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.

Homophobia or "Homosexual agenda?"

There are many who feel that there is not separation of church and state. They think that we should live in a Dominionist society. They think church should influence the state, because the state influences the church. What if the barriers between church and state go down like they want them to? When they lose power politically, their churches must bow down to the new order. Not a smart move on their part.


I read a lot of blogs withing the Green movement, and one asked for those reading to use an American Family Association website to send a message supporting gay marriage. The American Family Association is based in that forward looking, cutting edge state of Mississippi. I continue getting their newsletter, and no longer mind as it allows me an insight into Dominionist mentality. Here are clips of one e-mail:

March 23, 2006

Ford 'Proves' Commitment To Homosexual Agenda

Dear Kevin,

Ford Motor Company has proven its commitment to the homosexual agenda by sponsoring a TV program featuring a passionate kiss between two lesbians.

Last fall, in a meeting with AFA, Ford agreed to stop funding the homosexual agenda. However, after a group of angry homosexual leaders met with Ford, the company reneged on its agreement and announced that they would continue their commitment to support the effort to legalize homosexual marriage.

Ford even gave the homosexual groups a letter stating Ford's strong commitment to their cause.

On a recent episode of CBS's Without A Trace, Ford proved to the homosexual leaders the company's commitment to their agenda. The Ford-sponsored program included a scene of two lesbians passionately kissing each other.

To see what Ford sponsored, click here. (Warning! This scene is very offensive!)

AFA and 20 other pro-family organizations have called for a one-year boycott of Ford. AFA is asking individuals to sign the Boycott Ford pledge. Click here to see the extensive support Ford is giving to the homosexual cause and to sign the pledge found in the upper right hand corner.
----

And what is the "homosexual agenda?" They want the right to exist. Yeah, pretty scary. The AFA wants to stuff them back in the closet. Sorry, but this is America. Land of the free, while the AFA is not brave enough to withstand that. And there is much more to it than just that.

The AFA forgets that there is a separation of church and state. Churches don't have to abide by equal opportunity employment. They also do not have to follow secular beliefs, like seeing African Americans as human beings. They can do their own thing. And no church has to accept homosexuals into its "flock." Nor are any required to marry homosexual couples in Massachussets.
--------------

But let's assume they are right. Let's look at their side a bit more:

IVP: Homosexuality as a developmental disorder has been taken out of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Why do you still say that it is a developmental disorder?

Linda Nicolosi: Psychiatry says a disorder is characterized by distress and disability. We see a lot of subjective distress in homosexually-oriented people which cannot be attributed solely to social discrimination. We also believe there is evidence of a "disability" in the homosexually-oriented person's feeling of not being comfortable with members of their own sex, of feeling "different" and inadequate, and of course, in not being able to function according to their biologically mandated sexual design.

We should then rush out and buy these books and implement their teachings:

• Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy by Joseph, Ph.D. Nicolosi
• A Natural History of Homosexuality by Francis Mark Mondimore
• A Strong Delusion by Joe Dallas
• Closing the Closet: Testimonies of Deliverance from Homosexuality by Talbert W., II Swan
• When Homosexuality Hits Home by Joe Dallas
• A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality ( this is my favorite)

These are all published by credibly Christian publishing corporations. For some odd reason, the medical community disagrees that homosexuality is wrong and not normal. They even state that there are serious repercussions for those who follow the guidelines in the above books. Let us take a look at what the medical professionals are saying:

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION

· "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed ... the APA opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.

· "There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation. It is not described in the scientific literature, nor is it mentioned in the APA's latest comprehensive Task Force Report, Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders (1989).

· "Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so."

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

· "Even though homosexual orientation is not a mental illness and there is no scientific reason to attempt conversion of lesbians or gays to heterosexual orientation, some individuals may seek to change their sexual orientation or that of another individual (for example, parents seeking therapy for their child). Some therapists who undertake this kind of therapy report that they have changed their clients' sexual orientation (from homosexual to heterosexual) in treatment. Close scrutiny of their reports indicates several factors that cast doubt: Many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective on sexual orientation, rather than from mental health researchers; the treatments and their outcomes are poorly documented; and the length of time that clients are followed up on after treatment is too short.

· "In 1990, the American Psychological Association stated that scientific evidence does not show that conversion therapy works and that it can do more harm than good. Changing one's sexual orientation is not simply a matter of changing one's sexual behavior. It would require altering one's emotional, romantic and sexual feelings and restructuring one's self-concept and social identity.

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

· "Most of the emotional disturbance experienced by gay men and lesbians around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes but rather is due more to a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment. For this reason, aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it."

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

· "The psychosocial problems of gay and lesbian adolescents are primarily the result of societal stigma, hostility, hatred and isolation. The gravity of these stresses is underscored by current data that document that gay youths account for up to 30 percent of all completed adolescent suicides. Approximately 30 percent of a surveyed group of gay and bisexual males have attempted suicide at least once. Adolescents struggling with issues of sexual preference should be reassured that they will gradually form their own identity and that there is no need for premature labeling of one's sexual orientation."

--

One can make their own choice regarding homosexuals existing in our society or not. But I think it unwise to eradicate the barriers between church and state. It has negative consequences for all involved. It is better to keep things separate.

Disconnected from reality

I do not understand what is wrong with the current American administration. Did they ever thoroughly think through their plans? Do they not understand how their harsh treatment of those they disagree with will only fuel the fire for future animosity? Let us consider each of the latest incarnations of their disasterous record:

1) The Iraq war

a) They told us that we HAD to attack - and planted fear in everyone. Nucleur Biological and Chemical attacks on American soil from Iraq were immenent. We didn't want, as Bush eloquently put it, "the smoking gun, could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." All bogus even as United Nations weapons inspectors stormed Iraq and Saddam claimed no weapons as US claimed.

b) Those mobile weapons labs? Oh yeah - those were actually Cold War Era Russian field kitchens! Completely made up by the Pentagon to fuel more fear.

c) Our mission was accomplished. Well, until IEDs started showing up. But things were "getting better." The media began talking of an insurgency - but the administrations said that was bogus. Now they agree there is an insurgency - but NOT a civil war. Next thing you know, they will agree that there is a civil war but "we can't leave, we must HELP them!"

The question is, when civil war breaks out and the Iraqi government dispersed - whose side do we take? The SECULARS who we gave money to during the elections? Let's hope the decision is made by a future administration - but our military will pay the ultimate price.

2) Democracy in the Middle East ( and world?)

a) this was a justification for war in Iraq and even Afghanistan. Of course when they elect those we dislike we cut all aid. Now Palestinians - even those who did not vote for Hamas - will be punished extremely harshly. We're talking an economic depression - a doubling of unemployment and a government that could collapse. But Iran could pick up our slack - and teach them to hate America and take our backing of democracy as a joke(which it is).

Do I support Hamas? Of course not, I no longer feel violence a proper way to change the world. But Bush does - so I support Hamas as much as I support Bush ( I still pay taxes, right?).

b) Does the media make a big deal about the man that will be executed in Afghanistan - for converting to Christianity? As Bush says himself "We have got influence in Afghanistan and we are going to use it to remind them that there are universal values." ( Bush conveniently forgets that loving relationships are a universal value in banning marriage to heterosexual couples )

3) Creating a culture of fear

a) 9-11 , Saddam , Iraq , Al-Queda , Bin Laden , 9-11 , fear Arabs , go to war with them , etc, repeat 5 times

It is the repeating of certain words and phrases that Bush has created an anti-Arab sentiment in America. He has created an anti-Islam sentiment. And he has made America fearful of an imminent terrorist attack - which replaces the already awful scenario of Latin American countries going Communist. But of course, only Bush and the Republican Party can lead us to victory in a time of war. He creates fear, then sells a solution : endless war and violence for all eternity. Sounds like the conservative version of the anti-Christ to me. At least they voted for him.

4) Tripling the National Debt

a) How conservative of Bush to have mortgaged our countries future on politics! At the end of fiscal year 1985, the total federal debt stood at $1.82 trillion and equaled about 43.9 percent of the nation's GDP. Political leaders from both parties warned of doom and demanded change. In spite of record prosperity in the late 1990s, at the end of fiscal year 2005 total federal debt sat about $8 trillion, about 66 percent of GDP.

b) 14% of your Federal taxes is squandered on interest for the National Debt. It will more than double to 30% within 15 years if we stay on Bush's track. ( and you thought paying rent was bad? ) You still want to cut taxes via loans?

5) Peak Oil

"America is addicted to oil. This country can dramatically improve our environment - move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on oil a thing of the past." George W. Bush stated in his state of the union address. Yet he does not propose an ounce of conservation. Unless we actually prepare for using less oil , we face an economic depression. Too bad so few are involved in the Peak Oil Caucus, and also happen to be Democrats.

6) Dubai Ports - Bush is right ( for once) Bush's stance on the Dubai Ports appears logical. Unfortunately, when Americans are fearful of Arabs they will do anything to step on their toes. This will hinder the American economy for the entirety of the 21st century. Arabs own the oil. And since its price will rise exponentially, they will find alternatives to invest their stash of cash. America can kiss this money "good-bye" and say hello to eternal deficits and recessions. Adios American superpower, hello rich Arabs and Asians.
------

There is no immediate political solution for the Bush administration. For those who are not Green politically, I challenge you to go Green in your own life. Buy organic. Work and shop as close to home as possible. Use less electricity. Support renewable energy by purchasing credits ( in Minnesota every citizen can support wind this way. Recuce consumption, reuse whatever you can or find those who will, and recyle what is leftover. The more who live green, the more positive solutions will follow.

March 8th was the 50th anniversary of M. King Hubberts prediction that the United States would peak in oil production. We did at about the time he said we would: 1970. Since then the U.S. has produced less oil each year. Yet even though our current President stated we are "addicted to oil" no one is seriously interested in changing this. ( minus radicals like myself)

There are some 220 oil-consuming countries in the world (a few are rather small islands). If, however, you rank these by their annual oil consumption per capita, interesting insights emerge. A few, like the US and Canada are really into using oil, going through a 1000+ gallons per capita each year. Others, like many European nations, seem to get along rather well on 400-800 gallons per person each year.

As you move down the list, you find average world consumption currently is about 200 gallons per capita per year. The bottom half of the list contains nearly 100 countries that consume 100 gallons per person per year or less, one-tenth of what we each consume in the US . About 4 billion people or two-thirds of the world's population live in countries that consume less than 100 gallons per capita per year. Finally, at the absolute bottom are about 20 countries using 10 gallons per capita per year, or 1/100th of what we burn in America

We have a long ways to go to reach the lower oil consumption levels of these other nations. Quite frankly, I do not see many doing this willingly. Many will feel helpless losing their jobs, cars, homes,and plentiful food. The poverty currently gripping 1/3 of mankind will reaffirm itself on many unaccustomed and unitiated to the depth of this pain.

While I have stated repeatedly that peak oil is an opportunity, I think many will squander it. They will keep their heads in the sand and deny it all the way to the streets. Either that or they will feel helpless to do anything. I honestly cannot say I know what to do, as there are many good things going on - but not everyone will be able to be part of the positive elements. It will be like any other change in conditions, leading only a certain group to move ahead and evolve. Who knows?

I do know that I am maybe 20% "there" but that is not nearly enough. Most Americans are probably near the 5% or less mark. But things will change as oil prices go up again this summer. America will realize that cheap oil really is a thing of the past.

I attended my local state Green Party caucus today at Sabathani community center. The event allowed me to see how this fledgling party currently is. Yet it provided me hope. Greens can build on its local success and blossom as a state party through long-term effort. But this requires more activists and volunteers leading the charge. But currently, it remains the only party that can successfully challenge Democrats in Minneapolis.

The first part of going somewhere is knowing where it is. Seeing as I went their previously to see Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Choir, I knew the buildings location. The room listed on the Green Party site was room J.

Upong getting to Sabathani, I saw posters for a DFL caucus. But the room listed was different, and since there was no map to state where room "J" was I went to the front desk. They directed me to a room right next to the DFL cacus. Unfortunately, this was for a homeowners workshop. The DFLers asked the ackward question had no clue as to where the Greens were. I then saw the bulletin board in the main entrance that stated where each event was held in the building. There on one line was the Green Party Caucus in a banquet hall - 2nd floor.

Okay, no big deal - yet when I got there the room was empty. But there were some printed adverts for Jay Pond, 5th Congressional District candidate for Congress. I ran into a couple other Greens confounded by the situation and we decided to hang out in the banquet hall. They at least knew that Farheen Hakeem, the Green endorsed candidate for Minneapolis Mayor, was the coordinator. This surprised me as I would think she would be as early as we were - 20 minutes early to the start time of 7 P.M. Ten minutes later I volunteered to do a quick walk-around of the floor to see if we were not expected somewhere else. No such luck.

So, we decided to start without her. We organized ourselves into a circle ( unlike the DFL , whose setup was like that of a classroom ) and decided who would be in charge of discussion and who would keep notes. We decided the order of discussion when Farheen appeared with a couple others ( not exactly an entourage). She brought order to what was more chaotic.

After she agreed with our order of discussion and who would keep minutes, discussion went back to me. Just prior to Farheen arriving, I had mentioned how we should at least mention the U.S. Green Party ten key values. I was the ONLY one with a copy - printed on the back of my national Green Party membership card.

Then we commenced into discussion about resolutions. I considered bringing my own ideas. As this is my first caucus ever, I thought it unwise to do so. Greens seem very pre-occupied on huge current topics. I also need to commit myself to becoming more active in their political community. It is also a wise thing to listen more than you speak.

Moments of irritation did rise in the group. Doug Mann, previous and current candidate for Minneapolis school board, spent much more time on his resolutions than he truly needed to. I found him rather rude. How would a school board deal with a man like this? He would keep them there all evening if he could! His longest resolution dealt with education.

Other resolutions included transit, mercury emissions, renewable energy, and the war in Iraq.

I signed resolutions I thought were practical and sustainable. For every 5 signatures, one delegate could go to the state convention in Duluth ( June 3 & 4) to represent the resolution. Up to 3 delegates could go per resolution. Since we had a little over 30 people attend, a couple resolutions had the ability to do this. Anyone can be a delegate at the state convention if they attend a local caucus. All one has to do is show up in Duluth. :)

There were two other candidates for office who showed up - both for a short period of time to greet us and succinctly sum up their campaign. Dave Berger, whom I always here wonderful things about and was finally able to see, running for State Auditor and Michael Cavlan for US Senate. I liked them both even more than Ken Pentel ( 2002 Green gubernatorial candidate).

The only real BIG issue were off topic comments by Phil Willkie. He is the "Associate Publisher" for the Pulse. I think Phil's opinionated repertoire is too harsh. Phil disagrees with Michael Cavlan's Senate run. He also takes issue with Farheen, but we won't even go there. He should save his viewpoints for the appropriate time and not cause everyone grief, as he did so eloquently tonight.

Phil arrived with Dean Zimmerman, who remained quite quiet throughout discussions. It was almost as if he came to watch - but I understand. The way things were being handled, it was all more confusing and messy than it otherwise could have been. But at least we GOT things done - as we were moving at a snails pace prior to Farheen arriving.

The big surprise for myself was meeting my cousin there - Jason Chavis. He lives in Uptown, just off Lake Street. He feels that America is facing a rise in fascism, and wants to stem its growth. I didn't ask him a lot of details about what he is doing apart from supporting the Green Party, but he did state he writes books. He gave me his card which had a fascist logo(eagle?), with un upside down GOP elephant replacing the swastika. I did a Google search on his "Jason Galore is famous, LLC , of which Jason is the chief manager, and nothing came up.

But at some point we will have to get together and chat a bit. Interesting how other Chavis' are involved in politics. Of course, our Grandfather was a big Huber H. Humphrey supporter and a DFLer.

Uraguay Enacts Smoking Ban

Norway, New Zealand, and the State of California all have smoking bans. This seems like a common sense solution to preventing cancer for millions. Yet Minnesotan politicians aren't all behind a state ban. This is an instance where the government should step in to promote the health of its residence over short-term corporate wants.

I do not willingly smoke - but must breathe second-hand if I want to maintain a descent job. If I work there for a few decades and get cancer - I will probably not be alone in suing my employer for damages. They could go non-smoking(at least 50%) but choose not to.

For those who want a healthier state, I encourage you to assist the Minnesota Smoke Free Coalition. The work they are doing will improve the lives of millions - locally and those inspired by Minnesotan courage in taking a stand.

Immigration

On Dec. 8, a report commissioned by Gov. Tim Pawlenty pegged the public cost of illegal immigration in Minnesota at up to $188 million a year.

• It estimated the number of illegal, or undocumented, immigrants in Minnesota at 80,000 to 85,000, more than the numbers in at least 20 other states.

One state expert has estimated that the number of undocumented workers in Minnesota is much closer to 25,000.

Even if we choose to ignore the economic and social benefits of immigrants ,legal or not , let us consider their side of the story. For those who come here legally, they face an uphill battle. Many think they pay no taxes and come here for welfare. Interestingly, they usually come here to fill in jobs we can't keep up with - like Indian information technology professionals. These are Americas true competitors in the global economic sphere. Yet we lump them with Latin American immigrants.

Yet, Latin Americans are competing with the Chinese for factory jobs and exports. And over the last 25 years, Latin America has suffered the worst economic growth performance in its modern history. From 1980 to 2005, income per person in the region grew by only 10 percent. In the prior 20 years -- 1960 to1980 -- it grew by 82 percent.

Imagine only getting a 1% raise each year - for 2 and a half decades! Would you stick around in a country like that - with quality of life issues remaining stagnant? Of course not - you would come to America as well!!

But "They steal our jobs and high wages!!" people cry. This is not only pathetic - but the cause is preventable. The solution is but two highly charged words for a Catholic - family planning. And if Latin American women had the choice of how many kids they wanted and access to contraceptives and sterilization - we would have fewer immigrants. But in America - we think in binary. We can't take two interwoven issues and see a solution for both.

For those unable to attend a Minnesota Political caucus this Tuesday, March 7th @ 7 P.M. - there is at least ONE option for you: The Independence Party Virtual Caucus. Read about it then click "Caucus Registration" at the bottom ( or here) and you are set. You get to vote how you feel their party should take certain issues.

The issues they mainly take up are ones that the DFL and GOP are currently debating: gay-marriage vs. civil marriage, eminent domain, taxpayer stadiums, healtchare, and tax/spending. Seeing as how they are what is left of the Independent Republicans - the voting should be just right of center. But we will see how things turn out. :)

All I know is that Republicans seem to be the "Party of Ignorance" lately. They don't believe in Global Warming, yet the Antartic is falling apart. The don't believe in any tax increases - apart from tax cuts and without spending cuts. They believe in saddling future generations with the National Debt. And for being so called "Conservatives" they don't believe in conserving any resources, by passing CAFE standards for motor vehicles. They are pro-birth, but not pro-child.

The dichotomy they represent is appalling, and many within the party see this. And so I hope that more Republicans that actually study issues to their party caucus. Of course I have checked their positions out - and their layout is sad. It is written more for emotional impact than for serious discussion/analysis.

But the Republicans do have one thing going: they are more United than their main opposition: Democrats. The Minnesota DFL seems pretty united compared to the national Democrats. And that could explain why they are as successful as they have been. But they will fall prey to the same problems that the national party is having if they do not develop a spiritual strategy. I think that Michael Lerner's book "The Left Hand of God" is a must read for any non-Republican. DFLers: read it then go to your Caucus.

I myself now consider myself an independent Green. I will be attending Minnesota's 4th largest party caucus at the Sabathani Community Center - room J. Should be interesting as I have some great ideas ( share those later).

The Minnesota Consitution Party is also having sporadic meetings throughout the state. This is the only sole-Dominionist political party ( apart from 25% of Republicans) in America. They believe that the Bible should replace the Constitution, and Jesus be placed above our President as our nations leader. Hard to follow a leader when they don't talk back to ones prayers "directly." But hey, it worked for the Inquisitors back in Spain.

The Minnesota Libertarians will not take part of our caucus tradition. They feel that they should remain as "pure" as possible regarding their principles. Therefore, outside public influence should be minimized. They claim to be pro-freedom, and they are - unless you try to change their mind on something. Their authoritarian yet anti-government style would make anyone realize they are hopeless. ( currently)

But there is one thing that I wish. EVERY political party in Minnesota should have a virtual caucus like the Minnesota Independence Party has! But from each site I have seen - there is no alternative. I hope they outdo the other parties using their virtual attendance. :)

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!"

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.

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:

• Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-Maryland)
• Rep. Vern J. Ehlers (R-Michigan) [1] (http://www.house.gov/ehlers/meet.html)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vern_Ehlers)
• Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Maryland) [3] (http://gilchrest.house.gov/)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Gilchrest)
• Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Arizona) [5] (http://www.house.gov/grijalva/)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Grijalva)
• Rep. James P. McGovern (D-Massachusetts) [7] (http://www.house.gov/mcgovern/)
• Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kansas) [8] (http://www.moore.house.gov/)
• Rep. Jim Moran (D-Virginia) [9] (http://moran.house.gov/)
• Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colorado) [10] (http://markudall.house.gov/HoR/co02)
• Rep. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) [11]

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.