By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job).
Sunday, November 19, 2006
When religion loses its credibility
By Oliver "Buzz" Thomas
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job). http://www.amazon.com/Things-Your-Minister-Wants-Tell/dp/0312363796/sr=8-1/qid=1170349238/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2824429-6070466?ie=UTF8&s=books
What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality? I suppose, much as a newspaper maintains its credibility by setting the record straight, church leaders would need to do the same:
Correction: Despite what you might have read, heard or been taught throughout your churchgoing life, homosexuality is, in fact, determined at birth and is not to be condemned by God's followers.
Based on a few recent headlines, we won't be seeing that admission anytime soon. Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina's Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we're wrong?
Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother's hormones or the child's brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
Answer in Scriptures
So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."
As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.
For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.
The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.
A better reading of Scripture starts with the book of Genesis and the grand pronouncement about the world God created and all those who dwelled in it. "And, the Lord saw that it was good." If God created us and if everything he created is good, how can a gay person be guilty of being anything more than what God created him or her to be?
Turning to the New Testament, the writings of the Apostle Paul at first lend credence to the notion that homosexuality is a sin, until you consider that Paul most likely is referring to the Roman practice of pederasty, a form of pedophilia common in the ancient world. Successful older men often took boys into their homes as concubines, lovers or sexual slaves. Today, such sexual exploitation of minors is no longer tolerated. The point is that the sort of long-term, committed, same-sex relationships that are being debated today are not addressed in the New Testament. It distorts the biblical witness to apply verses written in one historical context (i.e. sexual exploitation of children) to contemporary situations between two monogamous partners of the same sex. Sexual promiscuity is condemned by the Bible whether it's between gays or straights. Sexual fidelity is not.
What would Jesus do?
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won't find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don't you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?
The suffering that gay and lesbian people have endured at the hands of religion is incalculable, but they can look expectantly to the future for vindication. Scientific facts, after all, are a stubborn thing. Even our religious beliefs must finally yield to them as the church in its battle with Galileo ultimately realized. But for religion, the future might be ominous. Watching the growing conflict between medical science and religion over homosexuality is like watching a train wreck from a distance. You can see it coming for miles and sense the inevitable conclusion, but you're powerless to stop it. The more church leaders dig in their heels, the worse it's likely to be.
Oliver "Buzz" Thomas is a Baptist minister and author of an upcoming book, 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can't Because He Needs the Job). http://www.amazon.com/Things-Your-Minister-Wants-Tell/dp/0312363796/sr=8-1/qid=1170349238/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2824429-6070466?ie=UTF8&s=books
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Jack Uldrich: Blame Hatch for his own defeat
There's no reason to think Peter Hutchinson's presence in the governor's race was a factor.
Famed Wall Street investor Warren Buffett once said that the problem with conventional wisdom is that too often it is long on convention and short on wisdom. I was reminded of this recently because in the aftermath of the election it has become conventional wisdom among the politicos, pundits and DFLers especially that Peter Hutchinson "cost" Mike Hatch the gubernatorial election.This is wrong.
In a democracy, a person is free to vote for whomever he or she believes is the best person. To suggest people should willfully vote for a candidate whom they believe is inferior is the antithesis of democracy. The solution for DFLers is not to blame Hutchinson; it is to endorse better candidates.
There is a solution to this problem, and it is called instant runoff voting. Unfortunately, the DFL Party has never embraced it. This is in spite of the fact that many of the same people now blaming Hutchinson for Hatch's defeat still blame Tim Penny for Roger Moe's loss in 2002.
The DFL had four years to forge a solution. It did not. To be fair, it is entirely possible that such legislation would have been blocked by the Republicans or vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. But that does not excuse the DFL for refusing to either embrace the idea in its party platform or introduce a bill in the Legislature.
This continued indifference to a solution suggests the DFL remains impervious to the notion that many Minnesotans want more political options -- not a continuation of the status quo.
There are three reasons why the conventional wisdom about Hatch's defeat is wrong. First, according to the Star Tribune's own exit polling, 43 percent of self-proclaimed independents voted for Tim Pawlenty, and 43 percent voted for Hatch. This suggests that independents -- who were the people Hutchinson most appealed to -- were equally inclined to vote Republican as DFL. Therefore, a strong argument could be made that Hatch's defeat would have been no worse without Hutchinson in the race.
Many of Hutchinson's most visible and prominent supporters were Republicans, including former Lt. Gov. Joanell Dyrstad; former House Speaker Rod Searle, and scores of other prominent business leaders.
Second, and again using the Star Tribune's own polling, Peter Hutchinson's support in the polls from the time of the State Fair through Election Day remained consistent at about 7 percent. This implies that any last-minute erosion of Hatch's support did not go to Hutchinson, but straight to Pawlenty.
This leads to the third and most important point: It was not Hutchinson who "cost" Hatch the election, but Hatch.
Without Judi Dutcher's E85 gaffe and his own overblown response, it could very well have been Pawlenty complaining that Hutchinson cost him the election.
Of course, he, too, would have been misguided because a person's vote belongs to no one but the person for whom the vote was cast. But I guess that's the beauty of conventional wisdom. It doesn't have to submit itself to the facts.
Jack Uldrich is the former chair of the Independence Party of Minnesota.
Chris Stewart: An apology and a call for action to lift kids out of poverty
Furor over website has diverted attention from serious challenges that confront the Minneapolis schools.
The timing could not be worse for our school district. Over the course of the last several months I have met many people who put their faith in me and who voted for me. They were looking to my colleagues and me to restore public trust in our district. What should have been a joyful and hopeful time after the election has been damaged by news of this incident. I am painfully aware of the gravity of this situation.
I entered the race for school board with a lot of energy, some good ideas, the best of intentions, and a stubborn mission to open the doors for kids to leave poverty. I wanted to craft policies to help kids who are struggling find a path into the workforce, much as I had been able to do. The last thing I wanted to do was give people a reason to criticize our schools or divide along racial lines. I feel particularly sick to be associated with something viewed as "hate." I hate no one and I believe that we can work through the difficult and painful politics of race by discussing the issues openly. I am deeply sorry for damaging the public discourse on race that we so badly need to have.
Some people have asked for more details, so let me state a few things for the record. I have been part of several writers' groups for years. I have published poetry, short stories, and newspaper articles on poverty and race. Over the years I have made many friends who write for different purposes. The Tammy Lee spoof was written by a group of people who blog together. I participated in very loose conversations about politics with these friends and some of what I said is part of the spoof they created. I did not create or publish a hate site, nor am I responsible for everything posted on it. I have contributed to the blog in the past and once owned the domain name. Despite these disclaimers, I accept responsibility for the site and its misguided content.
I feel strongly about restoring order in our schools, increasing the prominence of math and science in the curriculum and using public education as a way to move young people into jobs with good pay. Too many kids are not making it into the workforce, and I have a strong vision of how vocational education can prepare many of them for a better life. I am deeply troubled by poor performance in high-poverty, racially isolated schools. I decided to run for the Minneapolis school board because I believed my experience in workforce development, social services and staffing would open doors for people who might otherwise be excluded from the prosperity of Minneapolis. This still drives me to push an agenda for those who have no one opening the gate for them.
I pledge to work hard to bring real change for our schools. Despite my mistake, I want and intend to prove myself as a reliable and effective leader who can help create a vision that leaves us all in better shape.
Chris Stewart is a consultant and member-elect of the Minneapolis School Board.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Turnover of state offices is one for history books
Constitutional offices have been models of stability in Minnesota. One officeholder served 38 years.
Robert Franklin, Star Tribune
Last update: November 08, 2006 – 10:03 PM
Minnesotans elected three new state constitutional officers Tuesday, and the trio could be around for a while.
Attorney General-elect Lori Swanson, Auditor-elect Rebecca Otto and Secretary of State-elect Mark Ritchie join an exclusive club of officeholders noted for longevity and stability:
Minnesota has had just eight attorneys general in the past 67 years, eight auditors in the past 75 years, eight secretaries of state in the past century.
For the three new constitutional officers, "the longevity begins now," said Hy Berman, a retired University of Minnesota history professor.
Berman called Tuesday's vote "a volatile shift in electoral sentiments" and "a DFL sweep" that didn't propel Attorney General Mike Hatch into the governor's office only because of the third-party candidacy of Peter Hutchinson.
All three of the winning DFLers won their races by margins of 100,000 to 265,000 votes, while Hatch lost to incumbent Gov. Tim Pawlenty by about 22,000.
Swanson, a top aide to Hatch, easily defeated state Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth. She said Wednesday that voters responded to her "incredibly passionate" desire to continue to "stand up for people, stand up for the ordinary citizen."
The secretary of state supervises elections, and Ritchie defeated two-term Republican incumbent Mary Kiffmeyer, arguing that she sought to depress opposition turnout.
However, Ritchie said he hopes to continue some of her initiatives, especially in working with children on the importance of voting.
Otto defeated Republican Pat Anderson, who served one four-year term, alleging that the incumbent shaded audits in a partisan way. Otto said she wants to make the office more proactive, less "reactive and punitive" and more visible.
Many reelected for years
Historically, many constitutional officers haven't been extremely visible, and incumbents have typically won reelection except in years of party sweeps.
Chuck Slocum, a former state Republican chairman, said the changes in auditor and secretary of state were unexpected, and "those offices may have been perceived by some voters as being more partisan than they are."
Warren Spannaus, attorney general from 1971 to 1982, said relations among constitutional officers don't have to be partisan. Spannaus said he got along best with a Republican governor, Al Quie.
In addition to Spannaus, longtime constitutional officeholders in recent memory included Hubert Humphrey III, who served 16 years as attorney general; Val Bjornson, 22 years as treasurer, an office abolished in 2002; Joseph Donovan, 16 years as secretary of state; Joan Growe, 24 years as secretary of state, and Stafford King, 38 years as auditor.
Some officeholders advanced, notably Democratic Attorney General Walter Mondale, appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1964, and Republican State Auditor Arne Carlson, elected governor in 1990.
Based on history, Swanson would do well not to follow her boss in running for governor. The last four attorneys general -- Republican Doug Head and DFLers Spannaus, Humphrey and Hatch -- all tried and lost.
For the record, Swanson, who entered the race this summer after the DFL endorsee dropped out, said she has no such plans.
"I wasn't planning on running for attorney general," she said Wednesday. "I'm a politician of 3½ months."
Robert Franklin • 612-673-4543 • rfranklin@startribune.com
source: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/798062.html
Robert Franklin, Star Tribune
Last update: November 08, 2006 – 10:03 PM
Minnesotans elected three new state constitutional officers Tuesday, and the trio could be around for a while.
Attorney General-elect Lori Swanson, Auditor-elect Rebecca Otto and Secretary of State-elect Mark Ritchie join an exclusive club of officeholders noted for longevity and stability:
Minnesota has had just eight attorneys general in the past 67 years, eight auditors in the past 75 years, eight secretaries of state in the past century.
For the three new constitutional officers, "the longevity begins now," said Hy Berman, a retired University of Minnesota history professor.
Berman called Tuesday's vote "a volatile shift in electoral sentiments" and "a DFL sweep" that didn't propel Attorney General Mike Hatch into the governor's office only because of the third-party candidacy of Peter Hutchinson.
All three of the winning DFLers won their races by margins of 100,000 to 265,000 votes, while Hatch lost to incumbent Gov. Tim Pawlenty by about 22,000.
Swanson, a top aide to Hatch, easily defeated state Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth. She said Wednesday that voters responded to her "incredibly passionate" desire to continue to "stand up for people, stand up for the ordinary citizen."
The secretary of state supervises elections, and Ritchie defeated two-term Republican incumbent Mary Kiffmeyer, arguing that she sought to depress opposition turnout.
However, Ritchie said he hopes to continue some of her initiatives, especially in working with children on the importance of voting.
Otto defeated Republican Pat Anderson, who served one four-year term, alleging that the incumbent shaded audits in a partisan way. Otto said she wants to make the office more proactive, less "reactive and punitive" and more visible.
Many reelected for years
Historically, many constitutional officers haven't been extremely visible, and incumbents have typically won reelection except in years of party sweeps.
Chuck Slocum, a former state Republican chairman, said the changes in auditor and secretary of state were unexpected, and "those offices may have been perceived by some voters as being more partisan than they are."
Warren Spannaus, attorney general from 1971 to 1982, said relations among constitutional officers don't have to be partisan. Spannaus said he got along best with a Republican governor, Al Quie.
In addition to Spannaus, longtime constitutional officeholders in recent memory included Hubert Humphrey III, who served 16 years as attorney general; Val Bjornson, 22 years as treasurer, an office abolished in 2002; Joseph Donovan, 16 years as secretary of state; Joan Growe, 24 years as secretary of state, and Stafford King, 38 years as auditor.
Some officeholders advanced, notably Democratic Attorney General Walter Mondale, appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1964, and Republican State Auditor Arne Carlson, elected governor in 1990.
Based on history, Swanson would do well not to follow her boss in running for governor. The last four attorneys general -- Republican Doug Head and DFLers Spannaus, Humphrey and Hatch -- all tried and lost.
For the record, Swanson, who entered the race this summer after the DFL endorsee dropped out, said she has no such plans.
"I wasn't planning on running for attorney general," she said Wednesday. "I'm a politician of 3½ months."
Robert Franklin • 612-673-4543 • rfranklin@startribune.com
source: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/798062.html
GREENS CITE ELECTION DAY VICTORIES -- READY TO MOVE FORWARD IN MINNESOTA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11.08.06
Green Party of Minnesota
Contact: Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota Politics Chair, (651)
224.6383
GREENS CITE ELECTION DAY VICTORIES -- READY TO MOVE FORWARD IN MINNESOTA
Minneapolis** The Green Party made history this year in securing enough
signatures to place five statewide, two congressional, and two legislative
candidates on the ballot by petition.
There were Green Party victories in several local races, including St.
Francis, where Leroy Schaeffer won his bid for City Council with 29.72% of
the vote and Winona, where Green Party member Dwayne Voegeli won re-election
as a county commissioner. In Minneapolis voters approved the use of Instant
Runoff Voting in municipal elections. Garnering 2.33%, and 1.93%
respectively, Green Party candidates Dave Berger for State Auditor and Papa
John Kolstad for Attorney General assured that the Green Party will continue
as a minor party in the state. Others, like the Constitution Party, were
not so successful, and the Greens remain the state¹s only minor party.
"The Green Party has worked for years in a multi-partisan effort to promote
electoral reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis." said
Darrell Gerber, Green Party member and member of the board of the Better
Ballot Campaign. Minneapolis became the second major U.S. City (after San
Francisco) to adopt the treasured Green goal of Instant Runoff Voting, and
it passed by nearly a two-to-one vote. According to Dave Berger, candidate
for state auditor in 2002 and again this year, "We have won a structural
change that is far more important for the future than election to a few
offices. Four years ago most Minnesota voters had never heard of IRV, but
the work of the Green Party has changed that."
In reviewing election results last night, Green Party activists agreed that
while concerted efforts to eliminate Green candidates had partially
succeeded, Greens had won significant success on the issues they championed.
"Green candidates were blanked out by the mainstream media," declared Papa
John Kolstad, who ran for attorney general. "Our exclusion from candidate
listings and from debates, including those on Minnesota Public Radio, was
outrageous, and it was a great disservice to the voters." But while Greens
failed to regain major party status, the long-range impact of their repeated
campaigns could be clearly seen.
In Minneapolis, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be sent to the U.S.
Congress, campaigned on a Green platform. "His issues were identical to
those I put forward in 2004 and again this year," said Green Party candidate
for Congress Jay Pond. "Our campaigns were what brought them to the
forefront with voters." Those issues, including single-payer health care,
which all Green candidates listed as a top priority this year, also played a
strong role in overthrowing Republican control of the state House of
Representatives.
While Greens build toward the 2008 elections, they will continue to work
with popular movements and with all levels of government on issues that
reflect the values of the party. Those fundamental values include
Grassroots Democracy, Social and Economic Justice, Non-Violence, and
Ecological Wisdom.
For More Information on the Green Party of Minnesota see: www.mngreens.org
11.08.06
Green Party of Minnesota
Contact: Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota Politics Chair, (651)
224.6383
GREENS CITE ELECTION DAY VICTORIES -- READY TO MOVE FORWARD IN MINNESOTA
Minneapolis** The Green Party made history this year in securing enough
signatures to place five statewide, two congressional, and two legislative
candidates on the ballot by petition.
There were Green Party victories in several local races, including St.
Francis, where Leroy Schaeffer won his bid for City Council with 29.72% of
the vote and Winona, where Green Party member Dwayne Voegeli won re-election
as a county commissioner. In Minneapolis voters approved the use of Instant
Runoff Voting in municipal elections. Garnering 2.33%, and 1.93%
respectively, Green Party candidates Dave Berger for State Auditor and Papa
John Kolstad for Attorney General assured that the Green Party will continue
as a minor party in the state. Others, like the Constitution Party, were
not so successful, and the Greens remain the state¹s only minor party.
"The Green Party has worked for years in a multi-partisan effort to promote
electoral reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting in Minneapolis." said
Darrell Gerber, Green Party member and member of the board of the Better
Ballot Campaign. Minneapolis became the second major U.S. City (after San
Francisco) to adopt the treasured Green goal of Instant Runoff Voting, and
it passed by nearly a two-to-one vote. According to Dave Berger, candidate
for state auditor in 2002 and again this year, "We have won a structural
change that is far more important for the future than election to a few
offices. Four years ago most Minnesota voters had never heard of IRV, but
the work of the Green Party has changed that."
In reviewing election results last night, Green Party activists agreed that
while concerted efforts to eliminate Green candidates had partially
succeeded, Greens had won significant success on the issues they championed.
"Green candidates were blanked out by the mainstream media," declared Papa
John Kolstad, who ran for attorney general. "Our exclusion from candidate
listings and from debates, including those on Minnesota Public Radio, was
outrageous, and it was a great disservice to the voters." But while Greens
failed to regain major party status, the long-range impact of their repeated
campaigns could be clearly seen.
In Minneapolis, Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be sent to the U.S.
Congress, campaigned on a Green platform. "His issues were identical to
those I put forward in 2004 and again this year," said Green Party candidate
for Congress Jay Pond. "Our campaigns were what brought them to the
forefront with voters." Those issues, including single-payer health care,
which all Green candidates listed as a top priority this year, also played a
strong role in overthrowing Republican control of the state House of
Representatives.
While Greens build toward the 2008 elections, they will continue to work
with popular movements and with all levels of government on issues that
reflect the values of the party. Those fundamental values include
Grassroots Democracy, Social and Economic Justice, Non-Violence, and
Ecological Wisdom.
For More Information on the Green Party of Minnesota see: www.mngreens.org
Saturday, October 07, 2006
The 10 Commandments of Web 2.0
1. I am the Lord thy Google, which have brought thee out of the land of Web 1.0, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other search engines before me.
G knows when you are sleeping (Google Calendar), G knows when you’re awake (Google Alerts), he knows if you’ve been bad or good (Google Desktop), so be good for Google’s sake. Google has more power than God. If you don’t believe me, check out the results: “Google”: 114,000,000 vs. “God”: 40,600,000.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of Apple in vain.
The music of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the RIAA and the tyranny of MSN. Blessed is he, who in the name of iTunes and 99 cents, shepherds the weak through the valley of “The Darkness,” for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of “Lost” children. And I will Digg down thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my Macbook. And you will know my name is Steve Jobs when I lay my DRM vengeance upon thee.
3. Thou shalt not make copies of any Flickr image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth without first checking the creative commons license. Thou shalt not download it thyself and serve them from your server.
While YouTube plays the “Copy? Right!” game, and fair use is getting stretched wider than America’s waistline, the idea of intellectual property still exists and is enforceable. If nothing else it’s good karma – don’t steal other people’s art, photos, or video without permission, attribution, or at least a little “Thanks XXX, whoever you are”, muttered to yourself.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Get the hell out of the house Sunday. Seriously. The world will not end if you don’t blog for 1 day out of the week. Go take a walk in the park or streak a football game. It will give you something to blog about on Monday.
5. Honor thy fathr and thy mothr: thy website names may not be long.
Avoid all vowels. At all costs. At all times. Also, give your mothr some props and put her in your top 8.
6. Thou shalt not kill your comments.
Only Seth Godin and Satan have blogs without comments. If you’re going to have a blog, let people interact with it.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery (if you have an AOL account.)
The AOL data leak showed us all the dangers of search histories and large companies releasing large amount of semi-personally identifiable information. If you’re going to get some cookie, delete your cookies. And if you can, cancel your AOL account.
8. Thou shalt not steal successful ideas and lame them out.
If you’ve always wanted “School Your Way” or you want to “Let Your Page be Your Stage”, then check out the really hip Wal-Mart and AOL social networks. Tubular! Or you can always create clones of Digg (Netscape) or YouTube (MSN Soapbox) if cloning MySpace seems a bit too daunting.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against Wikipedia.
I’m looking at you Steven Colbert. We can’t have just anyone modifying the sum of all human knowledge at will. Not unless we live in Washington and/or our last names start with O’Reilly.
10. Thou shalt not bookmark thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not bookmark thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.
It’s called tagging now and you should covet it like crazy. And you must put it in a cloud – it’s most angelic. Here’s a way to tag that wife, ass, house, and maidservant properly:
big house AOL cheating donkey manservant maidservant neighbor wife hot ox Oregon trail sweet wheels spinnin maiden oxen you have just died of dysentery synonyms donkey ass what don’t get it web2.0 digg how covet really want more ye olde scurvy
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Cavlan's brigade ( opinion )
The following was sent to me by David Zingler, who writes for the Bleacher Bums blog at MPR, another blog I (and he) helped start last year. He still writes for it; I don't)
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-li
ke 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.
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-li
ke 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
> this kind of problems. I think that only people with
> 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.
> 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
> this kind of problems. I think that only people with
> 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.
> 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
5th Congressional District Green Party
Membership meeting
September 23, 2006
Northeast Library
Notes taken by: Darrell Gerber
Facilitation: Neil Cunningham, Dave Berger, Joel Sipress
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
a. Dave Berger gave an update of a candidate forum that he attended in Northern Minnesota It went really well for him. Michael Cavlin also had a really good showing with the Indigenous People.
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
a. Becki Kopp has been working on the reorganizing of the NW Metro Greens. Will setup GP locals for SD 45 and 44. This was due to legal requirements for constitution of a local political party. Will need to figure out, still, what to do with the Mpls local. Need to determine org. structure, money distribution, and membership. 5CDGP SC has thought it would be better to put some of this on the back burner due to the dissolving of the St. Louis Park local.
4. GP Outreach and Member Directory
a. Neil gave an update. An idea at a SC meeting for a way to increase membership communications and networking is to create a membership directory that lists names and contact information. He passed out a mock-up of a potential layout. Discussion. Lisa Boyd is concerned about the distribution. Would not be comfortable that personal info is distributed to others outside of the membership. Lenief Heimstead-what about long term upkeep and maintaining it. Darrell Gerber-we can't distribute the information without people's express approval. It also lowers the value to endorsed candidates if we make the info more broadly available. Stephen Eisenmenger-shares same concerns. Can incorporate it into the online database to make upkeep easier. Would help to better let people know the skills and interests of others. Molly Nutting?should make it entirely voluntary to help us build community. Eric Gilbertson?we talked about adding ability to edit and create personal profiles for those within the database they can select who accesses and views what. Ashley James-clarified what could be made available on the web database. Lisa Boyd-the list will be smaller if opt-in then can still maintain value of larger list for candidates. Diane-wants the list to be available by hard copy or each person can say they only want hard copy contact. This addresses those who are not comfortable with the internet. General sense was that we thought there might be some interest and need but that it needs to be explored more fully. Contracted for 5 more minutes. Kevin Chavis updated on outreach. He passed around a form for MeetUp.Com and suggested it would be a good organizing tool. For $12/mo you get a group with message boards, files available, file uploads, etc. The Boston Greens had 13 people show up at the last meeting. Lisa Boyd-who bears the cost? The organization. Molly Nutting-many of the features are already available on the website. Not sure that the party needs to put money into. Rosalind Nelson-People who show up the first time may be more interested in showing up to a social event first. Lisa Boyd-are the purposes of these events social gathering? Generally, yes, but not necessarily. Darrell Gerber?concerned about paying money to duplicate the resources already available we don't use. Need to consider the value of the MeetUp.Org name recognition. Kristina Gronquist-thinks it is well worth the effort to try to coordinate more outreach and social networking. Suggested benevolence toward it from the group especially if an individual would be interest in moving forward. Proposal made for 3 mo tryout to evaluate the service. Need to contract for more time or defer. Consensus to defer to the next meeting.
5. IRV Update
a. Darrell Gerber is presenting
b. IRV will be on the ballot in Mpls to use IRV in municipal elections
c. Lawn signs and lit are available
d. Fundraisers have been successful - Wienie Roast and Gala made $
e. Have been lit dropping and door knocking with candidates, including Farheen
f. Doing a poll in Mpls to get a feel of where people are - this is key volunteer opportunity. 3 phone calling sites for polling - sign up to volunteer
g. Volunteers need to help lit dropping. Have been canvassing in front of the Wedge and other locations
h. DFL has also endorsed
i. 5CDGP's intern, Dakota Johnson, has been doing a great job helping out
j. The League of Women Voters had a cable show on about IRV featuring Darrell Gerber and Kelly O'Brien (of the DFL) showing Tuesdays at 7:30
k. Op ed in today?s Strib about IRV written by Don Fraser
l. Cam Gordon having meeting 7-9:00 about IRV at Matthew's Park, 10/26
m. Flash cartoon ad on betterballotcampaign.org. Send it to your friends!
6. Treasurers Report
a. Eric Gilbertson passed the hat.
b. $271/mo coming in on direct deposit
c. July meeting $150 expenses
d. Event costs ~$450 include State Fair costs and Raspberry Festival.
e. $120 for this meeting
f. $500 in contributions to Jay's and Farheen's campaigns
g. $150 for IRV intern
h. Saving for January Antiracism training
7. Announcements
a. Stephen Eisenmenger - His group is opening a flower and garden consumer co-op. Opening is in a week. Noon to 4 on October 1st. 910 W 36st St. Grand opening will be end of October. Closed Monday, 10-6 Tues-Fri, 10-4 Sat. Founding memberships $150.
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.
a. Joel Sipress - Shares many feelings that we are. Known them for years and have worked with them within the Green Party. Hopes that we can reach respectful and Green resolution.
b. Lenief Heimstead - Lives in Dean's old ward. Disappointed in his performance as a councilmember especially with the focus on PRT. Did not support his endorsement for the run last year. All of the charges and court case came on top of the. Not sorted out in her mind, yet, the whole issue.
c. Stephen Eisenmenger - Disappointed in Dean?s taking cash. Beyond what he expects from a Green candidate. Was not convinced that what happened isn?t illegal. Very concerned about the damage to the GP.
d. Robin Garwood - Also disappointed in Dean and the press release. Hard in Cam?s office to sort out what to do. They personally love Dean and Jenny so were hesitant to come out critical of them. But, felt they had to say that it wasn?t what Cam and the GP was about.
e. Eric Gilbertson - FBI targeting of Dean was unfair and unjust. FBI needs to be held accountable for their decisions of who to target.
f. Lisa Boyd - Can't profess to know Dean and Jenny well. Press release expresses her feeling well. While GP values hold us to a higher standard we are also human. Must be willing to make mistakes and to forgive people. Must be willing to take risks.
g. Barb Sadler - Very confused in the beginning. We have all done things that we are ashamed of. Dean did his action and is being forced to deal with it. We have to take ownership of our feelings and reactions and deal with them.
h. Tom - Press release is passive aggressive with two messages that confuses the points.
i. Neil Cunningham - Name is on the release and hit the send button. Felt he didn?t have much control over the content as it was formed by others. The process was probably as good as could be expected.
j. Darrell Gerber- Dean's actions were unethical, unquestionably. Not sure about legality. Dean has not publicly owned up to the mistakes and apologized for the negative impacts on the GP and movement. Would like to see that.
k. Ashley James - Dean made a mistake and needs to own it and acknowledge the impact of that mistake. Process: worst part was that we knew it was coming but didn't act early to start on it. Mistakes in putting it together could have been avoided.
l. Diane Steen-H - Thinks the statement should have stated our hope that he didn't intend to take money. Agrees that it is misplaced to target Dean in face of the other misdeeds going on in government.
m. Sue Leskela - Soft spot in heart for him. Concerns about the legal system. Doesn?t know the details about the crime and the legal defense to really know if it was a just outcome.
n. Kristina Gonquist - We hold ourselves to really high standards and present ourselves that way to the public. We point fingers at other people who are corrupt which makes it hard when one of our own does it. Has worked so much with accounting and knows the dangers of handling cash. Can?t believe the carelessness.
o. Rosalind Nelson - Doesn't know Dean well. Trying to compromise with feeling at hearing of conviction of Len Biernat. Wishes Dean hadn?t done anything to put himself in a category of Len Biernet. Should have known better when someone gave him a handful of cash.
p. Keith - Dean has strengths of working with people which were used against him by justice department. The people putting the press release together were working in a tough situation and did a good job with what they had.
q. Dave Berger - At fairs that week. Had concerns about the wording of entrapment in original that he blocked. Feels that the public comments out afterward have been good and fill in where the press release might have been weak.
11. Ratification of the Press Release
a. Copy of press release and a summary of the process use are available in the handout. Ashley James presents the press release and the process.
b. Joel Sipriss summarized the process for ratification.
c. Clarifying questions
i. Robin Garwood - Was there any consideration of discussing ethics during the process? Ashley, yes we talked about it and Dean's intent. There were strong feelings by some that we wanted to back up Dean. Had considered moving the last section to the beginning but it didn?t get moved.
ii. Darrell Gerber - Who are spokespeople and how were they involved? Neil Cunningham and Kevin Chavis. They were only involved as SC people for approval not any other way.
d. First call for consensus. Several concerns so no consensus.
i. Mark Snyder - Process described was admirable. No real value getting caught up in who contacted whom. Does not have a problem people urging SC and GPMN to create a press release. Likes that they were responsive. They brought together all of the people who should have been involved in the process. Does not want to be involved in every decision. People selected made a good decision.
ii. Lenief Heimstead - understands the pressure they were under. Can't support the outcome as being too sympathetic and apologetic. Not clear about what the GP is about.
iii. Robin Garwood - Wishes the statement said something about ethics and that his actions fell short of that. Ok with the process but not the outcome. More important for us to have done it than even in calling others out.
iv. Darrell Gerber - Shared concerns thus far about what was said. Press release isn't written well as a press release. Feels responsibility for not communicating and leaving better guidance for future spokespeople.
v. Diane Steen-H - Hopes that we can not just ratify or not but reflect our disagreement with its content. Should have also said something that reflects the impacts of redistricting and the redistricting lawsuit.
vi. Dave Berger - We should have planned better because we knew it was coming. Should have written drafts early and avoided problems of acting in the pressure cooker.
vii. Tom - Sees no value of rescinding the press release. Press releases take time to write well and we should be planning for the sentencing. Need to make sure to put the quality in before hand. Hard when you have people acting in the writing that can't act subjectively.
viii. Robin Garwood - Feels that a representative of local office holders should have been included in the group working on it.
ix. Joel offered that the concerns can be expressed and moved in the next portion that focuses on the future actions and ratify the press release.
e. Second Call for consensus. One concern remains.
i. Diane - States that her concern is that ratify must not indicate 100% comfort with the outcome and the process. No objections to this being indicated in the notes for the meeting.
f. Third Call for consensus. No concerns remaining.
12. Future steps with regard to the Zimmermann case
a. Start with a brainstorming
i. Darrell Gerber- Write the press release for the sentencing. Positive push by the party for ethics in public office. Build upon efforts already begun by Cam Gordon.
ii. Dave Berger - Prepare the sentencing press release.
iii. Jay Pond - Nasty stuff coming out in 5CD race and spreading to Farheen's race. The GP is going to have to take a stand to the use of race and religious discrimination and dirty politics against our endorsed candidates.
iv. Dave Bicking - We need to get good solid factual information out there with analysis. The Zimmerman for Justice group did that leading up to the trial. Thinks the GP should make sure that the facts are correct regarding the case.
v. Cam Gordon - We need to reach out to Dean and his family to be supportive and helpful in their trouble. There are more hardships coming ahead. Emotional, financial, etc. Also, how can we change our rules and guidance to make it clear to future elected office holders and endorsed candidates what is expected of them and to help them avoid making incorrect decisions?
vi. Tom - Dean is going to have problems with the indictment. The GP involvement would confuse whether it is personal or endorsed. We need to put something out at sentencing but would be a mistake to focus on Dean?s situation rather than the values and ethics of the GP.
vii. Ashley James - More formal structures of communication and accountability. Formal accountability meetings to communicate with elected office holders.
viii. Joel suggested combining Cam and Ashley's to more formal rules, guidance and support for GP candidates and EOHs. Both ok. Collapse push for positive principles in office (Darrell) and reiterating our values and principles (Tom's)
b. Strawpoll
i. Getting ready with press release - Majority indicate definitely must have begun moving forward with this. No serious concerns
ii. Positive push for ethics in public office - 4 think it's urgent to start now. No serious concerns.
iii. Proactive steps to combat dirty politics against endorsed candidates - 7 feel immediate need. No serious concerns.
iv. Getting facts out on Dean Zimmermann case - 4 feel need to move forward. 4 concerns about party doing that.
v. Reaching out to Dean and family - 8 feel immediate need. 4 serious concerns.
vi. Formal structure for support with clearer guidance - 11 feel need to address immediately. 1 serious concern.
c. 10 minutes additional contracted for
d. Actions
i. Press release
1. Tom suggested that those who have done releases work to generate a rough draft and have at least three iterations.
2. Cam suggested that spokespeople draft the release and it go out on the public email list.
3. Darrell - there should be multiple press releases generated depending on the possible outcomes
4. Dave Bicking - Don't put it on the public list because of people on there who might not be appropriate to see it before hand.
5. Joel put that together to include the spokespeople plus others in the room who would volunteer to help draft. Dave Bicking, Eric, Tom, and Darrell volunteer to help. They will meet face-to-face and prepare contingencies.
6. Joel proposed that the sounding board be anyone who volunteers today plus SC. Cam added a suggestion that any EOH and endorsed candidate should also be included as well as Dean and Jenny.
a. Molly questioned need to micromanage to the level of specifying the sounding board group. Joel responded that it is a safeguard against the writers getting tunnel vision and not reflecting the position of the party well. Suggests that the subgroup be empowered to select the group.
b. Diane questions the need to include Dean and Jenny.
c. Empower the subgroup to select the sounding board - Only one objection. Stood aside. That group is empowered to write the press release and send it out to the sounding board of their selection. They will consult with others at their discretion. Passed by Consensus.
ii. No time remaining for other items. Steering Committee is strongly encouraged to give significant time at the next membership meeting for those items. Anyone with concerns about any of them should bring them to the Steering Committee prior to that time.
13. Doug Mann calls for unendorsement (Doug Mann was not present)
a. Original 5 minutes allocated reduced to 1 minute by consensus to allow for Keith to make a statement.
b. Keith presented an idea that this group should strongly state that GP stands by the endorsement of Jay.
14. Elected official reports
a. Park Board Member Annie Young - Written update included in packet.
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.
i. Lenief voiced concern about the state of the library system. Wanted to push having the city take on more efforts to support the library system. Cam said that the more letters and calls council receives the better to get them to move forward on it. There is concern about increasing taxes.
ii. Diane - Said that youth violence is also an economic justice issue as well. Most violent crimes involve an economic aspect such as robbery. There is a level of desperation created by poverty.
iii. Keith - Thanks for the De la Salle vote. Cam is not hopeful that it will end up stopping at any point but is hopeful that it will lead to better outreach from the school.
iv. Cam said that he is taking very seriously ethics in public service. He is clear in his mind that council members should not be fundraising and taking money from developers or anyone with business with the city. Wants to look at campaign financing rules for our candidates to also use as a model for the city in setting their rules. Doesn?t look good for the city with all the stuff that has been going on.
15. Meeting evaluation
a. Skipped due to time.
16. Meeting adjourned 3:30.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Why aren't Green Party candidates in debates?
Why is Minnesota Public Radio discriminating against the Green Party candidates for office this year? The "debate" for the 5th District Congressional seat only omitted one candidate that will be on the ballot this year for that race, Jay Pond the Green Party endorsed candidate. Yet on the very same day the Almanac show on TPT2 (Public Television) will have all four candidates on to debate. This makes MPR look prejudiced against Green Party candidates. It also appears that MPR's concern with feedback and "your voice" is a sham. Why prevent only one candidate from the debate? Will you continue this institutional discrimination against Green Party candidates when it comes to the Attorney General "debate" and the State Auditor "debate?" Note that the Green Party candidate for State Auditor was included in the debate last week and the Green Party candidate for Attorney General will also be on the debate tonight on Almanac.
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
Source: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/your_voice/mailbag/2006/09/060919.shtmlWisconsin 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
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Dean Zimmerman - Post Trial Discussion
I'm about ready to let go of the Zimmermann case, but not before I make a
stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
Dean Zimmermann
to Tom, discuss, Dave, Michael
More options Aug 25 (17 hours ago)
Tom: it is no secret that the $6000 is in the Redistricting Lawsuit Fund
account and has been there for months. Tom Taylor and Bruce Shoemaker are
in charge of that account. This has been common knowledge for a long time,
so I am surprised to see it even being discussed, as if there were some
question about it.
Peace,
Dean Zimmermann
C: 612-388-1311
H: 612-724-3888
2200 Clinton Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Surely the most important task for all of us is to leave behind a planet
that is fit for our great grandchildren to live on. So all of our personal
actions, as well as our political policies, must be tempered with an eye to
long term sustainability, not short term profit or expediency. As we
struggle to solve the day to day problems -- crime, jobs, budget shortfalls,
homelessness, traffic congestion, and air quality, we will look to solutions
that serve both our immediate needs and lay the foundation for the
post-petroleum economy.
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Cleland
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:09 PM
To: discuss@mngreens.org
Cc: Dave Bicking; Michael Cavlan
Subject: Fw: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
I'm about ready to let go of the Zimmermann case, but not before I make a
stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
Tom Cleland
to Tom, deanzimm, discuss, Dave, Michael
More options 3:53 pm (10 hours ago)
Dean,
Thank you for responding. I wasn't sure if you wanted to answer questions
personally during this difficult time.
I'm still relatively new to the list serve. I was unaware that the $6000 had
been accounted for. I put the question out to this list serve on August 15
and again on the 17th, and nobody responded.
I'm cc'ing Tom Taylor. I don't have Bruce Shoemaker's email address. Please
forgive me Dean, but if they or someone else could verify things on-list or
off-list, I would appreciate that.
This would mitigate things considerably. I would mention it when discussing
it with others, and suggest others do the same.
Tom Cleland
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Zimmermann"
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
Tom: it is no secret that the $6000 is in the Redistricting Lawsuit Fund
account and has been there for months. Tom Taylor and Bruce Shoemaker are
in charge of that account. This has been common knowledge for a long time,
so I am surprised to see it even being discussed, as if there were some
question about it.
Peace,
Dean Zimmermann
C: 612-388-1311
H: 612-724-3888
2200 Clinton Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Surely the most important task for all of us is to leave behind a planet
that is fit for our great grandchildren to live on. So all of our personal
actions, as well as our political policies, must be tempered with an eye to
long term sustainability, not short term profit or expediency. As we
struggle to solve the day to day problems -- crime, jobs, budget shortfalls,
homelessness, traffic congestion, and air quality, we will look to solutions
that serve both our immediate needs and lay the foundation for the
post-petroleum economy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Cleland
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:09 PM
To: discuss@mngreens.org
Cc: Dave Bicking; Michael Cavlan
Subject: Fw: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
I'm about ready to let go of the Zimmermann case, but not before I make a
stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Cleland"
To: "Dave Bicking"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
> Dave Bicking,
>
> I'm still hoping you or someone else can answer the following questions:
>
> 1. Did the F.R.E.E. group eventually open up a new account?
> 2. Did the money end up in there?
>
> Also:
>
> 3. Of the $7200, how much was seized in the raid?
> 4. When did Dean attempt or succeed in getting the money to F.R.E.E., in
> relation to the FBI confrontation of Dean and the subsequent raid? My
> understanding is that the raid occurred shortly after the primary finance
> reporting deadline.
> 5. Other than the Leventhal testimony, was there any other independent
> verification of when Dean's check to F.R.E.E. was written?
>
> If less than $7200 was seized in the raid, and the remainder did not go to
> F.R.E.E., I don't think it's too late to try to get it to F.R.E.E. or
> whatever the next best thing is, even if that's the court. Better to have
> a bigger credit card debt than to have that remaining money unaccounted
> for.
>
> Tom Cleland
> cc: gp list serve
>
>>>>
>
> I can see both sides.
>
> Dave, regarding the gerrymandering lawsuit fund, you said, "Dean had no
> way
> to pass the money along until the group opened up a new account."
>
> Did the group eventually open up a new account, and did the money end up
> in
> there?
>
> If a similar situation occurs in the future, I would recommend suggesting
> that the developer give the money directly to the lawsuit fund, making
> clear
> that no favors are expected. If the developer persists on giving to the
> candidate, I believe the appropriate Green response is to hold a press
> conference and try to shine a bright spotlight on what the developer is
> trying to do.
>
> Going forward, I'm not sure what the rest of the party can do to reassure
> the public that we are "the incorruptables." Release our campaign funding
> disclosure reports early? Put our budgets on our web sites?
>
> Tom Cleland
> Golden Valley
> Cavlan Campaign Volunteer
>
> http://tomstream.blogspot.com/2005/09/advice-for-dean-zimmerman.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:;
> Cc:; ;
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:21 AM
> Subject: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
>
>
>> Dave Bicking, thank you! We who know Dean and Jenny are aware that he
>> would
>> never, ever do anything to incriminate himself or hurt the GP. You've
>> explained the case so clearly. I can only wonder why Dean's lawyer
>> couldn't have
>> done the same. And to Aaron Klemz :there is no limit in real personal
>> loyalty.
>>
>> --Dori Ullman
>> Campaign Manager
>> The Committee to Elect Michael Cavlan
>> to the US Senate 2006
>>
>> The civility of no race can be perfect whilst another race is degraded.
>> It
>> is a doctrine alike of the oldest and of the newest philosophy, that man
>> is
>> one, and that you cannot injure any member, without a sympathetic injury
>> to all
>> the members": Ralph Waldo Emerson. 1844
>>
>> --Dori
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Bicking"
> To:;
>
> Cc:;
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:22 AM
> Subject: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
>
>
>> I'm concerned about commentaries on Dean's case, within the
>> Green Party and elsewhere, that I believe are based on lack of full
>> knowledge or understanding of the facts. It is understandable,
>> because it is not easy to be fully informed, and because one is
>> certain to be mis-informed if your knowledge comes from media
>> coverage.
>>
>> This is largely due to failings of Dean's friends and his defense
>> committee. We should have been compiling and posting all the
>> information we have, in some place that is accessible to Green
>> Party members and others. We intend to do that, but of course it
>> is already too late. I will help work on that. Right now, I have just
>> a little time, so I will tackle just a few issues.
>>
>> First of all, contrary to what Julie says, it is NOT illegal to take
>> large sums of cash from a developer. I would also argue (and here
>> I would expect and respect some disagreement), that it was also
>> not unethical in this case. The relevant issue is not the money
>> changing hands, or whether it is cash or checks. The issue,
>> legally and ethically, is the intent. That is what makes it a bribe or
>> not.
>>
>> No one disputes that money changed hands. That didn't keep the
>> prosecution and the media from showing and talking endlessly
>> about the tapes of Gary Carlson giving Dean cash. Yes, those
>> tapes look bad. That is because it was the FBI that controlled the
>> timing and location, that supplied the props, that wrote and
>> rehearsed the script, and did the filming. They intended it to look
>> as bad as possible.
>>
>> This case is NOT primarily about campaign finance. Though it is
>> right for us to point out that campaign finance reform would help
>> avoid corruption, that is not the major issue here. Of the four
>> counts, only one, the $1200 cash in four envelopes, has anything
>> to do with campaign contributions. The two more serious, and
>> difficult, charges have to do with contributions to a charitable group
>> (the redistricting lawsuit fund). And the fourth charge, of which
>> Dean was acquitted and which was obviously ludicrous from the
>> start, had to do with the retaining wall.
>>
>> Regarding the campaign donations, Dean did exactly what would
>> be expected, and exactly what the rules require: He set aside the
>> envelopes and did not deposit the money into the campaign
>> account, until he could determine who the money really came from,
>> and whether it was a legal and ethical contribution. That money
>> never went into his campaign, and Dean never benefitted from it -
>> nor did he intend to unless he was confident it was legitimate. This
>> is what all candidates do or should do. It happened twice in my
>> campaign that I can remember, that we received a contribution from
>> someone we did not know well, and we held on to the money until
>> we could check and make sure it was legal and proper.
>>
>> Dean did do one thing wrong - in the heat of the campaign,
>> overwhelmed with all the work, neither he nor his treasurer nor his
>> campaign staff dealt with the envelopes within the 10 days required
>> by campaign finance regulations. This is a very minor campaign
>> finance violation. I think anyone who has been a candidate could
>> sympathize.
>>
>> The other money that exchanged hands was not for Dean or for his
>> campaign. It was of no direct benefit to Dean or his campaign,
>> unless Dean had simply taken the money for himself rather than
>> giving it to the fund for the redistricting lawsuit. The FBI was
>> clearly hoping that Dean would do just that, so that they would
>> have a case for bribery, and for Dean using the money for personal
>> gain. Dean disappointed them - he did what was legal and ethical.
>> That didn't stop them from distorting facts and prosecuting him on
>> a flimsy and unsubstantiated case.
>>
>> Remember that Dean was not obligated to pay the bills for the
>> redistricting lawsuit. He was just one plaintiff, one person out of
>> the group which jointly committed to going forward with the suit.
>> He had no personal debt for that lawsuit. Being a good guy,
>> though, he felt a personal responsibility to help raise the funds. So
>> he comes across someone who is willing to contribute, someone
>> wealthy for whom $5000 is a small amount.
>>
>> Dean never asked for the money in cash - that was the FBI's
>> decision. When Gary Carlson gave him the cash, he "immediately
>> stuffed it deep into his pants pocket." The FBI repeated that
>> phrase over and over. It was part of their pattern of taking purely
>> innocent acts and making them sound bad - because they had no
>> real case. If you were in public in a restaurant in south Mpls and
>> you were handed $5000 cash, would you wave it around, fan
>> through the bills, or even leave it sitting on the table? No, and
>> Dean is no more an idiot than you or I - he got that cash out of
>> sight as quickly as possible.
>>
>> Should he have refused the cash right there? Possibly - but
>> consider for a moment. First is the issue of whether it is a good
>> idea, sitting in public, to discuss or argue about the $5000 in cash
>> that one of you is going to leave the restaurant with. More
>> importantly, Dean is NOT taking the money for himself. Who is he
>> to refuse a significant contribution that is going to a good cause?
>> Shouldn't he at least consult with the leaders of that group as to
>> what they feel is proper? Should he alone decide whether the
>> lawyers get paid for at least some of the important work they did?
>> No, the proper thing is to consult with others. In the Green Party
>> we work that way - concensus rather than one person making
>> important decisions all alone, especially on the spur of the
>> moment. The money could always be returned if that were the
>> decision of the larger group.
>>
>> Dean proceeded to do the right thing. He told the lawyer, Larry
>> Leventhal, that he had received this contribution to the group. He
>> tried to give the money to the group - he even wrote out a check for
>> the full amount. But due to dysfunction within the group - no bank
>> account, etc., Dean had no way to pass the money along until the
>> group opened up a new account. Dean is not even the "bumbler"
>> that some apologists make him out to be. It was the group's fault,
>> not his, that he kept the money temporarily.
>>
>> That's all I have time for, and that's enough for one post anyway.
>> Maybe later I'll explain other issues, such as entrapment. In partial
>> response to Aaron's post, yes, I would respond the same way if it
>> were a Democrat. Fair is fair. And, having recently learned much
>> more about Joe Biernat's case, I believe that he too was unjustly
>> railroaded by the FBI. Everyone talks about the 3 council
>> members convicted of bribery. Unlike Dean, the FBI never even got
>> a bribery conviction in his case, yet he still went to jail. It is an
>> interesting case, and the real story tells us a lot about the FBI.
>>
>> In response to Julie's post, it is a fact that Dean never received one
>> cent of personal gain from any of the acts he was convicted of. It
>> is my strong conviction, from reviewing the entirety of the case as
>> well as from knowing Dean, that he NEVER intended any personal
>> gain. That is why I believed it was essential that the Green Party
>> statement contain the phrase, "we believe that he was never
>> motivated by personal gain."
>>
>> It is important for the Green Party to maintain the highest
>> standards of integrity, and to hold our candidates to that standard.
>> It is equally important for us to be loyal and supportive to
>> candidates and officeholders who ARE maintaining high standards,
>> and who are being deliberately persecuted. Our candidates and
>> members deserve that, and we should never ditch someone just for
>> the benefit of appearances (for our "credibility"). Which of these
>> two we do in this case should depend upon the actual facts and
>> our best interpretation of them. I hope I have contributed to that.
>>
>> Dave Bicking
>> long-time friend of Dean's,
>> GP candidate for Mpls City Council in 2005
>>
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2006, at 6:18, Julie Risser wrote:
>>
>>> I think party spokespersons should stick to facts - The one sentence
>>> in the release that was along the lines of "we believe this wasn't for
>>> personal gain...." or some such statement should have been dropped. It
>>> is true all the money poured into politics is much greater with the
>>> two major parties - BUT - by not acknowledging straight out that
>>> taking large sums of cash from a developer is illegal in the press
>>> statement and that the jury found this to be the case I think we
>>> really do hurt our credibility.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Klemz wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hello:
>>> >
>>> >I know I'm probably stepping off a cliff on this one,
>>> >but I can't not say something about this any longer.
>>> >
>>> >What would the Green Party's response be if Barbara
>>> >Johnson or Don Samuels were caught on tape receiving
>>> >7200 dollars in cash donations from a developer? How
>>> >would we interpret such a trial of a Democrat where
>>> >the evidence was produced (on tape)? And what would be
>>> >our response to a conviction of a Democrat council
>>> >member for bribery given these facts?
>>> >
>>> >I don't know Dean Zimmermann well, but in my very
>>> >limited interactions with him, he seems like a
>>> >wonderful person. I don't wish him ill - he's done
>>> >great things for the Green Party and for the city in
>>> >my opinion. We're a small enough circle of people that
>>> >there's a personal connection and affection between
>>> >political leaders in the GP and their supporters,
>>> >which is a fantastic attribute. But there's a limit to
>>> >personal loyalty, and that's what this letter is
>>> >about.
>>> >
>>> >I seriously can't believe that every public statement
>>> >equivocates on the acts that were documented in this
>>> >trial with one of the following types of arguments:
>>> >
>>> >A) The acts documented there pale in comparison to the
>>> >political corruption present elsewhere in our
>>> >political system.
>>> >
>>> >Obviously, this statement is true on its face, but
>>> >this cannot be used as an excuse to justify actions
>>> >that on their face contravene nearly every principle
>>> >the GP espouses publicly and privately regarding the
>>> >acceptance of money from donors. Maybe I missed it,
>>> >but aren't we supposed to hold ourselves to higher
>>> >standards than the corrupt political status quo? Don't
>>> >we express that in our platform?
>>> >
>>> >B) There was no explicit quid pro quo for the
>>> >acceptance of the donation.
>>> >
>>> >As a legal argument, this may be the strongest
>>> >argument that I've seen, but as a political argument,
>>> >this sucks. In the corrupt status quo, flows of money
>>> >from developers and political interests rarely have
>>> >express quid pro quos attached to them, but we abhor
>>> >them nonetheless because they are emblematic of the
>>> >corruption we see.
>>> >
>>> >C) It was entrapment.
>>> >
>>> >Once again, this is a legal argument that might work
>>> >to excuse an action from illegality, but the fact
>>> >remains that one of the GP's most public and respected
>>> >figures accepted over 7000 dollars in cash donations
>>> >from a developer on tape. No donation is compulsory -
>>> >it would have been right and correct to say "no."
>>> >
>>> >How do we expect to survive as a party that imposes
>>> >higher standards on ourselves because of our belief
>>> >that money has corrupted our political system when we
>>> >excuse the actions of one of our most public champions
>>> >that contravene those standards? I am willing to be
>>> >told that my understanding of these facts is incorrect
>>> >- but my understanding is that the fact that Dean
>>> >Zimmermann accepted over 7000 dollars in cash from
>>> >Carlson is not in dispute.
>>> >
>>> >The GP's statements in the wake of this conviction are
>>> >disconcerting to me, and in my opinion, eviscerate the
>>> >one of the central premises of our existance, that we
>>> >stand for clean politics free from the taint of money.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Before you respond, please do me the favor of
>>> >remembering a few things and trying to answer a few
>>> >things.
>>> >
>>> >1) How would we respond if a Democrat were to be
>>> >convicted of accepting bribes? Or for that matter,
>>> >were to have been acquitted under similar
>>> >circumstances and facts? If we cannot respond
>>> >consistently regardless of party to corruption cases,
>>> >we have forfeited our high ground.
>>> >
>>> >2) I have no motive to impugn the GP or Dean
>>> >Zimmermann. I don't know him well enough to have any
>>> >agenda against him. I know that many of you do know
>>> >him far better than I do. I offer this only because I
>>> >fear that this personal connection has colored our
>>> >judgment in a negative way.
>>> >
>>> >3) This is, indeed, a crisis of conscience for the GP.
>>> >Many who wonder at our corrupt political system will
>>> >see our response to this as a sign of where we stand,
>>> >and I fear that what we've said so far is sending the
>>> >message that we'll ignore the influence of money among
>>> >our own and criticize it in other places. And frankly,
>>> >that is the hypocritical attitude that made me leave
>>> >the D's and vote Green in the first place. Was I
>>> >wrong?
>>> >
>>> >Truthfully, I thought a long time about this before I
>>> >posted, and I do so out of concern rather than hate or
>>> >the desire to hurt anyone. I hope that, at least,
>>> >comes through as you've read this.
>>> >
>>> >Sincerely,
>>> >
>>> >aaron klemz
>>> >minneapolis/cooper
>>> >
>>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> >"I am not sure what a revolution in the academy will look like, any
>>> >more than I know what a revolution in the society will look like. I
>>> >doubt that it will take the form of some great cataclysmic event.
>>> >More likely, it will be a process, with periods of tumult and of
>>> >quiet, in which we will, here and there, by ones and twos and tens,
>>> >create pockets of concern inside old institutions, transforming them
>>> >from within. There is no great day of reckoning to work toward.
>>> >Rather, we must begin _now_ to liberate those patches of ground on
>>> >which we stand - to "vote" for a new world (as Thoreau suggested)
>>> >with our whole selves all the time, rather than in moments carefully
>>> >selected by others." - Howard Zinn, "The Uses of Scholarship"
>>> >
>>> >Aaron Klemz, Minneapolis, Minnesota
>>> >aaronklemz@yahoo.com
>>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> >
>>> >__________________________________________________
>>> >Do You Yahoo!?
>>> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> >http://mail.yahoo.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Tom to Gmail
Lydia Howeel
to tomcleland, discuss
More options 6:32 pm (7 hours ago)
Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so, WHAT HAPPENED?
We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal with. It seems
that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
Linda Mann
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Gypsycurse7@cs.com to Gmail
Tom Cleland
to Gypsycurse7, discuss
More options 10:42 pm (3 hours ago)
Apparently it ended up there, but the jury may have felt it was too late.
Also, as I understand it, Dean tried to write a check to FREE early on, but
the jury may not have been convinced the check was authentic or timely.
In the end, it looks like the developer didn't get any special treatment,
and the money did not go to benefit Dean or his campaign, so then I guess it
really was "nothing for nothing." If I was the judge and knew the $6000 was
accounted for, I would go easy on Dean.
Tom Cleland
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:;
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
- Show quoted text -
> Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
> account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so, WHAT
> HAPPENED?
> We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
> sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal with. It
> seems
> that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
>
> Linda Mann
>
- Show quoted text -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Tom to Gmail
Betsy Barnum
to Gypsycurse7, tomcleland, discuss
More options 10:50 pm (3 hours ago)
- Show quoted text -
At 06:32 PM 8/25/06, Gypsycurse7@cs.com wrote:
>Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
>account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so,
>WHAT HAPPENED?
>We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
>sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal
>with. It seems
>that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
As far as the jury was concerned--and this is what the FBI apparently
wanted--the critical issue seemed to be the secret videotape that
showed Dean slipping an envelope filled with thousands of dollars in
cash into his pocket. As well as his words on tape advising the
sleazy developer how to contribute more by getting it from family
members, friends, etc. And his words, "money, money, money," never
mind that the tone was joking. That's pretty much all they needed to
see. The current atmosphere in our country is highly suspicious of
politicians on every level. This jury needed just a gentle push to
see this act as corruption, even though the proof of "quid pro quo,"
which is the definition of bribery, was not there.
What the FBI did, as I was quoted as saying to the StarTrib the day
the verdict came down, looked a lot like entrapment. This wasn't like
a drug sting, where the drug dealers are known to be doing illegal
activity, and the sting is just to catch them in the act. Dean had
not accepted bribes or done anything corrupt that would lead to him
being investigated. The FBI had no reason to suspect him of having
done so. He was targeted because the FBI, counselled by the sleazy
developer, knew he was deeply in debt over the redistricting lawsuit
and thought he might be a "soft target." They were right.
What Dean did in accepting the money and in not being able to account
for some of it was wrong and unethical. It wasn't criminal. And
since the judge instructed the jury (this I read in one of Randy
Furst's articles in the Strib) that if they thought Dean had been
entrapped they must find him not guilty, I can't understand why more
wasn't made of this. Trying to get a law-abiding citizen to commit a
crime by presenting him with a huge temptation and all sorts of
pressure to do it is what entrapment is, in my lay understanding.
I wish Dean hadn't done it. The image of this incident throughout our
state and everywhere else that it has been reported, is that a Green
former public office-holder is guilty of corruption and bribery. For
all those who don't know the details, the jury conviction means it's
true. That's how our legal system works. We know he's not a criminal,
but to the rest of the world he is.
And along with that is the image of a Green former public
office-holder handling money in ways that are not at all in keeping
with Green principles on this issue, which is one of our strongest
differences with other parties, and failing to live up to the key
value of personal responsibility. Dean will have to live with his
conviction; we'll all have to live with what he did for some time to come.
If one of the results of this tragedy is that all Green
office-holders and candidates redouble their efforts to be upright
and transparent in their handling of money, the suffering of Dean,
Jenny, their family and friends and the GPMN will have some redeeming value.
Betsy Barnum
Minneapolis
stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
Dean Zimmermann
to Tom, discuss, Dave, Michael
More options Aug 25 (17 hours ago)
Tom: it is no secret that the $6000 is in the Redistricting Lawsuit Fund
account and has been there for months. Tom Taylor and Bruce Shoemaker are
in charge of that account. This has been common knowledge for a long time,
so I am surprised to see it even being discussed, as if there were some
question about it.
Peace,
Dean Zimmermann
C: 612-388-1311
H: 612-724-3888
2200 Clinton Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Surely the most important task for all of us is to leave behind a planet
that is fit for our great grandchildren to live on. So all of our personal
actions, as well as our political policies, must be tempered with an eye to
long term sustainability, not short term profit or expediency. As we
struggle to solve the day to day problems -- crime, jobs, budget shortfalls,
homelessness, traffic congestion, and air quality, we will look to solutions
that serve both our immediate needs and lay the foundation for the
post-petroleum economy.
- Show quoted text -
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Cleland
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:09 PM
To: discuss@mngreens.org
Cc: Dave Bicking; Michael Cavlan
Subject: Fw: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
I'm about ready to let go of the Zimmermann case, but not before I make a
stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
Tom Cleland
to Tom, deanzimm, discuss, Dave, Michael
More options 3:53 pm (10 hours ago)
Dean,
Thank you for responding. I wasn't sure if you wanted to answer questions
personally during this difficult time.
I'm still relatively new to the list serve. I was unaware that the $6000 had
been accounted for. I put the question out to this list serve on August 15
and again on the 17th, and nobody responded.
I'm cc'ing Tom Taylor. I don't have Bruce Shoemaker's email address. Please
forgive me Dean, but if they or someone else could verify things on-list or
off-list, I would appreciate that.
This would mitigate things considerably. I would mention it when discussing
it with others, and suggest others do the same.
Tom Cleland
- Show quoted text -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dean Zimmermann"
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
Tom: it is no secret that the $6000 is in the Redistricting Lawsuit Fund
account and has been there for months. Tom Taylor and Bruce Shoemaker are
in charge of that account. This has been common knowledge for a long time,
so I am surprised to see it even being discussed, as if there were some
question about it.
Peace,
Dean Zimmermann
C: 612-388-1311
H: 612-724-3888
2200 Clinton Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Surely the most important task for all of us is to leave behind a planet
that is fit for our great grandchildren to live on. So all of our personal
actions, as well as our political policies, must be tempered with an eye to
long term sustainability, not short term profit or expediency. As we
struggle to solve the day to day problems -- crime, jobs, budget shortfalls,
homelessness, traffic congestion, and air quality, we will look to solutions
that serve both our immediate needs and lay the foundation for the
post-petroleum economy.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Cleland
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:09 PM
To: discuss@mngreens.org
Cc: Dave Bicking; Michael Cavlan
Subject: Fw: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
I'm about ready to let go of the Zimmermann case, but not before I make a
stronger statement.
Dave Bicking called me yesterday. Our understanding is that $1200 was seized
in the raid. Dave doubts that the remaining $6000 is still unaccounted for,
but that would need to be verified.
Unless the $6000 can be accounted for, I have to assume that Dean spent it
on himself. I don't plan on distancing myself from Dean Zimmermann, but I do
feel justified in distancing myself from Dean's Zimmermann's conduct.
Even if Dean is not guilty of bribery, I am still disappointed with his
conduct, accepting large sums of money, over contribution limits, from a
developer with business before the city. It is not what I would expect of a
Green Party office holder.
I agree with Aaron Klemz that this is a crisis of conscience for the GP. I
told Michael Cavlan that we have to be guided by truth first, and loyalty
second. Michael has reassured me that he will not act in a fashion similar
to Zimmermann's.
I don't plan to make a big issue of the Zimmermann case, but if people ask
me about it, I will say that I am disappointed but I still have confidence
in our other candidates. Generally speaking, you can tell by our stands on
the issues that we are not compromised.
Tom Cleland
Golden Valley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Cleland"
To: "Dave Bicking"
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
> Dave Bicking,
>
> I'm still hoping you or someone else can answer the following questions:
>
> 1. Did the F.R.E.E. group eventually open up a new account?
> 2. Did the money end up in there?
>
> Also:
>
> 3. Of the $7200, how much was seized in the raid?
> 4. When did Dean attempt or succeed in getting the money to F.R.E.E., in
> relation to the FBI confrontation of Dean and the subsequent raid? My
> understanding is that the raid occurred shortly after the primary finance
> reporting deadline.
> 5. Other than the Leventhal testimony, was there any other independent
> verification of when Dean's check to F.R.E.E. was written?
>
> If less than $7200 was seized in the raid, and the remainder did not go to
> F.R.E.E., I don't think it's too late to try to get it to F.R.E.E. or
> whatever the next best thing is, even if that's the court. Better to have
> a bigger credit card debt than to have that remaining money unaccounted
> for.
>
> Tom Cleland
> cc: gp list serve
>
>>>>
>
> I can see both sides.
>
> Dave, regarding the gerrymandering lawsuit fund, you said, "Dean had no
> way
> to pass the money along until the group opened up a new account."
>
> Did the group eventually open up a new account, and did the money end up
> in
> there?
>
> If a similar situation occurs in the future, I would recommend suggesting
> that the developer give the money directly to the lawsuit fund, making
> clear
> that no favors are expected. If the developer persists on giving to the
> candidate, I believe the appropriate Green response is to hold a press
> conference and try to shine a bright spotlight on what the developer is
> trying to do.
>
> Going forward, I'm not sure what the rest of the party can do to reassure
> the public that we are "the incorruptables." Release our campaign funding
> disclosure reports early? Put our budgets on our web sites?
>
> Tom Cleland
> Golden Valley
> Cavlan Campaign Volunteer
>
> http://tomstream.blogspot.com/2005/09/advice-for-dean-zimmerman.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Cc:
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 2:21 AM
> Subject: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
>
>
>> Dave Bicking, thank you! We who know Dean and Jenny are aware that he
>> would
>> never, ever do anything to incriminate himself or hurt the GP. You've
>> explained the case so clearly. I can only wonder why Dean's lawyer
>> couldn't have
>> done the same. And to Aaron Klemz :there is no limit in real personal
>> loyalty.
>>
>> --Dori Ullman
>> Campaign Manager
>> The Committee to Elect Michael Cavlan
>> to the US Senate 2006
>>
>> The civility of no race can be perfect whilst another race is degraded.
>> It
>> is a doctrine alike of the oldest and of the newest philosophy, that man
>> is
>> one, and that you cannot injure any member, without a sympathetic injury
>> to all
>> the members": Ralph Waldo Emerson. 1844
>>
>> --Dori
>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Bicking"
> To:
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:22 AM
> Subject: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
>
>
>> I'm concerned about commentaries on Dean's case, within the
>> Green Party and elsewhere, that I believe are based on lack of full
>> knowledge or understanding of the facts. It is understandable,
>> because it is not easy to be fully informed, and because one is
>> certain to be mis-informed if your knowledge comes from media
>> coverage.
>>
>> This is largely due to failings of Dean's friends and his defense
>> committee. We should have been compiling and posting all the
>> information we have, in some place that is accessible to Green
>> Party members and others. We intend to do that, but of course it
>> is already too late. I will help work on that. Right now, I have just
>> a little time, so I will tackle just a few issues.
>>
>> First of all, contrary to what Julie says, it is NOT illegal to take
>> large sums of cash from a developer. I would also argue (and here
>> I would expect and respect some disagreement), that it was also
>> not unethical in this case. The relevant issue is not the money
>> changing hands, or whether it is cash or checks. The issue,
>> legally and ethically, is the intent. That is what makes it a bribe or
>> not.
>>
>> No one disputes that money changed hands. That didn't keep the
>> prosecution and the media from showing and talking endlessly
>> about the tapes of Gary Carlson giving Dean cash. Yes, those
>> tapes look bad. That is because it was the FBI that controlled the
>> timing and location, that supplied the props, that wrote and
>> rehearsed the script, and did the filming. They intended it to look
>> as bad as possible.
>>
>> This case is NOT primarily about campaign finance. Though it is
>> right for us to point out that campaign finance reform would help
>> avoid corruption, that is not the major issue here. Of the four
>> counts, only one, the $1200 cash in four envelopes, has anything
>> to do with campaign contributions. The two more serious, and
>> difficult, charges have to do with contributions to a charitable group
>> (the redistricting lawsuit fund). And the fourth charge, of which
>> Dean was acquitted and which was obviously ludicrous from the
>> start, had to do with the retaining wall.
>>
>> Regarding the campaign donations, Dean did exactly what would
>> be expected, and exactly what the rules require: He set aside the
>> envelopes and did not deposit the money into the campaign
>> account, until he could determine who the money really came from,
>> and whether it was a legal and ethical contribution. That money
>> never went into his campaign, and Dean never benefitted from it -
>> nor did he intend to unless he was confident it was legitimate. This
>> is what all candidates do or should do. It happened twice in my
>> campaign that I can remember, that we received a contribution from
>> someone we did not know well, and we held on to the money until
>> we could check and make sure it was legal and proper.
>>
>> Dean did do one thing wrong - in the heat of the campaign,
>> overwhelmed with all the work, neither he nor his treasurer nor his
>> campaign staff dealt with the envelopes within the 10 days required
>> by campaign finance regulations. This is a very minor campaign
>> finance violation. I think anyone who has been a candidate could
>> sympathize.
>>
>> The other money that exchanged hands was not for Dean or for his
>> campaign. It was of no direct benefit to Dean or his campaign,
>> unless Dean had simply taken the money for himself rather than
>> giving it to the fund for the redistricting lawsuit. The FBI was
>> clearly hoping that Dean would do just that, so that they would
>> have a case for bribery, and for Dean using the money for personal
>> gain. Dean disappointed them - he did what was legal and ethical.
>> That didn't stop them from distorting facts and prosecuting him on
>> a flimsy and unsubstantiated case.
>>
>> Remember that Dean was not obligated to pay the bills for the
>> redistricting lawsuit. He was just one plaintiff, one person out of
>> the group which jointly committed to going forward with the suit.
>> He had no personal debt for that lawsuit. Being a good guy,
>> though, he felt a personal responsibility to help raise the funds. So
>> he comes across someone who is willing to contribute, someone
>> wealthy for whom $5000 is a small amount.
>>
>> Dean never asked for the money in cash - that was the FBI's
>> decision. When Gary Carlson gave him the cash, he "immediately
>> stuffed it deep into his pants pocket." The FBI repeated that
>> phrase over and over. It was part of their pattern of taking purely
>> innocent acts and making them sound bad - because they had no
>> real case. If you were in public in a restaurant in south Mpls and
>> you were handed $5000 cash, would you wave it around, fan
>> through the bills, or even leave it sitting on the table? No, and
>> Dean is no more an idiot than you or I - he got that cash out of
>> sight as quickly as possible.
>>
>> Should he have refused the cash right there? Possibly - but
>> consider for a moment. First is the issue of whether it is a good
>> idea, sitting in public, to discuss or argue about the $5000 in cash
>> that one of you is going to leave the restaurant with. More
>> importantly, Dean is NOT taking the money for himself. Who is he
>> to refuse a significant contribution that is going to a good cause?
>> Shouldn't he at least consult with the leaders of that group as to
>> what they feel is proper? Should he alone decide whether the
>> lawyers get paid for at least some of the important work they did?
>> No, the proper thing is to consult with others. In the Green Party
>> we work that way - concensus rather than one person making
>> important decisions all alone, especially on the spur of the
>> moment. The money could always be returned if that were the
>> decision of the larger group.
>>
>> Dean proceeded to do the right thing. He told the lawyer, Larry
>> Leventhal, that he had received this contribution to the group. He
>> tried to give the money to the group - he even wrote out a check for
>> the full amount. But due to dysfunction within the group - no bank
>> account, etc., Dean had no way to pass the money along until the
>> group opened up a new account. Dean is not even the "bumbler"
>> that some apologists make him out to be. It was the group's fault,
>> not his, that he kept the money temporarily.
>>
>> That's all I have time for, and that's enough for one post anyway.
>> Maybe later I'll explain other issues, such as entrapment. In partial
>> response to Aaron's post, yes, I would respond the same way if it
>> were a Democrat. Fair is fair. And, having recently learned much
>> more about Joe Biernat's case, I believe that he too was unjustly
>> railroaded by the FBI. Everyone talks about the 3 council
>> members convicted of bribery. Unlike Dean, the FBI never even got
>> a bribery conviction in his case, yet he still went to jail. It is an
>> interesting case, and the real story tells us a lot about the FBI.
>>
>> In response to Julie's post, it is a fact that Dean never received one
>> cent of personal gain from any of the acts he was convicted of. It
>> is my strong conviction, from reviewing the entirety of the case as
>> well as from knowing Dean, that he NEVER intended any personal
>> gain. That is why I believed it was essential that the Green Party
>> statement contain the phrase, "we believe that he was never
>> motivated by personal gain."
>>
>> It is important for the Green Party to maintain the highest
>> standards of integrity, and to hold our candidates to that standard.
>> It is equally important for us to be loyal and supportive to
>> candidates and officeholders who ARE maintaining high standards,
>> and who are being deliberately persecuted. Our candidates and
>> members deserve that, and we should never ditch someone just for
>> the benefit of appearances (for our "credibility"). Which of these
>> two we do in this case should depend upon the actual facts and
>> our best interpretation of them. I hope I have contributed to that.
>>
>> Dave Bicking
>> long-time friend of Dean's,
>> GP candidate for Mpls City Council in 2005
>>
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2006, at 6:18, Julie Risser wrote:
>>
>>> I think party spokespersons should stick to facts - The one sentence
>>> in the release that was along the lines of "we believe this wasn't for
>>> personal gain...." or some such statement should have been dropped. It
>>> is true all the money poured into politics is much greater with the
>>> two major parties - BUT - by not acknowledging straight out that
>>> taking large sums of cash from a developer is illegal in the press
>>> statement and that the jury found this to be the case I think we
>>> really do hurt our credibility.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaron Klemz wrote:
>>>
>>> >Hello:
>>> >
>>> >I know I'm probably stepping off a cliff on this one,
>>> >but I can't not say something about this any longer.
>>> >
>>> >What would the Green Party's response be if Barbara
>>> >Johnson or Don Samuels were caught on tape receiving
>>> >7200 dollars in cash donations from a developer? How
>>> >would we interpret such a trial of a Democrat where
>>> >the evidence was produced (on tape)? And what would be
>>> >our response to a conviction of a Democrat council
>>> >member for bribery given these facts?
>>> >
>>> >I don't know Dean Zimmermann well, but in my very
>>> >limited interactions with him, he seems like a
>>> >wonderful person. I don't wish him ill - he's done
>>> >great things for the Green Party and for the city in
>>> >my opinion. We're a small enough circle of people that
>>> >there's a personal connection and affection between
>>> >political leaders in the GP and their supporters,
>>> >which is a fantastic attribute. But there's a limit to
>>> >personal loyalty, and that's what this letter is
>>> >about.
>>> >
>>> >I seriously can't believe that every public statement
>>> >equivocates on the acts that were documented in this
>>> >trial with one of the following types of arguments:
>>> >
>>> >A) The acts documented there pale in comparison to the
>>> >political corruption present elsewhere in our
>>> >political system.
>>> >
>>> >Obviously, this statement is true on its face, but
>>> >this cannot be used as an excuse to justify actions
>>> >that on their face contravene nearly every principle
>>> >the GP espouses publicly and privately regarding the
>>> >acceptance of money from donors. Maybe I missed it,
>>> >but aren't we supposed to hold ourselves to higher
>>> >standards than the corrupt political status quo? Don't
>>> >we express that in our platform?
>>> >
>>> >B) There was no explicit quid pro quo for the
>>> >acceptance of the donation.
>>> >
>>> >As a legal argument, this may be the strongest
>>> >argument that I've seen, but as a political argument,
>>> >this sucks. In the corrupt status quo, flows of money
>>> >from developers and political interests rarely have
>>> >express quid pro quos attached to them, but we abhor
>>> >them nonetheless because they are emblematic of the
>>> >corruption we see.
>>> >
>>> >C) It was entrapment.
>>> >
>>> >Once again, this is a legal argument that might work
>>> >to excuse an action from illegality, but the fact
>>> >remains that one of the GP's most public and respected
>>> >figures accepted over 7000 dollars in cash donations
>>> >from a developer on tape. No donation is compulsory -
>>> >it would have been right and correct to say "no."
>>> >
>>> >How do we expect to survive as a party that imposes
>>> >higher standards on ourselves because of our belief
>>> >that money has corrupted our political system when we
>>> >excuse the actions of one of our most public champions
>>> >that contravene those standards? I am willing to be
>>> >told that my understanding of these facts is incorrect
>>> >- but my understanding is that the fact that Dean
>>> >Zimmermann accepted over 7000 dollars in cash from
>>> >Carlson is not in dispute.
>>> >
>>> >The GP's statements in the wake of this conviction are
>>> >disconcerting to me, and in my opinion, eviscerate the
>>> >one of the central premises of our existance, that we
>>> >stand for clean politics free from the taint of money.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Before you respond, please do me the favor of
>>> >remembering a few things and trying to answer a few
>>> >things.
>>> >
>>> >1) How would we respond if a Democrat were to be
>>> >convicted of accepting bribes? Or for that matter,
>>> >were to have been acquitted under similar
>>> >circumstances and facts? If we cannot respond
>>> >consistently regardless of party to corruption cases,
>>> >we have forfeited our high ground.
>>> >
>>> >2) I have no motive to impugn the GP or Dean
>>> >Zimmermann. I don't know him well enough to have any
>>> >agenda against him. I know that many of you do know
>>> >him far better than I do. I offer this only because I
>>> >fear that this personal connection has colored our
>>> >judgment in a negative way.
>>> >
>>> >3) This is, indeed, a crisis of conscience for the GP.
>>> >Many who wonder at our corrupt political system will
>>> >see our response to this as a sign of where we stand,
>>> >and I fear that what we've said so far is sending the
>>> >message that we'll ignore the influence of money among
>>> >our own and criticize it in other places. And frankly,
>>> >that is the hypocritical attitude that made me leave
>>> >the D's and vote Green in the first place. Was I
>>> >wrong?
>>> >
>>> >Truthfully, I thought a long time about this before I
>>> >posted, and I do so out of concern rather than hate or
>>> >the desire to hurt anyone. I hope that, at least,
>>> >comes through as you've read this.
>>> >
>>> >Sincerely,
>>> >
>>> >aaron klemz
>>> >minneapolis/cooper
>>> >
>>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> >"I am not sure what a revolution in the academy will look like, any
>>> >more than I know what a revolution in the society will look like. I
>>> >doubt that it will take the form of some great cataclysmic event.
>>> >More likely, it will be a process, with periods of tumult and of
>>> >quiet, in which we will, here and there, by ones and twos and tens,
>>> >create pockets of concern inside old institutions, transforming them
>>> >from within. There is no great day of reckoning to work toward.
>>> >Rather, we must begin _now_ to liberate those patches of ground on
>>> >which we stand - to "vote" for a new world (as Thoreau suggested)
>>> >with our whole selves all the time, rather than in moments carefully
>>> >selected by others." - Howard Zinn, "The Uses of Scholarship"
>>> >
>>> >Aaron Klemz, Minneapolis, Minnesota
>>> >aaronklemz@yahoo.com
>>> >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> >
>>> >__________________________________________________
>>> >Do You Yahoo!?
>>> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>> >http://mail.yahoo.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Tom to Gmail
Lydia Howeel
to tomcleland, discuss
More options 6:32 pm (7 hours ago)
Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so, WHAT HAPPENED?
We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal with. It seems
that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
Linda Mann
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Gypsycurse7@cs.com to Gmail
Tom Cleland
to Gypsycurse7, discuss
More options 10:42 pm (3 hours ago)
Apparently it ended up there, but the jury may have felt it was too late.
Also, as I understand it, Dean tried to write a check to FREE early on, but
the jury may not have been convinced the check was authentic or timely.
In the end, it looks like the developer didn't get any special treatment,
and the money did not go to benefit Dean or his campaign, so then I guess it
really was "nothing for nothing." If I was the judge and knew the $6000 was
accounted for, I would go easy on Dean.
Tom Cleland
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2006 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [gpmn_ccc] Zimmermann and the GP
- Show quoted text -
> Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
> account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so, WHAT
> HAPPENED?
> We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
> sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal with. It
> seems
> that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
>
> Linda Mann
>
- Show quoted text -
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe@mngreens.org
For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help@mngreens.org
Reply Reply to all Forward Invite Tom to Gmail
Betsy Barnum
to Gypsycurse7, tomcleland, discuss
More options 10:50 pm (3 hours ago)
- Show quoted text -
At 06:32 PM 8/25/06, Gypsycurse7@cs.com wrote:
>Did it come out at trial that the "bribe money" ended up in a legitimate
>account for an organization that it was ok to give money to? If so,
>WHAT HAPPENED?
>We all know there was no pro quid whatever (did that come out too?). I'm
>sorry I lost track of this trial. I had a personal thing to deal
>with. It seems
>that the destination of the money is a critical issue.
As far as the jury was concerned--and this is what the FBI apparently
wanted--the critical issue seemed to be the secret videotape that
showed Dean slipping an envelope filled with thousands of dollars in
cash into his pocket. As well as his words on tape advising the
sleazy developer how to contribute more by getting it from family
members, friends, etc. And his words, "money, money, money," never
mind that the tone was joking. That's pretty much all they needed to
see. The current atmosphere in our country is highly suspicious of
politicians on every level. This jury needed just a gentle push to
see this act as corruption, even though the proof of "quid pro quo,"
which is the definition of bribery, was not there.
What the FBI did, as I was quoted as saying to the StarTrib the day
the verdict came down, looked a lot like entrapment. This wasn't like
a drug sting, where the drug dealers are known to be doing illegal
activity, and the sting is just to catch them in the act. Dean had
not accepted bribes or done anything corrupt that would lead to him
being investigated. The FBI had no reason to suspect him of having
done so. He was targeted because the FBI, counselled by the sleazy
developer, knew he was deeply in debt over the redistricting lawsuit
and thought he might be a "soft target." They were right.
What Dean did in accepting the money and in not being able to account
for some of it was wrong and unethical. It wasn't criminal. And
since the judge instructed the jury (this I read in one of Randy
Furst's articles in the Strib) that if they thought Dean had been
entrapped they must find him not guilty, I can't understand why more
wasn't made of this. Trying to get a law-abiding citizen to commit a
crime by presenting him with a huge temptation and all sorts of
pressure to do it is what entrapment is, in my lay understanding.
I wish Dean hadn't done it. The image of this incident throughout our
state and everywhere else that it has been reported, is that a Green
former public office-holder is guilty of corruption and bribery. For
all those who don't know the details, the jury conviction means it's
true. That's how our legal system works. We know he's not a criminal,
but to the rest of the world he is.
And along with that is the image of a Green former public
office-holder handling money in ways that are not at all in keeping
with Green principles on this issue, which is one of our strongest
differences with other parties, and failing to live up to the key
value of personal responsibility. Dean will have to live with his
conviction; we'll all have to live with what he did for some time to come.
If one of the results of this tragedy is that all Green
office-holders and candidates redouble their efforts to be upright
and transparent in their handling of money, the suffering of Dean,
Jenny, their family and friends and the GPMN will have some redeeming value.
Betsy Barnum
Minneapolis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
