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: <discuss@mngreens.org>
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: <DoriJJ@aol.com>
> To: <gpmn_ccc@lists.riseup.net>; <dave@colorstudy.com>
> Cc: <Mpls-5thDistrictGreenParty@yahoogroups.com>; <discuss@mngreens.org>;
> <mplsgreen@yahoogroups.com>
> 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" <dave@colorstudy.com>
> To: <gpmn_ccc@lists.riseup.net>;
> <Mpls-5thDistrictGreenParty@yahoogroups.com>
> Cc: <discuss@mngreens.org>; <mplsgreen@yahoogroups.com>
> 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: <Gypsycurse7@cs.com>
To: <tomcleland@comcast.net>; <discuss@mngreens.org>
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

DZ Trial - MN Daily opinion

Oooooops.

Last year, former 6th Ward City Council member and Green Party activist Dean Zimmermann was caught (on tape) on the receiving end of a "financial transaction" (read: bribe), and now he's been found guilty of taking several thousand dollars from a fast-talking real estate developer planted by the FBI.

Smile, Dean! You're on "Candid Camera: Political Smear Edition."

My question is the following: Why don't we see pushy FBI agents and U.S. attorneys viciously cornering and blowing the covers of decades-long Republican and Democratic philandering? Why does the lone Green wolf get the government-sponsored hatchet job?

Let's start from the beginning, and that means some full disclosure.

I've met Zimmermann before, at a house party in the Uptown area a couple of years ago.

It was Halloween, and a goofy, seemingly disoriented teddy bear of a man - think Jerry Garcia in a "Nader 2004" T-shirt, and not long after a hemp-accessorizing community class - was apparently doing the rounds at a neighborhood haunt with a palette of political buttons tucked under his left arm.

The Dean-o I saw and briefly chatted with that night was the same schmoo I saw in the FBI's surveillance vid last week: a clueless, somewhat pathetic old radical-era leftover who was perhaps not a shining beacon of honesty (in his conduct or his campaign tactics), but in the final analysis was nothing more than a fleshy spoof of his own party, and third-party pols everywhere.

Fast forward a bit to June 14, 2005, when this same loon is about to have a side of chicken wings with previously mentioned developer Gary Carlson at the Baja Restaurant in the Cedar-Riverside area of Minneapolis.

Before much has happened, Carlson hands over an envelope with 50 $100 bills, and the grizzled 64-year-old upstart, looking surprised, takes the envelope, not knowing Carlson is wearing a video wire strapped by the FBI.

Enter Zimmergate - and the man's conviction last week on federal bribery charges by an all-white, all non-Minneapolis jury.

Seriously, folks. Zimmermann is a south Minneapolis handyman with eight credit cards and $35,000 in debt. He's the softest target possible for small-time ATM action at a taco stand.

It's true Zimmermann was playing dirty pool, but it takes two to tango, and the feds spun this aggressively scripted counter-charade from politically greased yarn.

If you want to work to dismantle the filthy cash register that is city, state and federal politics, don't start with a silly, cash-strapped old Greener who was duped into a few grand in zoning funds.

If the Federal Bureau of Investigation really wanted to live up to its name, it would do just that: investigate real fraud and not just be snoops for hire selling themselves out to party hacks who are major white-collar criminals themselves.

Congratulations, secret agents. You just busted a benign third-party hippie with swift and thorough justice. Now it's time to turn those sizable guns on the Cheneys of the world, who sell not Chicago Avenue zoning rights, but the Constitution out to the petroleum and military-industrial lobbies, right?

Of course. And then I'd wake up.

Adri Mehra welcomes comments at amehra@mndaily.com.

DZ Trial - City Pages

by Paul Demko
August 16, 2006



Perhaps Dean Zimmermann should consider a career in standup comedy.

The former Minneapolis City Council member put on a pretty good show prior to the announcement of the verdict in his trial on federal corruption charges last week. He lamented that his attempt to connect with jurors by pointing out that he'd played high school football for the same North Dakota team that later fielded Minnesota Vikings tight end Jimmy Kleinsasser had fallen flat. He queried reporters as to whether anyone was taking bets on the outcome of the trial. The Green Party activist even theorized that he had to drink water out of an environmentally unfriendly Styrofoam cup throughout the trial out of fear that he might attack the prosecutor with anything more potentially lethal.

But the verdict that was announced just moments later was no laughing matter. A 12-member jury found Zimmermann guilty on three counts of bribery. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count—although the actual sentence will likely be considerably less severe. (The former City Council member was acquitted on a fourth charge—that he illegally solicited a retaining wall from a nonprofit developer.)

The case against the frumpy, bicycle-riding politician, who was narrowly voted out of office last November after being indicted, was quite simple. The U.S. Attorney's office alleged that he took $7,200 in bribes from developer Gary Carlson in return for help on zoning issues. Undoubtedly the most damning evidence was a videotape that showed Zimmermann nonchalantly shoving $5,000 of FBI-supplied dough into his pocket while he and Carlson dined on chicken wings and rum and cokes at an Ecuadorian restaurant on the West Bank.
Advertisement

If you believe the government, Zimmermann utilized his Sixth Ward City Council post to prey on developers for his personal enrichment, demanding bribes in return for his support of projects. "The defendant has sold his office," prosecutor John Docherty told the jury in his closing argument.

If you believe Zimmermann, he was brought down by a massive conspiracy orchestrated by a government that feels threatened by his uncompromising radical beliefs. "I'm not the first activist that this government or any government has come after," Zimmermann told reporters after the verdict, invoking the names of Nelson Mandela, Leonard Peltier, and Martin Luther King Jr. "I don't think it's any accident that they singled me out as someone they wanted to shut up."

The truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in between and is a great deal more mundane. What the trial revealed was a politician whose chaotic personal finances compromised his ability to fulfill the duties of his job and left him vulnerable to enticements of cash. Zimmermann testified that by the end of last year he had accumulated roughly $35,000 in credit card debt—equal to more than half his City Council salary—and routinely shuffled these bills around to competing finance companies. He may not have consciously attempted to solicit a bribe, but when the money fell into his lap he apparently was more than happy to utilize it for personal ends.

It may even be true, as Zimmermann insisted throughout, that all of the money would have eventually been deposited in the appropriate bank accounts. But even if that's the case, he's still guilty of utilizing accounting practices that wouldn't be acceptable for a church bake sale, let alone a City Council campaign. Whatever one makes of Zimmermann's politics, Minneapolis taxpayers should be relieved that he's no longer minding the city till.

That said, there may be something to the notion that Zimmermann was set up. Not so much by the government, as he would grandly like to believe, but by Carlson. As the story unfolded at trial, the developer seemingly went about his self-appointed task of luring Zimmermann into the scheme with all the ardor of a late-night TV diet guru, practically begging the City Council member to accept his money. "If Dean was a corrupt official who was out looking for bribes," Zimmermann's attorney, Dan Scott, wondered during his closing argument, "then why was it always Carlson who was the aggressor?" Aside from that, Carlson's braggadocio over purportedly raising $28,000 for Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman was sufficient to cast Zimmermann in a sympathetic light.

Zimmermann also makes a valid point in arguing that he wasn't truly tried by a jury of his peers. Because the case was brought in federal court, the jury was tapped from throughout the state. "There was nobody on there from Minneapolis," Zimmermann noted after the verdict. "No person of color. Most of the people in my ward are people of color."

But in the end, it comes down to this: Zimmermann took the money. He accepted $7,200 in illegal, campaign-related contributions from a developer and spent the money like it had been dispensed from an ATM machine.

Jenny Heiser seemed to take the jury's verdict considerably harder than her husband. She largely declined to speak with reporters afterward, saying simply that Zimmermann remained her "hero." But riding the elevator down from the 13th floor of the federal courthouse across the street from Minneapolis City Hall, she blamed his actions on the rigors of holding public office and simultaneously running a campaign. "He was not himself that whole summer," Heiser noted. "He was exhausted. He was running on three or four hours of sleep a night. Chronic sleep deprivation."

Zimmermann will undoubtedly have plenty of time to sleep in prison. It's not clear if he will appeal his conviction, but the veteran Green Party activist already seemed resigned to his fate. "Life goes on," he mused moments after the verdict was read, wearing the same tattered tweed jacket and baggy black pants that he'd sported throughout the two-week trial. "I guess I'll go home and finish my jigsaw puzzle."

Lynne's Burdock

Dear 17th Ave. Steering Committee:

After some of you were in the garden working this Saturday, I found that the two burdocks that I was nurturing in the herb garden had been pulled up and destroyed. One of them was in flower, and was quite lovely. Do you know how that happened? I kept the burdock carefully trimmed, and used it daily in my tea. Earlier this year, one of you pulled up a different burdock I was growing in the herb garden. I made it clear to Carol Pass and Linda Leonard I had been caring for it. I requested of Carol and Linda that you please not pull up the plants, and that you not work in the herb garden, at least not without speaking with me first. The herb garden was neither created nor maintained by you.

Also, a string holding up my tomato plant next to the plot Cynthia and Laverne put flowers in last year was cut. My tomatoes were lying on the ground. Do you know anything about this?

May I hear from someone about this right away, please?

Thank you,

Lynne Mayo

STATEMENT ON VERDICT IN DEAN ZIMMERMANN'S TRIAL

Green Party of Minnesota
Green Party of the 5th Congressional District

News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Saturday, August 12, 2006

CONTACTS:
Rhoda Gilman, Green Party of Minnesota Spokesperson, (651) 224-6383
Neil Cunningham, Fifth Congressional District Spokesperson, (612) 722-0626

STATEMENT ON VERDICT IN DEAN ZIMMERMANN'S TRIAL

The Green Party of Minnesota reaffirms its belief that Dean Zimmermann had
no intention to solicit or take bribes. We base this on his record of more
than half a century of service to his community and active work for justice.
We recognize that he has made serious mistakes in the handling of funds, and
we do not condone or excuse those mistakes. Nevertheless, we believe that he
was never motivated by personal gain.

Our hearts go out to Dean and his family in what is clearly a tragic
situation. We have serious concerns about what appears to have been
questionable investigative practices by federal authorities. As a party we
believe that the root of the problem is the vast sums of money being poured
into politics and the climate of widespread suspicion and corruption that it
creates. We are concerned about the legal bribery inherent in the existing
political system.

The Green Party continues to stand, as it always has, for clean and fair
elections, public funding of campaigns, and strict regulation of lobbying.

The Gay Animal Kingdom

The effeminate sheep & other problems with Darwinian sexual selection.

by Jonah Lehrer • Posted June 7, 2006 12:14 AM

From the JUN/JUL 2006 issue of Seed:

Joan Roughgarden thinks Charles Darwin made a terrible mistake. Not about natural selection—she's no bible-toting creationist—but about his other great theory of evolution: sexual selection. According to Roughgarden, sexual selection can't explain the homosexuality that's been documented in over 450 different vertebrate species. This means that same-sex sexuality—long disparaged as a quirk of human culture—is a normal, and probably necessary, fact of life. By neglecting all those gay animals, she says, Darwin misunderstood the basic nature of heterosexuality.

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males "effeminate."

Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.

As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. You name it, there's a vertebrate out there that does it. Nevertheless, most biologists continue to regard homosexuality as a sexual outlier. According to evolutionary theory, being gay is little more than a maladaptive behavior.

Joan Roughgarden, a professor of biology at Stanford University, wants to change that perception. After cataloging the wealth of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom two years ago in her controversial book Evolution's Rainbow—and weathering critiques that, she says, stemmed largely from her being transgendered—Roughgarden has set about replacing Darwinian sexual selection with a new explanation of sex. For too long, she says, biology has neglected evidence that mating isn't only about multiplying. Sometimes, as in the case of all those gay sheep, dolphins and primates, animals have sex just for fun or to cement their social bonds. Homosexuality, Roughgarden says, is an essential part of biology, and can no longer be dismissed. By using the queer to untangle the straight, Roughgarden's theories have the potential to usher in a scientific sexual revolution.

Darwin's theory of sex began with an observation about peacocks. For a man who liked to see the world in terms of functional adaptations, the tails of male peacocks seemed like a useless absurdity. Why would nature invest in such a baroque display of feathers? Did male peacocks want to be eaten by predators?

Darwin's hypothesis was typically brilliant: The peacocks did it for the sake of reproduction. The male's fancy tail entranced the staid peahen. Darwin used this idea to explain the biological quirks that natural selection couldn't explain. If a trait wasn't in the service of survival, then it was probably in the service of seduction. Furthermore, the mechanics of sex helped explain why the genders were so different. Because eggs are expensive and sperm are cheap, "Males of almost all animals have stronger passions than females," Darwin wrote. "The female...with the rarest of exceptions is less eager than the male...she is coy." Darwin is telling the familiar Mars and Venus story: Men want sex while women want to cuddle. Females, by choosing who to bed, impose sexual selection onto the species.

Darwin's theory of sex has been biological dogma ever since he postulated why peacocks flirt. His gendered view of life has become a centerpiece of evolution, one of his great scientific legacies. The culture wars over evolution and common descent notwithstanding, Darwin's theory of sexual selection has been thoroughly assimilated into mass culture. From sitcoms to beer ads, our coital "instincts" are constantly reaffirmed. Females are wary, and males are horny. Sex is this simple. Or is it?

Indeed, biology now knows better. Nobody is hornier than a female macaque or bonobo (which mount the males because the males are too exhausted to continue the fornication). Peacocks are actually the exception, not the rule.

Roughgarden first began thinking Darwin may have been in error after she attended the 1997 gay pride parade in San Francisco, where she had gone to walk alongside a float in support of transgendered people. Although she had lived her first 52 years as a man, Roughgarden was about to become a woman. The decision hadn't been easy. For one thing, she was worried about losing her job as a tenured professor of biology at Stanford. (The fear turned out to be unfounded.)

After living for a year in Santa Barbara while undergoing the "physical aspects of the transition," Roughgarden returned to Stanford in the spring of 1999 and decided to write a book about the biology of sexual diversity. In particular, she wanted to answer the question that had first surfaced in her mind back in 1997. "When I was at that gay pride parade," Roughgarden remembers, "I was just stunned by the sheer magnitude of the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] population. Because I'm a biologist, I started asking myself some difficult questions. My discipline teaches that homosexuality is some sort of anomaly. But if the purpose of sexual contact is just reproduction, as Darwin believed, then why do all these gay people exist? A lot of biologists assume that they are somehow defective, that some developmental error or environmental influence has misdirected their sexual orientation. If so, gay and lesbian people are a mistake that should have been corrected a long time ago. But this hasn't happened. That's when I had my epiphany. When scientific theory says something's wrong with so many people, perhaps the theory is wrong, not the people."

The resulting book, Evolution's Rainbow, was an audacious attack on Darwin's theory of sexual selection. To make her case, Roughgarden filled the text with a staggering collection of animal perversities, from the penises of female spotted hyenas to the mènage à trois tactics of bluegill sunfish. As Roughgarden put it, "What's coming out [in the past 10-15 years] is to the rest of the species what the Kinsey Report was to humans."

According to Roughgarden, classic sexual selection can't account for these strange carnal habits. After all, Darwin imagined sex as a relatively straightforward transaction. Males compete for females. Evolutionary success is defined by the quantity of offspring. Thus, any distractions from the business of making babies—distractions like homosexuality, masturbation, etc.—are precious wastes of fluids. You'd think by now, several hundred million years after sex began, nature would have done away with such inefficiencies, and males and females would only act to maximize rates of sexual reproduction.

But the opposite has happened. Instead of copulation becoming more functional and straightforward, it has only gotten weirder as species have evolved—more sodomy and other frivolous pleasures that are useless for propagating the species. The more socially complex the animal, the more sexual "deviance" it exhibits. Look at primates: Compared to our closest relatives, contemporary, Westernized Homo sapiens are the staid ones.

Despite this new evidence, sexual selection theory is still stuck in the 19th century. The Victorian peacock remains the standard bearer. But as far as Roughgarden is concerned, that's bad science: "The time has come to declare that sexual theory is indeed false and to stop shoe-horning one exception after another into a sexual selection framework...To do otherwise suggests that sexual selection theory is unfalsifiable, not subject to refutation."

Roughgarden is an ambitious scientist. She believes it is impossible to comprehend the diversity of sexuality without disowning Darwin. Although she isn't the first biologist to condemn sexual selection—Darwin's theory has never been very popular with feminists—she is unusually vocal about cataloguing his empirical errors. "When I began, I didn't set out to criticize Darwin," she says. "But I quickly realized that most scientists are pretty dismissive about same-sex sexuality in vertebrates. They think these animals are just having fun or practicing. As long as scientists clung to this old dogma, homosexuality would always be this funny anomaly you didn't have to account for."

Roughgarden's first order of business was proving that homosexuality isn't a maladaptive trait. At first glance, this seems like a futile endeavor. Being gay clearly makes individuals less likely to pass on their genes, a major biological faux pas. From the perspective of evolution, homosexual behavior has always been a genetic dead end, something that has to be explained away.

But Roughgarden believes that biologists have it backwards. Given the pervasive presence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex partnering must be an adaptive trait that's been carefully preserved by natural selection. As Roughgarden points out, "a 'common genetic disease' is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease."

So how might homosexuality be good for us? Any concept of sexual selection that emphasizes the selfish propagation of genes and sperm won't be able to account for the abundance of non-heterosexual sex. All those gay penguins and persons will remain inexplicable. However, if one looks at homosexuality from the perspective of a community, one can begin to see why nature might foster a variety of sexual interactions.

According to Roughgarden, gayness is a necessary side effect of getting along. Homosexuality evolved in tandem with vertebrate societies, in which a motley group of individuals has to either live together or die alone. In fact, Roughgarden even argues that homosexuality is a defining feature of advanced animal communities, which require communal bonds in order to function. "The more complex and sophisticated a social system is," she writes, "the more likely it is to have homosexuality intermixed with heterosexuality."

Japanese macaques, an old world primate, illustrate this principle perfectly. Macaque society revolves around females, who form intricate dominance hierarchies within a given group. Males are transient. To help maintain the necessary social networks, female macaques engage in rampant lesbianism. These friendly copulations, which can last up to four days, form the bedrock of macaque society, preventing unnecessary violence and aggression. Females that sleep together will even defend each other from the unwanted advances of male macaques. In fact, behavioral scientist Paul Vasey has found that females will choose to mate with another female, as opposed to a horny male, 92.5% of the time. While this lesbianism probably decreases reproductive success for macaques in the short term, in the long run it is clearly beneficial for the species, since it fosters social stability. "Same-sex sexuality is just another way of maintaining physical intimacy," Roughgarden says. "It's like grooming, except we have lots of pleasure neurons in our genitals. When animals exhibit homosexual behavior, they are just using their genitals for a socially significant purpose."

Roughgarden is now using this model of homosexuality to reimagine heterosexuality. Her conclusions, published last February in Science, are predictably controversial. While Darwin saw males and females as locked in conflict, acting out the ancient battle of their gametes, Roughgarden describes sexual partners as a model of solidarity. "This whole view of the sexes as being at war is just so flawed from the start. First of all, there are all these empirical exceptions, like homosexuality. And then there's the logical inconsistency of it all. Why would a male ever jettison control of his evolutionary destiny? Why would he entrust females to serendipitously raise their shared young? The fact is, males and females are committed to cooperate."

Consider the Eurasian oystercatcher, a shore bird that enjoys feasting on shellfish. A consistent minority of oystercatcher families are polygynous, in which a lucky male mates with two different females simultaneously. These threesomes come in two different flavors: aggressive and cooperative. In an aggressive threesome, the females are at war; they attack each other frequently, and try to disrupt the egg-laying process of their fellow spouse. So far, so Darwinian: Life is nasty, brutish and short. However, the cooperative threesome is everything Darwin didn't expect. These females share a nest, mate with each other several times a day, and preen their feathers together. It's domestic bliss.

In Roughgarden's Science paper, she uses "cooperative game theory" to elucidate the diverse mating habits of the oystercatcher. Whereas Darwin held that conflict was the natural state of life (we are all Hobbesian bullies at heart), Roughgarden sees cooperation as our default position. This makes mathematical sense: The family that sleeps together has more offspring. Why, then, do oystercatcher females occasionally engage in all out war? According to Roughgarden, violence occurs when "social negotiations" break down. Although the birds really want to get along (who doesn't like being preened?), something goes awry. The end result is risky violence, in which one female or both will end the breeding season without an egg.

The advantage of Roughgarden's new theory is that it can explain a wider spectrum of sexual behaviors than Darwinian sexual selection. Lesbian oystercatchers and gay mountain sheep? Their homosexuality is just a prelude to social cooperation, a pleasurable way of avoiding wanton conflict. But what about the peacock and all those other examples of sexual dimorphism? According to Roughgarden, "expensive, functionally useless badges like the peacock's tail...are admission tickets": they just get you in the door. If you don't have a ticket, you are ruthlessly denied breeding rights, like an uncool kid at the prom.

Of course, most humans don't see sex as a way of maintaining the social contract. Our lust doesn't seem logical, especially when that logic involves the abstruse calculations of game theory. Furthermore, it's strange for most people to think of themselves as naturally bisexual. Being gay or straight seems to be an intrinsic and implacable part of our identity. Roughgarden disagrees. "In our culture, we assume that there is a straight-gay binary, and that you are either one or the other. But if you look at vertebrates, that just isn't the case. You will almost never find animals or primates that are exclusively gay. Other human cultures show the same thing." Since Roughgarden believes that the hetero/homo distinction is a purely cultural creation, and not a fact of biology, she thinks it is only a matter of time before we return to the standard primate model. "I'm convinced that in 50 years, the gay-straight dichotomy will dissolve. I think it just takes too much social energy to preserve. All this campy, flamboyant behavior: It's just such hard work."

Despite Roughgarden's long list of peer-reviewed articles in prestigious journals, most evolutionary biologists remain skeptical of her conclusions. For one thing, it's tough to measure the benefits of diversity—or lesbian pair bonding. It's even harder to imagine how traits that are good for the group get passed on by individuals. (As a result, group selection has largely been replaced by kin selection.) In the absence of anything conclusive, most scientists stick with Darwin and Dawkins.

Other biologists think Roughgarden is exaggerating the importance of homosexuality. Invertebrate zoologist Stephen Shuster told Nature that Roughgarden "throws out a very healthy baby with some slightly soiled bathwater." And biologist Alison Jolly, in an otherwise positive review of Evolution's Rainbow for Science, conceded that Roughgarden ultimately fails in her ambition to "revolutionize current biological theories of sexual selection." As far as these mainstream biologists are concerned, Roughgarden's gay primates and transgendered fish are simply interesting sexual deviants, statistical outliers in a world that contains plenty of peacocks. As Paul Z. Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota, put it, "I think much of what Roughgarden says is very interesting. But I think she discounts many of the modifications that have been made to sexual selection since Darwin originally proposed it. So in that sense, her Darwin is a straw man. You don't have to dismiss the modern version of sexual selection in order to explain social bonding or homosexuality."

Roughgarden remains defiant. "I think many scientists discount me because of who I am. They assume that I can't be objective, that I've got some bias or hidden LGBT agenda. But I'm just trying to understand the data. At this point, we have thousands of species that deviate from the standard account of Darwinian sexual selection. So we get all these special case exemptions, and we end up downplaying whatever facts don't fit. The theory is becoming Ptolemaic. It clearly has the trajectory of a hypothesis in trouble."

Roughgarden's cataloging of sexual diversity has challenged a fundamental biological theory. If Darwinian sexual selection—whatever its current variant—is to survive, it must adapt to this new data and come up with convincing explanations for why a host of animals just aren't like peacocks.

Source: http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/the_gay_animal_kingdom.php

Oromia Chief Administrator Forges New Ties with U.S.

Julia N. Opoti
Published 08/01/2006 - 9:48 p.m.

The Chief Administrator of the Oromia Regional State, Mr. Abadula Gemeda, was in the Twin Cities in July to meet with members of his community, the business community and supporters of his state. He was accompanied by staff from the Ethiopian embassy in Washington. Mr. Gemeda is also chairman of the Oromo People’s Democratic Organization (OPDO), one of the four parties that form the coalition called the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) which is currently in power in Ethiopia.



The Solar Oven Society (SOS), a Minnesota based non-profit corporation that promotes solar cooking through the production of solar ovens, hosted Mr. Gemeda during his visit. That organization’s president, Mr. Mike Porter, visited Oromia two years ago taking a prototype solar oven with him. Its effectiveness was realized immediately, and a business contract was signed soon after, making the Oromia National Regional Government, one of SOS’ biggest clients. SOS will only make the basic parts of the oven, and train local Oromos to assemble the solar oven, creating jobs in Oromia. With the civil war and drought, Ethiopia’s land is becoming increasingly barren since a lot deforestation has occurred making the solar oven an attractive solution.



Oromia is the largest federal state in modern day Ethiopia, occupying southern and central Ethiopia. The region has been marred with civil strife as the Oromo, the majority in Ethiopia, feel that they are oppressed by Ethiopia’s central government. Thousands of Oromo have fled their motherland in fear of their lives and safety, making the Twin Cities their home. According to a report by the UN, Minnesota and the refugee camps in Kenya, have the largest number of Oromo residents in the world outside of Ethiopia. According to the Minnesota State demographer’s office, there are about 7,500 Ethiopian immigrants as of 2003, the last year that complete figures are available with Ethiopian community leaders putting the figure at over 20,000. The Oromo Liberation Front claims on its part that that there are 15,000 Oromo immigrants in Minnesota.



In response to the conflict between the Ethiopian government, and the people of Oromia, Mr. Gemeda contends that his government’s goal is to bring development to its people allowing them sustainability. In the context of Ethiopia/Oromia politics however, the OPDO of which Mr. Gemeda is the chairman is viewed by many in his community as a creation of the TPLF (Tigrayan People's Liberation Front). TPLF is the dominant party in the EPRDF ruling coalition. TPLF is the party of Ethiopia’s Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi. Prior to joining politics, Mr. Gemeda was the defense minister in Prime Minister Zenawi’s government. As the only Oromo party in the coalition, the OPDO is viewed with suspicion by many Oromos. There are many Oromo separatist groups that call for an independent Oromo nation, the most well known being the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF).



In a tense meeting with the Oromia community conducted exclusively in Oromo, President Gemeda and his delegation made a presentation in which they discussed his cabinet’s five-year strategic plan. With a population of 1.5 million people, the Oromia federal government is faced with the task of ensuring that its people receive basic needs. The region, like the rest of Ethiopia, faces food scarcity despite immense resources. The causes of food shortage are numerous: drought, health, low crop productivity, few healthy livestock, population pressure, land scarcity, and misuse and degradation of natural resources. Chief Administrator Gemeda and his government hope to solve these issues through: water provision to the people, health improvement of man and livestock, improved infrastructure, resettlement of domestic refugees, and sustaining natural resources.



The meeting with his community held at the Assemblies of God Church in Saint Paul was marked by tense exchanges between Mr. Gemeda’s delegation and local Oromias in the Twin Cities. Pressed by this reporter to translate what the exchange was about, the Oromia community members refused saying “these are in-house matters”. A follow-up interview with Mr. Gemeda himself yielded no answer as he would say those were constructive exchanges between people and their leaders.



Also on his itinerary was a visit to Compatible Technology International (CTI), an organization whose objective is to improve the lives of people in developing countries by designing food and water technologies that are sustainable and appropriate to local cultures. CTI is working with people in countries such as Nicaragua, Zaire, India, and Uganda among others, where they have made hand grinders that reduce the physical labor required to realize production. Not only do technologies such as these allow individuals to be self-reliant, but they also increase productivity according to CTI.



Bruce Humphreys, CTI’s executive director expressed a willingness to work with the Oromia Regional Government in developing a coffee grinder and preservation techniques and tools for potatoes. According to Mr. Gemeda, his region is in dire need of food preservation tools since the crops spoil soon after harvest contributing further to the hunger and poverty of his people. Jenni Anderson, program director, with CTI, assured the delegation that their company engineers will work closely with the local community to ensure that cultural practices are maintained and respected as the new technology is implemented.



Chief Administrator Gebeda is also keen on forging a strong relationship with the Oromo community in the Diaspora. He believes the Oromo in the Diaspora will be instrumental in mobilizing technology, financial resources and expertise for the benefit of their region. They would have the potential of promoting tourism in Oromia and investment opportunities found in Oromia regional state. “With all the resources available in Oromia, it is important that Oromos the world over work together in developing our region.”


source: http://www.mshale.com/article.cfm?articleID=1242