Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Cavlan's brigade ( opinion )
It’s 3pm on Thursday, September 21 and I’m sitting in Ms. Harder’s room on the third floor of Patrick Henry High School in North Minneapolis. State Representative Keith Ellison is two rows over, picking at his finger nails, fidgeting. Businesswoman and former TV news reporter Tammy Lee is sitting across the room, calmly running through her mental notes.
The three of us are sitting in cramped desks as students file in, most of which are here to pick up some extra credit points. A few minutes later the room is full and Alan Fine, an author and businessman has arrived.
Ellison, Lee and Fine, of course, are the Democratic, Independent and Republican nominees for Martin Sabo’s vacated seat in Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District. The trio is at the high school for a “Political Forum on Education/Students' issues.”
If the event was a fashion contest, Ellison would place a distant third. Fine and Lee are immaculately dressed in formal, business-like attire while Ellison dons a greenish, tweed sport coat and well-worn, brown shoes.
The highlight of the intro period came after Fine asked the students “Do any of you have a dream?” When one youngster said that he wanted “to be in the NBA”, the Republican nominee mistook the “N” for “M” and replied, “Oh, you want to be a businessman.”
About 10-15 minutes into the festivities, Michael Cavlan, the Green Party nominee for Mark Dayton’s Senate seat, ambles in. A registered nurse, Cavlan does not look nor act like a political candidate. Disheveled in appearance and lacking composure, he warns the students about the evils of military recruiters and calls for the impeachment of George W. Bush.
Cavlan’s radical views did attract the attention of the students however, and they pepper him with inquiries during the Q&A period. That unfortunately, means less face time for Ellison, Lee and Fine. The aggressive Ellison is quick to jump in first when students do not address a question directly to Cavlan.
It doesn’t take long to see why Ellison, despite his controversial past, had the support needed to bring home the Democratic nomination. A dynamic speaker, his personality casts a large shadow that Lee and Fine have a hard time escaping.
Lee is composed and appears very capable, but lacks the force to counteract Ellison’s charisma. Fine, while intelligent and articulate, seems out of his element and has trouble connecting with the students.
As the proceedings wrap up a female, African-American faculty member chimes in with a stern scolding of Fine for his criticism of Ellison’s ties with the Nation of Islam. Ellison tries to jump in first, but Fine eventually wins out and defends his earlier comment by labeling the organization a “hate group” and compares its leader Louis Farrakhan to David Duke.
The Democrat stood arms crossed, glaring at Fine as he wrapped up his comments. Then, at the urging of the previously identified faculty member, Ellison took the high road, and retorted, “Although he hasn’t asked me, I forgive Mr. Fine (for his comments).”
With the tension receding, class was adjourned. As Ms. Harder passes out bus tokens to the students, Ellison and Fine exchange a limp handshake. Fine and Lee quickly headed for the door and Ellison lingers in the classroom, chatting with some students for a few moments before exiting. Cavlan meanwhile stays put, he is surrounded by students and clearly basking in the attention.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
National IDs -MN Green Party Discussion
> law problems would have a problem with being finger
> printed but maybe I'm wrong.
>
You are, indeed, wrong. This comes to a basic question - Do you
trust your government? If you do, then you will have a difficult
time understanding my concerns. However, the logic that "Only people
with law problems would have a problem with..." is rhetoric that is
used repeatedly by governments to infringe on our civil rights.
If you ask me the more abstract question "Can you trust ANY
government?" I will emphatically answer no. Governments, like
corporations can not be trusted. *Individuals* can be trusted but
governments and corporations (including non-profits and NGOs) change
their leadership every so often and you have little control over who
will be next and what abuses they will commit.
The Magna Carta was written with this fact in mind. The US
Constitution took it a bit further and the Bill of Rights went
further still. These documents are premised on the basic assumption
that government must be restrained because its resources are so vast
that any given individual is virtually powerless against it.
Every aspect of the Bill of Rights is designed to restrain the
government and empower the people against their own government.
The rhetoric that "only people with something to hide should fear the
government" is often accompanied by a lack of understanding that an
accused person is "innocent until proven guilty." I particularly
remember this problem in my Criminal Constitutional Procedure
course. Some people are virtually incapable of understanding why
some evidence must be rejected by the court. Their logic is "but
he's guilty, so why can't we show this evidence?" We can't show that
evidence because the government broke its own rules to get it and if
we allow the Government to go over that line "because he's guilty" we
open the gate to secret evidence, anonymous accusers and,
ultimately, manufactured evidence.
Yet, still, people are willing to sacrifice "a little bit of liberty"
for "a little bit more security." The problem with this is that ALL
SECURITY IS A FACADE. Benjamin Franklin understood this when he said
"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security
deserve neither liberty nor security." Yet, when that sacrifice is
made two things inevitably occur - first, we realize that we are not
as secure as we want to be and second that we never restore that lost
liberty.
Thus, inch by inch we sacrifice our liberty until we fear the
criminals, the terrorists and our own government. We can trust no
one and we fear everyone.
Our real choice is simple and hard - Our choice is to
Live WITH fear or IN fear.
FDR Lied. Freedom from fear is no more a basic freedom than freedom
from going to the bathroom. Sometimes you just have to deal with it.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Government Fingerprinting - Robert Schmid - MN Green Party discussion clip
> law problems would have a problem with being finger
> printed but maybe I'm wrong.
>
You are, indeed, wrong. This comes to a basic question - Do you
trust your government? If you do, then you will have a difficult
time understanding my concerns. However, the logic that "Only people
with law problems would have a problem with..." is rhetoric that is
used repeatedly by governments to infringe on our civil rights.
If you ask me the more abstract question "Can you trust ANY
government?" I will emphatically answer no. Governments, like
corporations can not be trusted. *Individuals* can be trusted but
governments and corporations (including non-profits and NGOs) change
their leadership every so often and you have little control over who
will be next and what abuses they will commit.
The Magna Carta was written with this fact in mind. The US
Constitution took it a bit further and the Bill of Rights went
further still. These documents are premised on the basic assumption
that government must be restrained because its resources are so vast
that any given individual is virtually powerless against it.
Every aspect of the Bill of Rights is designed to restrain the
government and empower the people against their own government.
The rhetoric that "only people with something to hide should fear the
government" is often accompanied by a lack of understanding that an
accused person is "innocent until proven guilty." I particularly
remember this problem in my Criminal Constitutional Procedure
course. Some people are virtually incapable of understanding why
some evidence must be rejected by the court. Their logic is "but
he's guilty, so why can't we show this evidence?" We can't show that
evidence because the government broke its own rules to get it and if
we allow the Government to go over that line "because he's guilty" we
open the gate to secret evidence, anonymous accusers and,
ultimately, manufactured evidence.
Yet, still, people are willing to sacrifice "a little bit of liberty"
for "a little bit more security." The problem with this is that ALL
SECURITY IS A FACADE. Benjamin Franklin understood this when he said
"Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security
deserve neither liberty nor security." Yet, when that sacrifice is
made two things inevitably occur - first, we realize that we are not
as secure as we want to be and second that we never restore that lost
liberty.
Thus, inch by inch we sacrifice our liberty until we fear the
criminals, the terrorists and our own government. We can trust no
one and we fear everyone.
Our real choice is simple and hard - Our choice is to
Live WITH fear or IN fear.
FDR Lied. Freedom from fear is no more a basic freedom than freedom
from going to the bathroom. Sometimes you just have to deal with it.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
5CDGP Membership Meeting
Notes taken by: Darrell Gerber
1. Facilitator: Neil Cunningham. Agenda amended to add 5 minutes at the end to discuss the recent call for unendorsement of Jay Pond. No unendorsement decision can be made at this meeting due to process requirements not being fulfilled.
2. Candidate Update
b. Michael Cavlin showed up on MPR with the Constitution Party candidate. Still unclear what they will do with Green candidates where there are no other minor party candidates in the race.
c. Jay Pond - Ashley James and Jonathan Fluck gave updates. Jay was at the Peace Demonstration and will try to show up later. Jay's been at a bunch of forums. He's been on Almanac. MPR had a debate he was excluded from-please send comments requesting his inclusion. May also be excluded from League of Women Voters debate?.call them to complain. Signup to volunteer and/or get a t-shirt. Lawn signs may not be available due to money. Volunteer coordinator is needed. Door knocking is the main big need right now. Need money. Jonathan showed the new Jay Pond video.
d. Farheen - Jonathan Fluck gave update. She got about 33% in the primary. This is a good showing. Need people to door-knock. Midtown Global market every day at 7AM to doorknock for 2 hours. Everyone welcome. Other needs are events/projects coordinator, handling requests at website, phone banking end of October.
3. Umbrella Update
4. GP Outreach and Member Directory
5. IRV Update
6. Treasurers Report
7. Announcements
b. Robin Garwood - EPA is holding an important meeting Tuesday at Midtown Y from 7 to 9 to discuss the arsenic contamination in South Minneapolis. Will be first chance for community feedback on the levels of contamination that warrant remediation.
c. Eric Gilbertson - review the list of members we don?t have contact information for to help find them.
d. Dave Berger ? October 1st 2-6PM fundraiser for Green Party candidates. Information is at www.mngreens.org. Yoga workshops, music, food, etc. $15 to get in. More donations available inside. Between White Bear Lake and Stillwater.
8. Break
9. Facilitation by Joel Sipress of the Dean Zimmermann portion of the discussion. It will start with a talking circle to offer everyone the opportunity to air their thoughts and concerns. Then will move on the ratification of the press release. Move then to discussion of future steps especially regarding a press release for the sentencing.
10. Talking circle - 1 minute per person.
11. Ratification of the Press Release
b. Joel Sipriss summarized the process for ratification.
c. Clarifying questions
d. First call for consensus. Several concerns so no consensus.
e. Second Call for consensus. One concern remains.
f. Third Call for consensus. No concerns remaining.
12. Future steps with regard to the Zimmermann case
b. Strawpoll
c. 10 minutes additional contracted for
d. Actions
13. Doug Mann calls for unendorsement (Doug Mann was not present)
b. Keith presented an idea that this group should strongly state that GP stands by the endorsement of Jay.
14. Elected official reports
b. City Councilmember Cam Gordon - Passed out a couple updates and a survey. There is a lot that goes on in the city all the time and the survey offers a good opportunity to get feedback. Public hearing coming on the Civilian oversight of the police department. Working with the health department and foundations for a forum on youth violence. Poised to push the city to look at it as a public health issue rather than just a public safety issue. Includes preventative actions and interventions to diffuse chain of violent actions. Minneapolis may be creating a department of environment and energy. Cam is encouraging money for an energy policy person. Already funding an energy auditing person. Look for it down the road. Many public forums and openings on boards and committees listed on the handout. Highlighted the CEAC openings.
15. Meeting evaluation
16. Meeting adjourned 3:30.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Why aren't Green Party candidates in debates?
Wisconsin Public Radio includes Green Party candidates in debates why does MPR refuse to do so? Public Radio means public radio, not just radio for major party candidates. I expect some of this discrimination from corporate media but not from public radio.
By including all the candidates in a race (that are on the ballot) except one you have failed to fully inform your listeners. You are also failing our democracy! I want a real answer to my question of discrimination. Why is MPR the only major organization to discriminate against Green Party candidates? Keep in mind that you are the only public broadcasting group in this area to be engaging in this immoral and undemocratic practice.
It is not too late to change this discriminatory practice. I sincerely hope that your response to my question is more thoughtful than just "The Green Party is a minor party." I want to know who actually set this policy. Was it a board of directors? Where/whom made this discriminatory decision? For a station that claims "award winning news coverage" you should really rethink the policy of omitting only one candidate from access to the debates! This is something Fox News would do...not Minnesota Public Radio!
I look forward to a response regarding my questions. Thank you.
Dave
Minneapolis, MN
Dear Dave, as you correctly guessed, the Green Party candidates were excluded from the MPR debates because it is our policy -- and has been our policy for a number of years -- that we only invite candidates from the major parties. Currently, the major parties are the Republicans, the DFL, and Independence Party. A party must garner at least 5% of the vote for any statewide office in the last election cycle in order to qualify as a major party.
The Greens benefited from this policy in the 2002 and 2004 election cycles, when they enjoyed major-party status and their candidates were invited to MPR debates. To my knowledge no one from the Green Party complained at the time that candidates from the Consititution Party, Communist Party, Socialist Workers Party or New Union Party were kept out of the 2002 and 2004 debates. And all of these parties field candidates that appear on the ballot for statewide office.
If the Greens wish to participate in the MPR debates for 2008, they will need to win at least five votes out of every hundred cast in a statewide election this November. We don't feel that's an unreasonable standard to meet.
As to TPT and Wisconsin Public Radio: they are free to set their own standards. But we believe our own standard is fair.
Michael Popham
Minnesota Public Radio Member Listener Services