq under Saddam Hussein ordered a military invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, Bin Laden called for jihad against Saddam and asked the Saudi government for permission to send jihadists to protect the country and help liberate Kuwait.

**Lie #3: Those killed by our military and coalition forces are all terrorists:
the Truth: Apart from the children and families we accidentally murder( I will not discuss my experiences now) - MOST of the problems in Iraq are due to ethnic and tribal tensions that have been in existence for centuries. These tensions often lead to prolonged periods of violence and will most likely culminate in a civil war if we leave Iraq ( or occur while we are there). Those killed are not terrorists to America - but to "their own people" - or those of other ethnic or tribal backgrounds.

**Deception: "the terrorists know they can not defeat our military -- they can only win by beating down the morale of the American people."
the Truth: While I agree that the terrorists going head-on-head against our military would not survive - it is also ridiculous to think they will do this.

Our military cannot "root out the terrorists" - even with billions of dollars thrown at them. The military fights conventional wars - it is not smart enough to get all the terrorists - unless we want a "thought police" and a neverending spy campaign on all civilians. To me this war on terror brings these ideas into the acceptable realm of government activities.

And apart from the ads - let's dig into the administration a little with regards to terrorists:
"We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

I was in Iraq when Mr. McClellan made this statement - while we were dealing with terrorists - supposedly "negotiating" with them. This business of not doing so is utter crap. We deal with terrorists if our government thinks they are of future value (i.e. war with Iran). If they are not of value - we lock them up until they are freed or actually proven to be enemies of America.

And even if these groups are "put out of business" - do we really need a "graceful degredation" of an organization over 30 years while giving them all the support and protection that they need? To me it is pathetic and a waste of resources. But that is what is happening.

-

The truth is always more complex than the simple arguments used in debates. Nothing is simple. The war isn't solely about oil - nor has it nothing to do with terrorism. It has parts of each - and it seems that only looking back on this war 30 years from now will we be able to see it for what it truly is.

I believe this moment in time is critical to the future of humanity. We can either use Iraq as a stepping stone to a World War over Oil - or we can change our violent and consumption mentalities and create a better world. I truly think we will blow this opportunity for the future of Earth - which is fine because those who have learned this lesson most likely will not be reborn here again ( unless they choose to learn another lesson here).

Earth isn't here to become a utopia - the Garden of Eden will never be on Earth - assuming it ever was . Those on Earth are destined to continue making the same mistakes over and over until we realize certain truths - like preventing horrible things from happening instead of letting the. There is a reason history repeats itself: those who have learned from it do not stay around for long. The lesson being learned they move onto another world - be it "better" or not.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006


I think it is always good to de-mythize certain untruths. Especially at the beginnings of the month. I found these on The Transportation Alliance website:

The Top Ten Transportation Myths

1. Gas tax revenue goes into the General Fund and is used for all sorts of things besides highway projects.

The Truth: Revenue from the state's gas tax is constitutionally dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund and must be used for "highway purposes."

2. Money from an increase in the gas tax will be drained away by expensive passenger rail projects.

The Truth: Gas tax money cannot be used for transit (See number 1). Also, passenger rail projects are not any more expensive than highway projects in the metropolitan area.

3. An increase in the gas tax will pose an undue burden on residents.

The Truth: A 5 cent increase in the gas tax will cost the average drive $40 to $45 per year - less than one evening on the town or tickets to a major sporting event. And an increase of 5 cents would generate over $150 million each year for needed highway projects. The gas tax has not been increased since 1988 and our 20 cent gas tax is now only worth about 13 cents in purchasing power due to inflation.

4. The Department of Transportation can't spend any more money.

The Truth: Mn/DOT, counties and cities have a backlog of highway projects planned for the next 10-20 years that could be moved up with more revenue. It takes some time to get these projects going in a department that has been starved for funding and hasn't been able to maintain the staff for huge construction programs. That's exactly why we need stable funding sources like the gas tax.

5. Minnesota doesn't have a congestion problem, what's the big deal?

The Truth: According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the growth in congestion in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area is second only to Atlanta. The time and fuel we waste stuck in traffic costs each of us over $600 per year. That's the "congestion tax" we're currently paying.

6. No one wants to use transit.

The Truth: Transit systems are struggling to meet demand. Park-and-Ride lots are overflowing in the metropolitan are and bus systems in Greater Minnesota don't have the resources to serve everyone who needs bus service. In fact, 16 counties in Minnesota don't have bus service throughout the county and 6 counties have no public transit service at all. In 2000, Minnesota's public transit systems provided about 89 million rides.

7. The public doesn't support increased spending for transportation.

The Truth: Poll after poll shows that the public wants something done to alleviate congestion and improve highway safety.

8. Business interests don't support increased funding for transportation.

The Truth: Business owners are particularly concerned about congestion. Businesses lose money when workers and goods are stuck in traffic. This year, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce organized a transportation coalition that supported a 5 cent increase in the state's gas tax to fund needed highway improvements as well as additional funding for transit to get workers to their jobs.

9. All of the revenue from the sales tax on motor vehicles goes to fund the transportation system.

The Truth: While there have been attempts to dedicate the sales tax from motor vehicles to transportation, historically this sales tax has been treated like all other sales taxes with the revenue deposited in the general fund. This changed a few years ago when the Governor cut license tab fees and used a portion of the money from the sales tax on motor vehicles to make up for a cut in funding to the Highway Trust Fund. Dedicating all of the money from this sales tax to transportation is one of the options the legislature should seriously consider.

10. 2002 wasn't the year to deal with a transportation funding package, we'll do it next year.

The Truth: We've heard that line for about 14 years! The last time the gas tax was increased was 1988. The fact is, the legislature and the Governor failed to address a critical state issue. Voters should hold them accountable for their inability to deal with this problem when they go to the polls in November. Mobility isn't something we can afford to wait for. Our economy depends on it.
-----------------

it has been rather apparent that Pawlenty and even Ventura could have gone even further in finding decent and stable revenue for MNDOT. At least Minnesota Voters Can Dedicate Funds to Transit - in a November 2006 statewide referendum. I am rather confident it will pass - even though Pawlenty vetoed it. Of course I will be vetoing him as well this fall - though I cannot say that he won't win ( especially if the DFL picks someone lame to run again).

Friday, January 27, 2006



Why we need a Global Green Party:

There are many who claim that the Green Party is just another left-wing party. In the United States, there are those who claim that the Green Party undermines Democracy. Even those whom I admire (i.e. Sarah Vowell) believe them to be only spoilers. In England, I doubt the consensus is Greens spoil elections - and take votes from Labor and Social Democrats. England doesn't have the harsh ballot access laws America does.

Right wingers and Christian Conservatives, equate evil with socialism. They feel that socialism will lead the way to Godless Communism. And many equate the Green Movement with socialism. But where the Green Movement lacks, we see devastation of the environment and lack of economic sustainability. Case in point: Latin America. Today, Hugo Chavez and Lula da Silva are creating a natural gas pipeline that will devastate the Amazon Rain Forest. Unfortunately, the Greens cannot stop this travesty in Latin America - Socialists are in charge.

The Green Party and the Green Movement are two movements working intermittently with each other to reach a postive environmental and economic goals. For those not voting for Greens or unable to - changing personal consumption habits is attainable. You can support positive solutions - ESPECIALLY in a developed nation like Estados Unidos! Fair Trade, Organic, Recycled, environmentally friendly, consumer-supported agriculture(CSAs), products abound - but one can easily recycle more and reduce consumption - and put more money in the bank! OR one could work less - either way it is a win for a higher quality of life for people and planet! A simpler life is both attainable and improves local economies!

I honestly do not see how one could not be both conservative politically AND part of the Green Movement. As conservatives tend to be those who are promoting biodiesel, and transit - while Republicans also started the Peak Oil caucus in America.

Now where are the Democrats? Oh yes, taking ballot-access away from Greens! THAT is such an honorable and humbling way to assist in democracy and improving the environment! They were VERY effective in closing the door to Nader as well! Of course - their anti-democratic ways will affect ALL future third-parties ( which is the point).

Regardless of party, living as you wish to see the world is the best thing one can do in this life. Politics is a very difficult field to implement sustainable strategies - unless there is a foundation built first. The way we live our lives influences those in power - and vice versa.

--------------
$20 billion gas pipeline planned for rain forest

1/26/2006
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) - Environmentalists were caught off-guard when South American leaders announced plans to build a natural gas pipeline through the Amazon rain forest.

Proponents say the $20 billion project, still in early planning stages, would help satisfy the growing demand for gas and help make South America less dependent on outside sources.

But environmentalists say that it could damage part of the Amazon - the world's largest wilderness - by polluting waterways, destroying trees and creating roads that could draw ranchers and loggers.

Glenn Switkes of the International Rivers Network said if the pipeline is built, it would inevitably foul the environment.

Brazil's rain forest is as big as Western Europe and is thought to contain at least 30 percent of all plant and animal species on the planet.

Monday, January 23, 2006



Why on EARTH would I support Sue Jeffers? And are the Libertarians clueless?

I don't like her stance on indoor smoking. I never stepped FOOT into a bar ( unless with relatives at a younger age) - until the smoking ban went into effect. I will admit - I was in Iraq at that time. But when I had my 2 weeks off - yes I did actually decide to go to a bar. ( Viking Bar on Riverside Avenue )

It's pretty simple why I went to the announcement of her candidacy - to see who her supporters were. Were these the same Libertarians who had a meeting with Jesse Ventura and then blasted him for building light-rail? Yes - indeed they were. [ If light-rail could be run as a profitable business, the private sector,risking its own capital and not taxpayer dollars, would enter the market.] Unfortunately they forgot that our ROADS are not run by for-profit businesses.

The Minnesotan Libertarians are definetely extremists. They are against not just some taxes but ALL taxes. They want NO government - or at least only one that supports the Consitution. Unfortunately, they want our state and local governments to adhere to the same standards. This is where we disagree - I believe in a strong state and local government - and want a Federal government that has no debts. But I do not wish the eradication of government.

The big thing about Libertarians is their lack of understanding as to what the purpose of government is. They feel we should all "self-govern." That is if we have a dispute with anyone - it should be settled only between those two members. I specifically asked what their take on the environment is - they think individual owners should take on polluters. WOW - so when Xcel Energy owns a coal-burning plant that adds mercury to the atmosphere and ending up strewn throughout Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan - the individual owners must deal with this themselves. I can only IMAGINE the lawsuits in a "Utopian Libertarian Society."

The biggest surprise of the night for myself was meeting Jeremy MacKinney there. I guess he has been a Libertarian for quite a while - as he is in charge of several related Meetup groups. The meetup group I have been semi-involved with is one pertaining to Peak Oil. He believes it would be "nice" to have the free-market solve our problems - yet is cynical it will happen. Again, what is he to do? Blame the government for not preparing us or not allowing a "free-enough market.?" I think we give the oil industry free reign above and beyond necessity. And as a Libertarian - how can you complain about the government not doing something for you? He had no real answer apart from free-marketism.

Libertarians are just clueless with regards to what a government is. A government is where people can solve a mass amount of problems that individuals simple cannot do alone. If I find my property is polluted with a substance (i.e. mercury ) who do I take to court? Do I take every business that could have possibly influenced this to court within 50 miles of my home? Wouldn't that actually disempower many people to actually do something? But a government CAN do something - they can impose standards to reduce lethal and toxic emissions. They can require the recycling of harmful electronics - and impose taxes to non-renewable substances thereby improving sustainable investments.

Sue Jeffers said this in running for Minnestoa Governor: "I am running for governor because people are fed up with the two-party system and voters want an alternative choice that truly represents them. My neighbors, co-workers, friends, family and the public have been ignored. I will be their voice in this election."

The reasons she is running could have easily have came from ANY third party candidate. I am not excluding ANY political party in any election - though my social values lean me against the Republicans.

I will be honest in that I have supported the Libertarians since 1998 - 7 years of supporting their National organization. Part of my money went to the crazies in Minnesota who think our State government is too excessive. I think they have lost touch with reality - our state governs 100 times better than states like Mississippi,Texas, or Alabama. I no longer feel the Libertarians to be a viable alternative if their belief in State government is the same as Federal. And now that their membership dues are zilch - I could stay a member(but why?). And I will use my money to support better alternatives - like the Greens.

Sunday, January 08, 2006


Profiting from peak oil -- or creating an sustainable future?

I found this rather interesting. Guiness Atkinson Funds is now looking for investors to profit from our energy dependence on fossil fuels. This is nothing new - and it would make sense to invest in it and then use your returns to finance alternative resources. Profits would be made at the expense of people's finances - both developed and developing nations - and the poorest being hurt worst. But nonetheless their site states:

*** Dr. Colin J. Campbell at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil estimates the global oil peak in production will occur in 2008. Guinness Atkinson Funds is estimating the global peak oil production year will occur between 2015 and 2020 (see chart at left). We suspect that soon, daily oil demand will outstrip daily oil production capacity, potentially creating an opportunity to profit from the ownership and exploitation of the world's dwindling hydrocarbon reserves. ***

As the situation hits mainstream investors more - I foresee more speculation from investment firms and investors that this is the way to go. Only those who want to risk their fortunes will pour it into renewable resources - of course those would be the smarter long-term investment. But the globalized society of investors only look to the next quarter. And if they see oil as a strong investment each quarter and wind as a smaller profit-margin - then so be it.

For those of us who want to improve our finances as well as invest in items beneficial to future generations - there are options. I have been informed by Brian Walter Antonich of Minneapolis based Windustry, that there is an organization linking small and large investors to renewable energy projects. The organization is known as C-BED or Community-Based Energy Development.

But for those of us in Minnesota - C-BED also presents us an opportunity to own our own wind:

1/2 of All New Wind Capacity in Minnesota to be C-BED!

Nov 8 2005 - Today the Pawlenty administration has established a goal of bringing 800 MW of C-BED wind energy on-line by 2010. Minnesota currently has 615 MW of existing wind capacity and 123.6 MW is being installed in 2005. According to the MN Dept of Commerce, 2,275 MW of wind energy is needed in Minnesota by 2010, which means that more than 1/2 of all new wind energy in Minnesota the next 5 years is expected to be C-BED, resulting in over a billion dollars of wind energy investment in Minnesota's rural communities and farm economies.

I have signed up to be linked up for the minimum investment of $1000. I personally hope that I am actually able to be part of something that is positive in regards to financial investments and promoting renewable energy. I hope that those who can invest in our state's, region's, and planet's future can do so as well.

Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Minnesotans pay more in Federal taxes - and get least benefit

We Minnesotans get the least amount back in paying our taxes than most states. The only state to get less in per-capita spending was Nevada. Nevada is a state without a state income tax - making it the state with the smallest government in America. ( Nevada also boasts the fast-growing and unsustainable Las Vegas )

Minnesotans pay $4409 per-capita in state and local taxes.Minnesota pays the 4th highest Federal taxes per capita in the US - $2,888.63. For every dollar Minnesotans pay in Federal Income Taxes - we get about 76 cents.

Obviously we are propping up neighboring states and then "stealing" their intellectual talent. But nonetheless - I would appreciate a more regional approach to spending tax dollars than what we currently have. We should keep the dollars flowing in a balanced fashion by region. But then Washington D. C might have to cut back.


Monday, December 26, 2005


Growing the Windustry

We Minnesotans have a very valuable asset in the 21st Century energy market - wind. We have over 700 turbines churning on the Buffalo Ridge. Unfortunately, only about 35 are Minnesota owned. Obviously if we want our energy to be used for Minnesota - our state citizens will have to start investing in it. There are a few options to do this: investing in companies like Winfinity , Project Resources Corporation,and Dan Mar Associates. Also every utility in Minnesota is required to purchase wind powe. Xcel Energy will produce 800 megawatts a year by 2013. (I will add more investment opportunities if I am informed of others )

Currently Minnesota produces 615 megawatts a year from wind. Obviously this will grow as demand for renewable energy grows and incentives to produce them become more serious in nature. ALL Minnesotans can support wind through their current utility company. It costs me little more than $2 a month. And it is easy to participate if you contact them. I hope that more will invest in our future and our planet's sustainability. Maybe you could make it part of your New Year resolution?

Friday, December 23, 2005




















Activist Pharmacists

I have been reading about pharmacists who feel they have an unpaid duty. They must enforce their religious beliefs on others. Birth control prescriptions and ritalin will not be filled when they are on the job! Same thing with that herpes medication - it's their punishment after all! Of course this does mean one is robbing potential patrons of their individual rights - but one has to impose their moral causes.

The interesting thing is that pharmacists feel they should have this right.
HCD Research surveyed more than 850 pharmacists earlier this month.

Among the newly released findings:

  • Nearly 70 percent indicated that they and their peers should have the authority to refuse filling prescriptions for emergency contraception;
  • Nearly 40 percent believe state laws should not require them to fill certain prescriptions;
  • Only 23 percent feel that a patient's rights should prevail over their objections.

But this cannot be so - businesses wouldn't go along with this! They have to treat all customers the same - and give them what they want -right? Not quite so. It seems pharmacists have better moral judgement than other professions. They can decide what pills to hand out and what not - based on their own discretion. And a few corporations are standing by whatever they wish to enforce on others.

Chain stores that support activist pharmacists with written policy are: Wal-Mart , Target, Walgreens, and Rite Aid. Those who support customers needs are: Costco , CVS , Brooks Pharmacy, K-Mart, Supervalu, Fagen's Pharmacy, Harris Teeter, and Price Chopper. All others have not made known their current policies. Links to the activist corporations go to their customer service website. I encourage anyone reading this to send them a note - whether you agree or disagree - and include an intellectual analysis.

But organizations representing pharmacists do not support the growing activism. The Minnesota Pharmacists Association replied to an e-mail I sent them. I mainly expressed that pharmacists would be taking away others individual rights and that moral judgement should not be part of the pharmaceutical profession. The reply:

We do [ feel the same way ] and we're working on it [ activist pharmacists issue] . Agree with you on all points. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.
Julie
Julie K. Johnson, RPh.
Executive Vice President and CEO
Minnesota Pharmacists Association
1935 W. County Road B-2, Suite 165
Roseville, Mn. 55113
(651)789-3204 phone
(651)697-1776 fax

While this issue has not made much headway into Minnesotan politics - it will. Activist pharmacists have support.

And if they get their way - will employees at The Gap turn me away when I enter their store if I am wearing something "uncool?" Will I be told to take my "Vote Nader" button off when I go to Wal-Mart ? Will I be sent out of a store solely because I am "white?" And would the activists like it if they were told to hide their Christian cross necklace? Obviously these scenarios will not happen. But that is what happens when employees are empowered to enforce their "moral beliefs".