Minnesota Liberal

GLBT Lobby Day 2005

2005-04-07T13:50:00.000-07:00

Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

These are a few snaps from the GLBT rally held today at the Minnesota State Capitol.

Sen. Michele Bachmann

2005-03-12T10:55:00.000-08:00

Sen. Michele Bachmann
Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

Where I Will Be... In Case You Need Me

2005-03-11T18:21:00.000-08:00

Right now... the issue of gay marriage is extremely important to me. I am just about to the four year mark of my relationship with my partner, and I hope to one day see us starting a family together. And I will be greatly dissappointed if my family is not given all the same rights as any other.

But one challenge that lies ahead is the gay marriage amendment being pushed here in Minnesota. An arrogant, power hungry, egotistical politician from the great city of Stillwater seems to think that it is okay to write discrimination into our state's counstitution. She intends to scare the citizens of our state into believing that same-sex couples are endangering their civil and religious liberties.

A local political activist, Eva Young, who feels the same as myself started a blog devoted to informing the public about Bachmann's long record of radical partisanship. And it is a project I hope to support in any way possible.

With that said, I just wanted to let everyone know that I was graciously invited to contribute to the DumpBachmann blog. So the little free time I have for writing will be devoted to Dump Bachmann. I would greatly appreciate if you add this blog to your blogrolls and check out the site. Eva has also started a Dump Bachmann Meetup group for people who would like to get together. I encourage everyone to join!

Thanks to anyone who still bothers to drop by and check out my site. I know I barely ever post. Sorry! I am usually too busy with work, home remodeling, or reading all of the great local sites I have been finding lately.

Like rew at Powerliberal. Love your site! Let me know the next time you need someone for trivia at Keegans!

Or Fecke at Blog of the Moderate Left.

Or Flash at Centrisity. (Actually, I have been reading Centrisity for a while- but I was lazy and never added it to my links.)

Minn Politics Guru at MinnPolitics.

PZMeyers at Pharyngula. Who knew science could be so cool?

Tom at Curly Tales of War Pigs.

Moses at Yowling from the Fencepost.

Or Eva at Lloydletta's Nooz.

Or Trillin at MNLeftyLiberal whose blog address seems oddly familiar.

And I can't forget the blogs I have been reading every day for quite some time.

All the folks at New Patriot.

The first thing I read every morning... Norwegianity.

The crew at MNGOPWatch.

Mike and the 'Yeti (former of Frozen Tundra) over at JTE.

You guys all rock, and I hope you all will work together with us in stopping Michele Bachmann.

Please stop by Eva's DumpBachmann and participate in the discussion.

Humor Hubris

2005-02-20T19:49:00.000-08:00

While reading MN Politics Guru's exchange with Powerline, and a more family-friendly Hindrocket take on Gannongate... I noticed an interesting little post:

In his transformation from comedian to pundit, Al Franken has maintained the humorlessness that distinguished his show business career after the expiration of the Al Franken decade. In his capacity as a pundit, Franken has added the element of demagogy on a variety of subjects. Now he peddles the party line like a good left-wing apparatchik.

I totally agree. And so do millions of other Americans. We agree so much that we put five of his books on the NY Times Bestseller list. And the Grammy's agree too. They agree so much that they gave him a Best Comedy Album of 2005 nomination for his "The O'Franken Factor Factor" CD. I know what you are thinking... "he was only nominated." Well get this, he has been nominated four other times as well. And wouldn't you know it... he was so unfunny that he won... twice! Both "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" and "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" were awarded Grammies for Best Comedy Album.

Actually, I just finished watching "SNL's First Five Years" on NBC. I always forget how unfunny those years, in which Al Franken was a writer, were. They were so humorless that he won five Emmy awards.

And we shouldn't overlook his Emmy nomination for Comedy Central's "Politically Incorrect" with Arianna Huffington.

The USO knows how unfunny Franken is. They actually invited him to entertain troops fighting in Iraq.

I wish I was so humorless. Then I could make millions of dollars being unfunny too.

And this line is so precious that I must point it out once more:

Now he peddles the party line like a good left-wing apparatchik.

I'm not quite sure if this is a snide snarky attack at Franken or a compliment... considering the source. He couldn't possibly stick to the party line better than the boys at Powerline.

I think the best way to gain perspective is to remember this:

The top CONSERVATIVE comedian turned pundit thus far has been Dennis Miller. Need I say more?

I Warn You Now...

2005-01-13T20:27:00.000-08:00

This is gonna be a long post.
I was reading Shot in the Dark (the local right wing blog) when I came upon a post I found interesting. So I left a comment... and all hell began to break loose. Here is the post I found interesting:

January 11, 2005
Men Vs. Mad Avenue

Miss O'Hara has a post today on a subject I've been noodling about getting back into for quite a while:

I just saw one of the worst spots of 2004, a Chrysler spot. (The fact that I despise DCX does not hurt.)

It shows a rugged, dusty man standing in the desert, his motorcycle broken down along the side of an empty highway. A minivan pulls up, and a sweatpants-wearing, ponytailed woman asks, "Out of gas?" After a nod to the affirmative, the woman opens the back door of her minivan, pushes all of the seats down, puts the motorcycle into the car, straps it down, and they prepare to drive off.

Which is when we get the kicker. In a moment apparently intended to elicit laughs from viewers, our grungy heroine turns to the crumb-cruncher in the backseat and says, with a viciously Hillary-like snidely sneering look and tone, "Daddy just haaaaaad to get a motorcycle - didn't he?"

The subject is Madison Avenue's continual neutering of the American male via advertising - and the Chrysler spot isn't the worst. For that we turn to:

SCENE: Living room. Doughy, sclubby guy in football jersey is sitting watching a football game. Impossibly hot wife approaches.

WIFE: Did you get the car insurance taken care of?

HUSBAND: (Proud, doomed smile): Yep!

WIFE: (Looks at statement) Did you check it against other providers?

HUSBAND: (Crestfallen, shakes head)

WIFE: How about customer service?

TV: "Whoah, he bobbles the ball!"

HUSBAND: (Shakes head, dejected)

WIFE: (With smug, smirky grin, hands phone to husband, walks away. HUSBAND whimpers).

Now, these ads may have a method to their madness; women may make the car and insurance-buying decisions; sucking up to them may be good business.

But what does this tell boys in our society? "This is what you have to look forward to; a life of working away like a good little boy, but having your intelligence and dignity denigrated because of your gender". Combine that with the message boys get in schools - "Boyhood's natural exhuberance and competitiveness and energy are things that, with enough time and medication, we can overcome" - what do you think you'll get?

A situation even worse than the one we have, where boys make up less than half of college students, and where the lag in life expectancy between men and women continues to grow.

The way popular culture, advertising, the media, the law and academia treat men in our society is a subject I've been wanting to find the time to write in vastly more detail about since the election. Much more advertising like this, and I think I'll find a way to make the time.

I shouldn't have to wait long.

I disagreed with the post, but it was of a subject not often discussed. So I gave my two cents. A debate broke out... and things all of a sudden take a big u-turn. Here is the comment string as it now appears: (You will find my comments in bold)

Here's a lovely little fact you might want to consider when you get around to that piece. Check the CDC statistics on mortality by gender. In every age group, male deaths by suicide are higher then females. In some age groups, the numbers for men are 3 to 4 times higher.

Combine this with school trends and it appears that males are having a lot more problems than anybody thinks.
Posted by T at January 11, 2005 10:38 AM

The company I work for, MSP Communications, which puts out Minneapolis/St. Paul Monthly Magazine (a bigger bunch of ads, you'll likely never see) consists of, I kid you not, around 85 percent female employees, and the number of female applicants vastly outstrips the number of male applicants. Which makes me suspect that the advertising and mass communication fields may be female-dominated, which may explain some of the advertisement trends you're seeing that basically snip males off at the base of their testicles.

But that's just a theory, based entirely on no real reseach or hard evidence to speak of. Just an observation.
Posted by Ryan at January 11, 2005 10:43 AM

By the way, Mitch, does that public notice about a $1,000 advertising rate for comment section spam actually work? I'd love to dissuade those pricks from polluting my comment section. And, if I could make $1,000 a pop in the process, well, more power to me.
Posted by Ryan at January 11, 2005 11:36 AM

Nah. Doesn't do jack. I did it a while ago, when a rumor was going around that there might be some sort of class-action against spammers, but I've heard nothing.

I'm going to take the thing down one of these days.
Posted by mitch at January 11, 2005 11:42 AM

Ryan- As an advertising/pr major that just finished at the UofM, I would say that the number of students in this field by gender is pretty even. But from my knowledge... agencies tend to be owned or run by males. Women may have high positions or be equally staffed, but men always seem to run the industry.

T- The reason you may be seeing those numbers is that males tend to attempt suicide with more violent measures (shooting themselves, etc). Women tend to use more non-violent means (popping pills). Also... don't forget that there is a significantly high suicide rate among teenage gay males.

Mitch- If you want an accurate idea of advertising... you must first look at the program in which the advertising is being broadcast. If it is a program with high female viewership... they are going to play commercials that cater to females. But if you watch, oh... say the Vikings game on Sunday, you will see quite a different set of advertisements.

I think that the commercials played during the average football game say far more than the Chrysler spot. What do you think hurts male intelligence and dignity more? Beer swigging men dreaming of "the twins" and 4 hour erections thanks to Viagra (quite unrealistic and childish)... or a women being in charge of some major household decisions (quite normal and part of many mature adult relationships).

I know this is kind of an exaggeration... but I think you miss the point of the advertising. It is not a reflection of our reality, but is manipulation of the publics desires or expectations of product performance.

Just look at the money spent on vetting the ads before airplay. An ad doesn't see the light of day until it has been proven to be effective at selling a product or image. If men weren't buying it... they wouldn't be selling it.

I am not saying that men aren't portrayed poorly... they are. But so are women. So are minorities, so are gays, and etc. But still... it is worth exploring (and I hope to read whatever you come up with).

But my point is... the public doesn't want reality... they want this idealized stereotypical dream world. I wish it weren't so... but sadly... it is what sells.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 11:52 AM

It's not just the advertising, it's also the programming. Consider the most popular television programs -- "Friends," "Seinfeld," and everything else from Homer Simpson to the male leads on CSI and Law & Order. On the one hand, all men are useless buffoons or feminized domestics. On the other, they are remote, callow, insensitive one-trick ponies who "don't get it." Meanwhile, you can no longer view television programming without frequent portrayals or at least suggestions of the "normality" of homosexual behavior.

Whether the advertising is driving the programming or vice versa is perhaps an interesting academic exercise, but it is already abundantly clear that traditional male virtues of honor, intelligence, and integrity are routinely undermined and denigrated in favor of feminized male stereotypes. Meanwhile, it is the female leads ("Alias," "Medium," "Cold Case," "NYPD Blue," etc.) that represent the traditional and genetic masculine attributes of strength and power. Apparently, on television, the only good man is the feminized man, especially the homosexual male. The rest are just stupid, fat, lazy morons who must depend on women to take care of them. In the final analysis, the television male is either lewd and obscene, or a feminized domestic.

Meanwhile, in real life, little boys are prescribed Ritalin in grade school to regulate their natural masculine tendencies. If ADD was in fact a manifestation of mental disorder in the pubescent population, you would expect to see a more or less balanced distribution. You do not, of course, because only the natural behavior of little boys is considered "bad," which is the canard we see daily reinforced in popular television programming, which sadly, has become the primary influence in the lives of today's children.

A "good" boy, apparently, is a girl.
Posted by Eracus at January 11, 2005 11:54 AM

Carson makes a valid point. Even at MSP, the ruling elite tends to be men. Then again, those ruling elite don't typically have much say when it comes to editorial content, which is overseen primarily by editors and managing editors which, at least at MSP, are largely women.

It would be interesting to explore this further, and I might just have to do that. You know, when I'm not at work and stuff.
Posted by Ryan at January 11, 2005 12:00 PM

To augment Eracus's statement: I'm relatively certain, like, 97 percent certain that, if my elementary school self were to be in elementary school today, I would be diagnosed with ADD and on a healthy daily dose of Ritalin. I was one of the most unruly little bastards in school.
Posted by Ryan at January 11, 2005 12:07 PM

Eracus-
You know why you frequently see gay characters on television shows? Maybe... just maybe... it is because they appear in normal life.

What would you prefer... everytime a gay character pops up in a tv series they immediatly be accosted for their sinful behavior? Seriously... grow up.

As for your "A 'good' boy, apparently, is a girl" comment... what in the heck are you talking about? Sorry if I missed it... but I thought sports, hunting, and etc were still pretty popular and prevalent in our society and pop culture.

In fact... I am willing to go as far as saying that it is seen as abnormal for a boy to not want to do any of those activities.

But really... what is the harm in a boy not wanting to do any of those things. I don't see how that makes him a girl (even though that is the way you seem to feel).

I would say that our society has become more open to the concept of alternate definitions of how a male (boy or adult) should talk, dress, and act.

But I guess some people will just never accept the fact that there is no one single way to define a group of people.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 12:18 PM

As for the ADD thing-
Most of my friends didn't get diagnosed with it until college... and by that time it was too late to try and fix the mistakes they had made in high school or at earlier ages. Many would get bad grades or wouldn't finish homework. A couple ended up dropping out of college- because their body was producing chemicals that made it nearly impossible to find motivation for working and studying.

Many people have been helped by such drugs, and if they don't work or help... in my experience, they discontinued use of the drug and seeked alternate medical opinions.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 12:24 PM

Eracus-
Have you even watched Law and Order? How are the male leads in those programs not intelligent, powerful, full of honor and integrity, and masculinity? What about them is feminine? I don't get it.

Watch "24" lately? Jack Bauer doesn't seem like a metrosexual to me.

And as for sitcoms... a chubby jolly husband that is dumb and clumsy can still be honorable, full of integrity.

Just because there are some alternate versions of the male gender on television, does not mean that your definition is absent a representative.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 12:34 PM

Eracus wrote:

“Meanwhile, it is the female leads ("Alias," "Medium," "Cold Case," "NYPD Blue," etc.) that represent the traditional and genetic masculine attributes of strength and power.”

I don’t know what you’ve been watching but Andy Sipowitz is clearly the lead character on NYPD Blue and on Alias, Jack Bristowe is a pretty strong male lead character (although Jennifer Garner is the main character).

Also how do shows like CSI, CSI Miami, Law & Order, Law & Order SVU, JAG, Navy NCIS, Andromeda, and Stargate SG-1 fit into this rule?

Also (much as I loath the show) the West Wing is a pretty good example of a show where the male characters are made out to be represent “strength and power” (or at least what passes for it in the mind of a leftist) while it is usually the female characters that are made the butt of the jokes.
Posted by Thorley Winston at January 11, 2005 12:38 PM

BTW: I agree with Mitch’s overall point. There is in many advertisements and situation comedies a general anti-male bias. However in action/drama shows it tends to be a bit more even-handed with strong male and female characters (although there are exceptions).

One possible solution might be to complain (something men are generally not prone to do when it comes to being offended). Companies generally assume that anyone who took the time to make an angry phone call or send an angry letter (even if they never respond) represents a few (or is it a few hundred?) other dissatisfied consumers plus they figure that you are more likely to tell everyone you know that you’re upset.

If more men (and the women who love them *g*) were to tell companies that put out male-bashing ads or sponsor those shows that they will no longer purchase their products and most importantly WHY at some point they’ll have to sit up and take notice.

Rule of thumb – most corporate executives are cowards that are prone cave to public pressure whenever they think it affects the bottom line and the security of their own positions. This isn’t an “ideological” thing for them but only what they think is a smart business practice. When they learn that is no longer the case, they’ll probably change that practice.

My $0.02.
Posted by Thorley Winston at January 11, 2005 12:58 PM

Does anybody who works outside the arts actually encounter homosexuals very often? The incidence of homosexuality in the population is supposed to be about 2%, and that pretty much matches my experience. I've known a few homosexuals in my life (like the guy who used to beat me up regularly when I was a kid, who later came out of the closet and died of AIDS, poor s.o.b.), but I can go for months without running into anyone openly homosexual. If television really mirrored society, I suspect we'd see a lot fewer "gay" characters on the shows.
Posted by Lars Walker at January 11, 2005 01:03 PM

I must say, "anti-male" bias??? I dunno. I always get annoyed with this sort of business. Is a commercial that portrays women as as a busy working businesswomen anti-female because she is not at home raising children? Hardly. Is it pro-women. Hardly. It is just an example of a subject used to sell a product.

I guess if someone finds a commercial offensive, fine. Don't buy the product or complain, but is there really some kind of malice involved? I doubt it.
Posted by Thorley Winston at January 11, 2005 01:26 PM

that last comment is mine... it is responding to Thorley Winston's comment. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 01:28 PM

I don't have a problem with the Chrysler ad; The humor in it isn't really "Look at my idiot husband", the humor is the relief that nothing untoward is going to happen to the woman and daughter for picking up a rather scary looking hitchhiker. It may not play that way in repeats, but the first time I saw it I thought it was a PSA for not picking up hitchhikers.

The progressive "football" add is annoying for all the reasons stated above.
Posted by Chuck C at January 11, 2005 01:36 PM

Lars-
It all depends. Where do you live? Gays tend to live in major metropolitan areas. Where do you interact with others? Many gays are not out to co-workers because they are afraid it will create a hostile working environment, but they are open outside of work. What are your views regarding homosexuality? Gays are less likely to be open about their sexuality with people they suspect to find it abnormal or wrong.

And the fact is... gays make up less than 1% of leading characters on television shows. They mostly play bit parts... at about the same percentage they appear in real life.

And the fact is... most gays don't run around screaming they are gay. They have normal lives just like heterosexuals. But television is an exaggeration of real life. It would not be very interesting television to have a workplace drama where there was a gay character but none of his co-workers knew because he didn't discuss his partner at work. But because he never mentions his same sex partner... everyone just assumes he is straight. And no one is the wiser.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 01:41 PM

Carson- Do you really believe that the denigration of some particular market segment is effective advertising? Do you really think that the purpose of a multi-million dollar advertising campaign is designed merely to sell some particular product? For example....

Man in truck sees motorcycle for sale. Stops truck, buys motorcycle. Transfers wife's dainty little furniture into full-size cab, puts bike in truckbed. Goes home. Wife, exasperated and indignant (obviously in charge of major household decisions) rushes up to truck, starts to call him an asshole and slams her fist into his gut but suddenly discovers dainty furniture in cab. Suddenly man is "nice guy."

What are they really sellin' here?? Is this a "manipulation" of reality? No, it IS the reality. A female's verbal and physical abuse of the male is today entirely appropriate and acceptable behavior on television, whereas, if the gender roles were reversed and it was the man calling his wife a bitch and punching her in the gut, we'd have an entirely different response, to say the least.

They are not selling product performance; they are selling and reinforcing the notion that if your wife typically calls you an asshole and slaps you around in your own driveway, this is normal, acceptable behavior. But, assuming you buy this truck, you will become a "nice guy" and your wife will approve of you.

To suggest that commerical television reflects the idealized stereotypical dreamworld the consuming public aspires to merely reflects the unbridled narcissism of the industry that produces this crap. They think the audience aspires to it, because THEY aspire to it.

They have an agenda; they are promoting that agenda, and it has nothing at all to do with product performance, but with male performance. Specifically, to portray normal male behavior and masculinity as something to be ashamed of, that must be modified, reduced, and directed to comply with the feminized ideal social order.

If that were not true, we'd still be watching Gunsmoke.

Posted by Eracus at January 11, 2005 02:01 PM

Eracus-
First thing... I have seen the commercial and you are blowing it wayyyyyy out of proportion. Wife gets mad that her husband didn't do what he was supposed to. Big whoop. She never hit him. She got angry. And the commercial is not intended for women... it is intended for men. It is telling them that the truck will have enough room in it to be used for work and play.

If Gunsmoke is what the public wanted... there would still be gunsmoke.

God forbid advertising ever cater to women that dream of a man that is subservient to them. Lord knows that men have had enough advertising that delivers subservient women to them.

And yes... advertising is based purely on what sells. Period. End of story. And women like advertising that puts them in control. It gets them in the mood to spend.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 02:37 PM

Andy Sipowicz is (last time I watched NYPD Blue, anyway) a violent alcoholic "in recovery" whose only emotional attachment at one time was to his tropical fish. Somehow he was rescued by the gorgeous babe from the AG's office who made his life more tolerable. He still has, no doubt, a violent temper which he struggles to keep in check. He is surrounded by gorgeous female detectives, which as everyone knows, is a laughably unrealistic depiction of the typical New York precinct.

Jack McCoy, the Executive ADA of "Law & Order," was physically abused by his policemen father, and is presented as a functioning alcoholic Irishman who once had serial affairs with his female assistants, securing his reputation as a womanizer. He regularly plays fast and loose with the law and has a record with the disciplinary committee. Lennie Briscoe was a drunk cop before he met Bill Wilson.

Gil Grissom, of CSI, is such a dedicated scientist with a fixation on insects that he is regularly upbraided for his insensitivity and lack of awareness by his fellow CSI, the former stripper, Catherine Willows. He doesn't even realize (or does he?) that CSI Sara Sidle is in love with him. He is extremely intelligent, but a social cypher. Warrick Brown is a gambling addict.

Don't misunderstand, I enjoy these characters as much as the next guy -- the more complex, the better. But it seems there is always a dark side lurking in the shadows of male television characters, as if all men are part man and part monster. Yet it explains why all these male characters always seem to be in constant need of some gorgeous female intervention. It makes good TV, but it is not reality. Not every cop or DA is a drunk, not every CSI is socially inept, and so on.

As for gay characters, I've known and worked with a few in real life, in law enforcement and the financial industry, over a career of roughly 25 years. I've lived in several major metropolitan areas. The sexual proclivities of my colleagues or neighbors has never been an issue to me personally or professionally, but I fail to understand why television programming is exploiting the sexual lifestyle of 1-2% of the population if it isn't to promote a socio-political agenda.

That's not entertainment, that's propaganda. To some people, it's just pornography. At any rate, it is not something any self-respecting homosexual I've known would be associated with. Quite the contrary.
Posted by Eracus at January 11, 2005 03:57 PM

Carson, by missing the point, you make my point.
Posted by Eracus at January 11, 2005 04:04 PM

It's comment strings like this that make me feel like my argumentative and analytical skills are woefully inadequate.

Thankfully, I can always fall back on my wealth of fart and toilet humor, but that's probably just because I'm a simple-minded male.
Posted by Ryan at January 11, 2005 04:12 PM

Eracus-
This self-respecting homosexual thinks that programming including homosexual characters is perfectly fine. A sitcom like Will and Grace make me laugh. It is intelligent, goofy, and sometimes even witty. They portray stereotypes. But so does every single television show, movie, book, etc. As long as it isn't hurting anyone... and continues to be entertaining... I will choose it over reality tv anyday.

As for you "exploiting the sexual lifestyle of 1 or 2%" comment... If television can exploit the sexual lifestyles of the large heterosexual population... why is it so wrong to exploit that of gays? Maybe writers finally just ran out of heterosexual sex jokes, and needed something different.

And I wouldn't even call it exploitation. I would call it inclusion. There are millions of homosexuals that want programming that at least includes them. Sometimes they don't like how a gay character is portrayed... but that is life. Not every television show is for everyone. And you know what you do when you don't like a tv show? Don't watch it. If enough people agree with you... it will get canceled.

Has Will and Grace and other such television programs been used as a propaganda tool... serving a socio-political agenda? Of course. And what is wrong with that? If there weren't millions of people that agreed with that message... the show would be off the air. And if you don't agree with that message... there are hundreds of alternate programs that you can watch instead.

I also would ask how old you are? I am 22, and it is far more common for my generation to be out of the closet. Which also means that heterosexuals that are my age are far more used to being around "out" gays. As such, many of the shows that feature gay characters are aiming at younger audiences that see such depictions as being more representative of their reality or the fictional world they wish for.

I guess maybe there just shouldn't be any programming depicting the lives of African-Americans, Latinos or Asian-Americans because that would be exploiting a minority population for a socio-polical agenda. (please note sarcasm)
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 04:41 PM

Eracus-
Our society is not just about white, middle-aged, straight, males.

I understand if you don't like programming that does not cater to your specific person.

But complaining about a diversity of programming seems silly and wasteful.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 04:45 PM

That should read "the diversity of programming".

Long comments with little time kill grammer skills.
Posted by Carson at January 11, 2005 04:48 PM

"God forbid advertising ever cater to women that dream of a man that is subservient to them. Lord knows that men have had enough advertising that delivers subservient women to them."

Indeed, this is the equality the feminist movement must have been desiring. Women were portrayed as subservient back then, women get to see men portrayed as subservient now. It is all equal I guess. Interesting way to level things for tomorrow's women and men.

Mitch isn't the only one to notice the shift in portrayals of the sexes in media today. FWIW, the ads with men as doofuses and women as the upright character are seen in waves during sports events as well today. I chalk it up to the general tendency of the vast majority of men to openly mock their own gender, and to also laugh at the jokes when women make then as well. There is a kernal of truth in the joke:

Q: "How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?"

A: "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"

;)
Posted by Eric Anondson at January 11, 2005 11:51 PM

Reading all these postings, I started to get an unpleasant picture of "Carson"...he not only knows it all, he's quite proud of himself and is breaking his arm to clap himself on the back for all the witty, profound, reasonable opinions he has to share with poor old Erascus and the rest of us. Of course, Erascus just isn't enlightened enough and his opinions are basically crap BECAUSE he's a "regular" old white male (I assume)....and they're fair game to Carson.....who proves the whole damn point of this subject with his "refutations" of the premise that males are laughing-stocks on TV nowadays. He's trying to show how Erascus should be a laughing-stock on Shot in the Dark with his good ol' Neanderthal opinions and observations.

Erascus: You are RIGHT.

Carson: You're a typical prig.
Posted by Colleen at January 12, 2005 02:08 PM

Colleen-
If you disagree with me... may I ask that you try and illustrate such discontent with more than just name calling.

Am I proud of the comments I made? Yes. I believe in what I said, and am glad I have the skills to illustrate my beliefs. Just as I am glad to discuss issues like this with those that disagree with me.

I don't in any way see myself as being more "enlightened" than Eracus, but I do believe that my opinions are just as valid as his are.

But yes, I do believe that males on TV are hardly laughing stocks. No more than they were many years ago. And no more than any other group represented on television.

I am quite obviously a liberal, and disagree with much of what Mitch posts. But I am at least willing to listen to what he has to say, or read what he has to write.

It was my impression that debate is welcome among the comments on Shot in the Dark. If Mitch does not want me leaving comments... I will gladly keep them to myself. But I won't be dissuaded from my beliefs because you have called me a "typical prig."
Posted by Carson at January 12, 2005 03:07 PM

Carson-

Yes, I'm very sure debate is just what Mitch does want on his site....but, condescension drips off of you no matter how pretty the words or how well utilized your "skills" are. You know damn well that you have popped round just to show the knuckle-draggers what they really should be thinking and how what they think is really not reality. I think it's really quite the opposite. In your world no one looks at things that way so it must not be so....say in the case of TV ads and what they are portraying. There's a whole big world out here on the dirt roads after downtown Minneapolis ends and it really and truly IS NOT the world you would like it to be. It's a wonderful place, but it's not liberal-values utopia and it never will be be because such a place will never exist since the common folk out here are too sensible to let that happen (I hope!). Rampant homosexuality has brought death and disease...it HAS, no matter how you spin it. Liberalism hurts those it purports to help...but that's easy to ignore or ascribe to other factors and as long as you feel good about yourself, what the heck. Elitist libs occupy a mighty high perch. Kerry was Exhibit A of that sort of attitude and we know how far it got him....

Well, in the meantime, I remember reading somewhere about arguing with a liberal...might have been on this site. It's many times a very unrewarding experience. The name calling I engaged in didn't seem all that severe, but since libs are the more sensitive human beings, I suppose I should have kept that in mind so as not to upset you with such a zinger. I think you might know that although you don't "call names" yourself, you infer things and in that way stay above the fray. All boils down to the same thing though.
Posted by Colleen at January 12, 2005 04:31 PM

Colleen-
It is not my intention to "show the knuckle-draggers what they really should be thinking", so much as it is wanting to discuss something I feel really strongly about... especially with those that might disagree and challenge me in my conclusions. I find that I learn a lot discussing these issues with conservatives. But I don't seem to learn a whole lot without some sort of active discussion.

You also said, "There's a whole big world out here on the dirt roads after downtown Minneapolis ends and it really and truly IS NOT the world you would like it to be." Thanks for informing me. I never realized that. Not while growing up on the dirt roads of Brainerd. Not while living in the city of Duluth.

I won't pretend to know what experiences and circumstances have led to your beliefs, if you won't assume to know mine.

I grew up in a small conservative town in the middle of Minnesota. But I don't see how that should change my beliefs, and the desire to work for what I believe is right. Just as I don't expect you to not stick up for what you believe in as well. But you can do it without relying on insults and immature ridicule.

I could really care less if you believe homosexuality is responsible for such "death and disease". There millions of heterosexual Africans that are currently dying of AIDS. That seems like a much greater problem to be concerned with. But I probably won't be hearing you argue that heteros are responsible for death and disease anytime soon. But I guess that doesn't fit with your agenda of trying to ridicule me. And in any case, God never really consulted me when he made me who I am.

And by the way... it seems a bit hypocritical to be critiziing me for seeming condescending when you can only respond with bitterness and namecalling.
Posted by Carson at January 12, 2005 05:14 PM

Carson-

Although this is probably getting really old for the "others" (if there are any of them still left), I will soldier on for just a bit longer. Can't help myself.

First of all I had to laugh...you couldn't have stepped in it more if you had tried! There's a joke "up here" about how everyone in the Cities think that "northern Minnesota" is Brainerd!! The "sticks" I guess! I'm writing from Warroad...5 miles from the Canadian border on Lake of the Woods. A true hick from a RED county. My in-laws are from Brainerd and it is not what I'd call conservative. It's a beautiful area jam-packed with "lifestyle" and that's it. Yuppie heaven. Not logging country. Not farming country. Not even serious fishing, hunting, and trekking (that would be the Ely area and the rest of the northern tier). And you mentioned Duluth. A college town. Sigh.

So, then we come to the AIDS in Africa bit. I knew you were going to bring that up if you responded. Think about it for a minute. What drives the spread of AIDS there? Ignorance. Superstition. Is that what drives it in advanced societies? It is not spreading here through hetero means unless it's through prostitution and needles. That leaves the vast majority to homosexuals who KNOWINGLY engage in a destructive lifestyle and then expect sympathy, research and treatment money and a spot on top of all other diseases in importance. It's purely PC-driven and it's sickening.

I have no quibbles with who you are or who you think God made you to be. We all err on deciding we know what God thinks. However, I won't swallow your lies and OK your lifestyle. If you saw me on the street you would never know I think it's wrong. I'm a friendly person to all who are likewise and aren't flaunting themselves no matter what it is they have to flaunt. Other than that, keep it to yourself. No one gives a damn what you do but most of you seem determined that we should. I think that's because you figure for every person that approves it knocks your personal misgivings (way down deep) down a notch. That's why the insistence that churches accept the gay lifestyle. IF gays can convince Christians they're righteous in what they do and God sees that "everybody else" thinks it's OK then, well, what the heck, so will He. I imagine He doesn't approve of many things that I do. Some of them I do knowing that and feeling irked about it. But it doesn't make it right just because I'd like it to be.

BTW, I don't think of myself as bitter. Just sick of listening to the blather of the gay crowd. I didn't know at the start of your posts that you were gay. I just saw that you were determined to naysay what other people saw and then it all came out later what formed your opinion. You have a right to it. I have a right to one as well and the whole thing of it is this: Being gay doesn't make you off limits, right, wrong or special.
Posted by Colleen at January 12, 2005 08:14 PM

Colleen-
What gives you the right to speak about your beliefs as they pertain to homosexuality anymore than myself. You tell me to keep it to myself, but you fail to hold yourself to the same standard. And what exactly should I keep to myself? The fact that I have a partner? Why should I? It is no different that you mentioning your husband or boyfriend or whatever.

As for your "KNOWINGLY engage in a destructive lifestyle" comment- I agree that it is stupid to have unprotected sex. But I don't agree that being homosexual is somehow engaging in a destructive lifestyle. Having unprotected sex has nothing to do with ones sexuality. And to characterize millions of people using a disease that only a very small minority are afflicted with is quite stupid. Is AIDS a problem within the gay community... yes. Is racism a problem for many southerners... yes. But it really seems kind of stupid to start saying that South is engaging in a destructive lifestyle.

You then said, "I'm a friendly person to all who are likewise and aren't flaunting themselves no matter what it is they have to flaunt. Other than that, keep it to yourself. No one gives a damn what you do but most of you seem determined that we should." Is Mitch flaunting his heterosexuality when he mentions his kids in his posts??? Is a women flaunting her sexuality by wearing a wedding ring? Are weddings between men and women shoving their sexuality in my homo face? NO. I am who I am. I don't pretend to be anything else.

Eracus veered off his discussion into how he sees homosexuality as wrong. And I challenged him on it. And we discussed it. I am sorry you read that exchange and felt a desperate need to try and put the shameful homosexual in his place... but if, as you said, you really don't care... why on Earth did you feel such a need to respond.

I have never been of the belief that being gay makes my comments off limits, right, wrong, or special... quite the contrary. The reason you didn't know I was gay when you first started reading my comments was because it hadn't become neccessary to my point. When I felt it was neccessary... it was mentioned.

And I am not mad that you criticize what I have said. I wouldn't comment here and not expect that. What does upset me though is that my sexuality and political orientation is what you first criticized. If you disagree with what I wrote... address it. Find a factual error. An error in logic. But that is not what you attempted to do. You have yet to point out, in my debate with Eracus, what I said that was wrong. As opposed to debating my reasoning... you ridiculed my person. It really is the lowest common denominator. And you can do better.
Posted by Carson at January 12, 2005 09:41 PM

And by the way... most of the people who live in Brainerd don't really live in Brainerd. The entire lakes area is referred to as Brainerd, because most people don't know Crosby, Ironton, Merrifield, Nisswa, or the like. I personall grew up in the East Gull Lake area. And while there are lots of resorts around... it is quite a conservative area. There are plenty of farms, and there is certainly soem serious hunting and fishing. There is life outside of the resorts in the area. My nextdoor neighbor has a small lake on his 25 acre property, in which he hunts deer and duck. It is by no means urban. My father teaches Natural Resources (forestry and the like) at the local community college. In other words... he teaches every true hick in the area about trees, camping, and wildlife. Every year we take treks to the Boundary Waters. I know Northern Minnesota pretty well. So enough of the naive cityboy crap.
Posted by Carson at January 12, 2005 10:37 PM

Carson, are you a person or a "gay person"? There's the rub. Quite a few of us just give opinions, just think about other opinions, just LIVE without bringing up our sexual proclivities. That's what is so tiresome about gayness.

And, I thought that Eracus made the points very well. Why should I reiterate them? Concerning what you said in response to Eracus, he had made good statements, you tore them apart and tried to invalidate them and we find out why at some point when the gayness comes up. You prefer that we think the portrayal and treatment of males in pop culture be thought of as no big deal. It's not, no matter how benign it seems to you. And I don't want to be so uncouth as to point out why not!!!

Also, equating gays with blacks or other minority races is an old one and doesn't wash. It's a race, not a sexual deviation. And if you don't think it's a deviation, fine. But it looks to me like things were not set up to work that way...very well....I would not have needed to know you were gay at ANY point in this exchange, but YOU are the one that wants to haul it out to put the poor dumb (less glib, less witty, worse decorator...oops, I'm terrible) in his/her place. You can dismiss what the ads are pushing, so you figure we all must. Imagine poor Eracus looking at it from a masculine viewpoint. If only he looked at it YOUR way he would see that it's all so clearcut and not at all what he thought.

Oy.
Posted by Colleen at January 12, 2005 10:42 PM

Colleen-
You said, "Concerning what you said in response to Eracus, he had made good statements, you tore them apart and tried to invalidate them and we find out why at some point when the gayness comes up."

First of all... quit whining that the big bad liberal came in here and (oh my god) disagreed with you and your conservative friends. I made many good points that I think you are overlooking because you are WAY too interested in my being gay.

And you know why my being gay came up...

This is what Eracus said,
"At any rate, it is not something any self-respecting homosexual I've known would be associated with."

I felt that it had somehow become important to mention. But I guess you wouldn't understand... because in your dream world... no one dare mention their sexuality (if they are gay). It is horrible and indecent. Don't you ever get sick of feeling such animosity towards a minority?

As for homosexuality compared to race... this may shock you... but it isn't learned. And in fact... it isn't something that can be changed. It is the way a person is. And while a person can choose whether or not to actually have sex... he will always be attracted to members of the same sex. Thats fine if you don't think things were set up to work that way... but that doesn't mean squat. Nature is full of all sorts of interesting deviations from normality. Are all the penquins, rabbits, dogs, and horses that seem to be only attracted to the same sex making some devious unnatural choice?

And Colleen... If I choose to mention my sexuality, who in the heck are you to criticize me for it? It is not pushing anything in your face. I am not having sex on your couch with another guy. I was having a discussion with someone... and you felt that you must make a comment about how mean and stupid I was (without ever substantiating anything I said as being mean or wrong).

And once again... you seem to have some kind of hang up on this idea that I am coming here to "inform the masses that they have done wrong". You still don't get it. I come here to have debate like I did with Eracus... where we actually discuss the merits of an arguement. Not to listen to you whine about how much you can't stand hearing someone say that they are gay.

Whine Whine Whine. Time to grow up Colleen.
Posted by Carson at January 13, 2005 08:34 AM

If you say so, Carson. Glad you've enlightened me. Criminy.

Prig. (See, I just can't seem to grow up...at age 49...)

Oh, BTW, you say you made many good points. Maybe you did. But, did ANYBODY ELSE make any good points? I don't think you want debate as much as you say you do.

Now, let's stop wasting Mitch's bandwidth (or whatever it is!).
Posted by Colleen at January 13, 2005 09:01 AM

Yow. I'd forgotten about this post - I've been sick since I wrote it (no connection).

I'll have to make some comments later.
Posted by mitch at January 13, 2005 09:09 AM

I tell you to grow up because adults can discuss issues without namecalling, so thanks for proving my point.

Yes, others did make good points. But you chose to question mine. So I ask you... what did I say that you question? You continue to dodge the question.
Posted by Carson at January 13, 2005 09:27 AM

Carson,

I have heard the explanation of violent/non-violent methods before. It holds a small amount of validity. The idea advanced was that women use suicide attempts as a cry for help, while men are generally much more serious about it. Possibly true, and nice as far as it goes, but it doesn't explain a disparity of 3 to 4 times in the actual death rate.

Realistically speaking, what would the suicide rate among gay males, assuming an incidence of 2-5 percent of the population, have to be to drive the overall rate up by 3 to 4 times? I'm trying to figure the math, and I get a unreasonably high amount. If it was that big a factor, I wouldn't expect many gay men to make it through adolescence. More to the point, the numbers for adolescents aren't that dissimilar. Middle age is the big kicker, if I recall correctly. If I can dig up the numbers, I'll post a link.

Arguing about this obscures the larger point. When and why did society become more hostile to males? An article I read early this year had some woman saying it was unimportant that high school graduation rates for males were falling because they got to play football. WTF?

Posted by T at January 13, 2005 10:51 AM

T-
I was just noting some of the adnormalities that have become noticed in suicide rates. It was not an explanation more so than just making sure it is taken into account.

As for the women talking about high school drop out rates... what context was the comment made. I can't tell if it is supposed to be sarcastic, or if she really thinks that the high school dropout rates are unimportant.

My beef is mainly just that I don't see society as any more hostile to males than it is to females. I think there are valid examples that both sides can point out... but to say one is a problem without addressing the other seems pointless.
Posted by Carson at January 13, 2005 11:22 AM

When I was young and foolish, I was young and foolish. But I was never quite so naive as to reference Brainerd as the "entire lakes area" or to suggest it's "quite a conservative area." Really? By what standand? As compared to Minneapolis maybe? Hardly.

Brainerd, like Bemidji, is a socialist wasteland. It has no industry; the State is its largest employer. In fact, the State is Minnesota's largest employer overall, owning 55% of the entire workforce while taxing the rest of us so severely we are unable to invest in places like Brainerd and Bemidji, which, of course, is precisely the intent because it insulates the DFL's socialist wonderland from any outside ideological influences associated with direct capital investment and accountability in government.

That is why, Carson, you have no idea what you are talking about. Everywhere you look you see the same thing, everywhere you go you hear the same thing, and everyone you know believes the same thing. Do you know why? Because, generally speaking, everyone in Minnesota is educated in the same way, by the same people, who for the most part, all happen to be statist descendants of the northern European socialists who immigrated here at the turn of the 20th century. They all get their news from WCCO, MPR, PBS, and the StarTribune and naively assume they're well-informed, meanwhile having absolutely no idea what the rest of the country is up to or that life exists beyond the State. They receive all their news from the same sources, so how would they know of any alternative? The answer is they don't. Consequently, they believe everybody thinks and behaves just like they do, and if they don't, well, they're "wrong," "bad," or just plain stupid. Your comments here, Carson, are a glaring illustration of the problem.

This thread began as a discussion of the way men are depicted on television. Instead of allowing it to proceed democratically, you've monopolized the content by turning it into a discussion of your "right" to your sexual proclivity for your own and other male genitalia. It's all about you now, which only all the more illustrates the point of the original post.

At 22, you, a young homosexual male, are the direct product of precisely that dynamic on television over the course of your lifetime that has ruinously depicted and proscribed male characters as either feminized metrosexual men or knuckle-dragging redneck buffoons. Of course you see nothing wrong with it; it is all you have ever known.

What you don't realize is that what you believe and and the choices you make are all "monkey see, monkey do." And while your writing skills are competent, you have been taught all your life by irresponsible liberals in unaccountable liberal institutions not to think critically, but to think "correctly," and therefore have no concept of the implications of your own arguments or the consequences of your behavior upon those who mean you no harm.

You presume, on the basis of your "education" and sexual preference, that you have a "right" to assert your authority as a media critic to instruct the rest of us that we are wrong or archaic and should just "get over it," that we are wayyyyyyyy off in our perceptions of what is "really" going on in television, without realizing that by doing so you are proving the point of the original post, namely, that men are and have been for decades portrayed on television as either feminized metrosexuals or clueless buffoons and that the danger to society is and has been that, given the omnipresence of television, small boys and girls will naturally grow up adhering to the influences they see most portrayed.

The reality the rest of us see is that of a young man who has recently graduated from a decaying institution with a degree in a dying profession as a member of a dysfunctional community that is dying in droves from epidemic disease. And that he's proud of it. This is the tragedy that only more drives home the point.

What you seem not to understand is that you cannot declare your homosexual identity without describing your behavior, and that it is your behavior that is costing the rest of us, who do not participate in homosexual behavior, literally billions of dollars annually while draining our resources for research and treatment of other infectious and genetic disease.

In other words, your position, to be consistent with your homosexual identity, must be that heterosexuals and their family finances and traditions, for the sake of "equality," are subordinate to your "right" to engage in behavior, whether in private or promoted on television, that has produced a public health disaster, degrades our institutions, and directly threatens the future of our children.

Homosexuals call this "diversity" and those who reject it "intolerant." When in fact what has occurred is this perversion of logic has led to the perversion of civil conduct, where the majority must now spend 90% of its resources on 10% of the problem while thousands of years of social tradition is eroded to the extent that what constitutes marriage and family is now subject to debate.

The irony, of course, is this is not "progress" but de-construction. For if it were otherwise, there would be no need to proclaim "diversity," "inclusion" and "equality" as the basis for this persistent self-destructive behavior and general social disorder. Homosexuality has been around as long as masturbation, but for "must see TV," secular education, and unsupervised impressionable young minds, it's apparently only recently been discovered as an alternative "lifestyle."

Simply put, the gay community wants to dance, but expects the heterosexual community to pay the band. That's not "equality;" that's tyranny, which is antithetical to the premise of "inclusion."

That dog simply will not hunt.
Posted by Eracus at January 13, 2005 01:36 PM

Eracus-
How are you in any better position than myself to judge how conservative Brainerd is? What are YOUR qualifications? Not all who work for the state are liberal. Not all that work in private industry are conservative.

As for the post falling into the gay debate... you are just as much to blame as myself. As is Colleen. I didn't force anyone here to make any comments about the issue.

You said, "are the direct product of precisely that dynamic on television over the course of your lifetime that has ruinously depicted and proscribed male characters as either feminized metrosexual men or knuckle-dragging redneck buffoons". I think there has been quite a diverse range of programming options for the masses to watch. I agree that not every male character on television would fit your quite narrow view of what a male is supposed to be, but how is that any different for any other group represented on television? Not only that... but you aren't forced to watch any of it. No one is.

"Men are and have been for decades portrayed on television as either feminized metrosexuals or clueless buffoons and that the danger to society is and has been that, given the omnipresence of television, small boys and girls will naturally grow up adhering to the influences they see most portrayed." That would make sense if it was true that the only men on television are metrosexual or clueless... but I don't believe that is the case at all.

"The reality the rest of us see is that of a young man who has recently graduated from a decaying institution with a degree in a dying profession as a member of a dysfunctional community that is dying in droves from epidemic disease. And that he's proud of it. This is the tragedy that only more drives home the point." Advertising/PR is hardly a dying profession. If you are referring to the fact that Advertising/PR is part of the Journalism school... I would also disagree... because of the internet... journalism is growing (but yes... it is changing). Homosexuals are hardly anymore dysfunctional that heterosexuals. Check out the divorce rates. The number of children born out of wedlock. The number of teenage pregnancies. The number of women reporting spousal abuse. The number of heteros with STD's. Dysfunction is a human characteristic that people of all sexual preferences suffer from. And your darn right I am proud of who I am. And no jerk, full of anger and bitterness at the world he lives in, is going to make me feel any different.

"What you seem not to understand is that you cannot declare your homosexual identity without describing your behavior, and that it is your behavior that is costing the rest of us, who do not participate in homosexual behavior, literally billions of dollars annually while draining our resources for research and treatment of other infectious and genetic disease." You are right in the sense that the spread of AIDS is bad. And that the small percentage of homosexuals how have spread it engaging in unprotected sex is hurting society... but AIDS does not affect all homosexuals. In fact... it is an very small minority. And while the fact that it is a problem sucks... it somehow hasn't been able to magically make me attracted to women. And it won't. If a large percentage of straight women all of a sudden contracted AIDS... would you suddenly be gay?

"The majority must now spend 90% of its resources on 10% of the problem"- this sort of situation has always been a problem (cancer, fighting drug use, etc) What exactly do you see as a solution? You can either make homosexuality illegal, or work with the population to try and solve the problem through more cooperative means. Calling homosexuals deviants is not going to bring you any sort of solution.

The Nazi's felt very similar feelings toward homosexuals that you seem to hold. Why not take the same steps they did? Or maybe... all the homos like me would change... if only all television programming was more manly and less metrosexual. I know completely agree with your original premise. Give us more masculine programming so that I may be compelled to have sex with women.

Give me a break.
Posted by Carson at January 13, 2005 03:49 PM

The Central Park Zoo in New York City has noticed that some of their penguins are gay: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

They probably watched too much anti-male programming on television.
Posted by Carson at January 13, 2005 03:56 PM

Oy. There are so many places to start with this comment thread.

Too many, in fact. I'll have to do another post, I think.

I finished re-reading Christina Hoff-Summers' "The War Against Boys" recently, and that sparked a lot of the backstory to this post. This subject goes way beyond the entertainment media for me - although that's the context of this post.

More later.
Posted by mitch at January 13, 2005 04:46 PM

Also, I really didn't intend for this thread to become a forum on the pros and cons of homosexuality. Gays, male and female, have undergone perhaps a more extreme swing than straight males; Lesbians have gone from never being mentioned to an artificial epitome of pop-erotic chic (as was so wonderfully sent up by SNL a few years back); gay guys have gone from ostracizing stereotypes to what seems to me to be approval verging on constant applause (case in point: guy on "Road Rules" announces he's gay; the other five Rulers applaud. Which is fine, although speaking as a straight overemployed single parent, I'll applaud someone else's orientation when I have the time and energy to move my own sexuality into the top ten of my personal priority list).

But this post is about married guys (or guys in relationships with women), and the edge in brains, brawn and wisdom that ads give the distaff half of those pairings. (Which makes me wonder - in the gay media, do ads show the "fem" half of a couple as being the wiser, smarter and stronger one?)
Posted by mitch at January 13, 2005 04:55 PM

Oops - in the post above, I meant to say "In the media, gays have..." undergone the big swing.

The post above should be read in the context of media, especially advertising, not necessarily life in general.
Posted by mitch at January 13, 2005 04:57 PM

Mitch-
I have yet to see any advertising that takes that approach towards gay couples. But I also don't think most advertising towards gays has become that nuanced yet. Even within media like Lavender or the Advocate... I would be hard pressed to find examples.

As for married couples (straight)... could this percieved slight be the product of women being the primary shoppers for the household? I know that most of the advertising projects and studies I did almost always focused on women, because consumer spending research and reports show that women make most decisions on how money is spent on things like groceries, household appliances, clothing, and etc. It wasn't about being anti-male... it was research that showed that men really don't care what brand of laudry soap they buy, but women do. It would be my guess that this advertising you are seeing isn't so much about turning men into women, but getting women to shop.
Posted by Carson at January 13, 2005 05:16 PM

Well, sooner or later the Nazis were bound to come up...and gay penguins...well, that cinches it as a viable lifestyle for sure!

Eracus-you described the Brainerd Lakes area to a tee. And MN in general as well. And the problem and reason for the socialism in this state. Well said.

I was done with this and then drove 300 miles in -25 weather to my daughter's in North Dakota...and just thought, hey, I wonder what Carson is still going on about....

NONE of us wanted it to turn into a gay/straight debate...well maybe not all of us...
Posted by Colleen at January 13, 2005 09:58 PM

Colleen-
If you didn't want that, why did you initiate more of it and continue to do so now?

And by the way... you probably knew that I would mention that Nazis because that is exactly the same crap they used to say. Just because it is cliche and overused doesn't mean its not true.
Posted by Colleen at January 13, 2005 10:26 PM

Sorry, that last comment is mine and it should be addressed to Colleen.
Posted by Carson at January 13, 2005 10:32 PM

If you actually made it through that mess... congratulations.

One Last Time

2004-12-16T17:13:00.000-08:00

Eneman2
Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

Other Side

2004-12-16T17:12:00.000-08:00

Eneman3
Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

This is the back side of "Eneman".

Happy Holidays and Have an Enema

2004-12-16T17:11:00.000-08:00

Eneman1
Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

This is a photo of "Eneman". It is a Christmas ornament made by the company Fleet, maker of everyone's favorite enema.

The guy who came up with this idea is my personal marketing hero.

The Lessons We Learn

2004-12-16T16:51:00.000-08:00

I was doing a little blog surfing when I ran into this post at Minnesota Democrats Exposed.

Mr. Anonymous at MDE is doing a chapter-by-chapter review of a book called “American Assassination: The Strange Death Of Senator Paul Wellstone”.

The book was written by Ph.D. Professors James Fetzer and Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs. This caught my eye because I just happen to know Dr. Fetzer. He teaches at the University of Minnesota, Duluth… and I just happen to have taken one of his classes about two and a half years ago.

Anyway… I was not surprised to see that he had written a book on this subject. He is a well-known conspiracy theorist. Whether it is JFK, 9/11, the 2000 election, the 2004 election, or Wellstone… he has gotten quite a bit of attention for some of his theories. Check out Assassination Science, his conspiracy theory website.

Now… I must say that I don’t agree with all of his opinions or theories. On most of these subjects I don’t really know what to believe. But Dr. Fetzer once taught me an important lesson. It basically went along the lines of:

The citizens of our country deserve the truth from those in power. And in the absence of truth… we are only left with questions and theories. As members of the public it is not only our job to defend explanations of phenomenon that are given by those in power, but to also question explanations… in hopes of upholding truth.

And boy does that lesson ever ring true in the world we live in today.

For the last couple days Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo is exploring the possibility that former-Bush nominee Bernard Kerik may have lied about having an illegal alien nanny to avoid more press scrutiny.

As CNN has reported:

Rumsfeld told the troops that shortages of armor did not stem from a lack of money but were "a matter of physics." The manufacturers of add-on armor are producing it as fast as humanly possible, he said.

Rumsfeld has proven to be dishonest and misleading. And don’t take my word for it… try U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. From the same article:

Collins, R-Maine, fired off a tough letter Wednesday to Rumsfeld, describing his remarks about the lack of "up-armored" Humvees in war zones as "troubling."

"I am very concerned that it appears the Pentagon failed to do everything in its power to increase production" of the vehicles, Collins wrote.
"The Department of Defense still has been unable to ensure that our troops have the equipment they need to perform their mission as safely as possible."

Collins also complained that the Army requested production of an additional 100 Humvees a month only after a soldier complained about the lack of necessary armor on trucks during a December 9 town hall meeting with Rumsfeld in Kuwait.

"Thus far, the Pentagon has received only 5,910 of the 8,105 of factory-armored Humvees commanders say they need," Collins wrote. "Why was this request not placed earlier to increase fully armored Humvee production from 450 to 550 a month at a time when many of us brought to the Pentagon's attention the shortages relayed to us by our constituent-troops and their families?"

So while I might disagree with Dr. Fetzer on Wellstone’s death now (and a handful of other issues)… I am willing to give his book a shot and see how I feel after a thorough read. Because of people like Fetzer, I feel much more confidant the public will get the answers they are entitled to.

I'll give this a try

2004-12-14T23:21:00.000-08:00

Who Links Here

Elf Dog

2004-12-13T22:40:00.000-08:00

Elf Dog
Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

This is Sophie Bella, my Shiba Inu/Chow Chow mix. I know it is evil... but I just had to get the "Santa's little helper" hat.

NYC in Minnesota

2004-12-13T22:38:00.000-08:00

Bette Midler 2
Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

Check out the set that Bette used. It is supposed to be Coney Island. She decended onto the stage upon a giant carousel horse.

Kiss My Brass

2004-12-13T21:57:00.000-08:00

BetteMidler1
Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

My partner, a few of our friends, and I attended the Bette Midler "Kiss My Brass" Tour last night. It was really a fantastic show. There are really very few people that captivate you with their live performances, but Midler just gives the audience a great show.

If you ever have a chance to see her (even if you are not a big fan) it is worth the ticket price.

St. Paul Skyline

2004-12-13T18:44:00.000-08:00

St. Paul Skyline
Originally uploaded by minnesotaliberal.

Here is my first posting using my new Canon Powershot A95 and Flickr.

The shot was taken from a small park in St. Paul.

Message from the Doc

2004-11-03T20:20:00.000-08:00

Chuck Olson, over at New Patriot, posted this message from Howard Dean in the comments of a post today. It did wonders in helping me recover from my post-election hangover.

Montana, one of the reddest states, has a new Democratic governor.

First-time candidates for state legislatures from Hawaii to Connecticut beat incumbent Republicans.

And a record number of us voted to change course -- more Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history.

Today is not an ending.

Regardless of the outcome yesterday, we have begun to revive our democracy. While we did not get the result we wanted in the presidential race, we laid the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leaders.

Democracy for America trained thousands of organizers and brought new leadership into the political process. And down the ballot, in state after state, we elected Dean Dozen candidates who will be the rising stars of the Democratic Party in years ahead.

Tens of millions of us are disappointed today because we put so much of ourselves into this election. We donated money, we talked to friends, we knocked on doors. We invested ourselves in the political process.

That process does not end today. These are not short-term investments. We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

We will not be silent.

Thank you for everything you did for our cause in this election. But we are not stopping here.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

I was at the Democracy for America party last night at Kieran's pub in downtown Minneapolis. All the people involved with that group are so full of excitement and determination. It is great hanging out with them and sharing a few pints... even in defeat.

(p.s. A shot of Irish whiskey in a pint of Harp sounds like a good idea when you candidate is behind... but I don't think it was Kerry's loss that made me sick this morning)

Post-Election Stress Disorder

2004-11-03T19:40:00.000-08:00

I have read so many conservative blogs today criticizing us lefties of complaining, being bitter, and angry about this loss to President Bush. I will conceed to being all of the above. I also admit that there seems to be more conservatives in this country than I had imagined. Their voices apparently outnumber those such as my own.

And maybe George W. Bush does best represent those 51%.

But he must also represent me; and the similar 48% of our population.

Politics, like religion, is often taken very personally. I woke up this morning afraid of what the election of people like Bush, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and Jim DeMint of South Carolina could mean for my personal rights as a gay man. I woke up frightened that those 11 states that passed gay-marriage bans were representative of this country as a whole. And I worried about what that would mean for the family I hope to one day create with my partner.

I believe those politicians have every right to their beliefs. I believe every voter in those 11 states had the right to that opinion. And I don't believe that that they are evil, mean, or anti-American. It is the diversity of opinions that make this country so strong.

And no matter what those politicians that I disagree with do... I still have my freedom of speech as well. Sometimes it is angry, or full of rage... and sometimes it is not. Isn't this country great?

On the road to tolerance

2004-11-03T18:13:00.000-08:00

Many of Senator Kerry's supporters have found a scapegoat for Ohio and the election loss to President Bush. That goat is gay marriage. It may not be a widely discussed opinion, and it certainly will not be a public discussion- but I can guarantee that almost all Democratic communications specialists are blaming gay marriage. I heard it when I worked for the Minnesota DFL during the campaign and I am sure the election results have only strengthened that opinion.

I have two major problems with this issue being used as a scapegoat.

The first would be the natural tendency for the issue to morph from "gay marriage" to "gay activism". There are major differences between the two. You can't blame the gay community for the dirty gay baiting the Republicans chose to use. As Michael at AmericaBlog wrote on gay marriage:

Gays and lesbians did not push the issue forward and did not press Kerry to be more forthright. It gained national prominence because of court rulings and the natural desire of U.S. citizens to claim their basic civil rights. The Bush campaign played on hate and bigotry -- constantly making gay slurs about Kerry and Edwards, passing out fliers in some states that lied and said Kerry would allow gay marriage and ban the Bible, going back on his word and pushing a Constitutional Amendment that for the first time would take away basic civil rights of Americans rather than bringing new people to the table and the list goes on. Gays didn't lose Kerry the election. But hatred and bigotry against gay Americans certainly helped Bush win.

My second reason is far simpler- those Bush voters really didn't share Kerry's values. They don't share my values. And we don't need them.

If they want a candidate who will help write discrimination into the constitution... they chose the right man. People who voted for Bush are content in supporting the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. They are content with the government intruding into peoples personal lives. They are content with the mixing of state and religion.

Ohio has had massive job loss, and yet in some of the counties that were worst off... they still voted for Bush. Apparently for these voters and others around the country, the only thing worse than losing a job, taking a pay cut, or losing your benefits is... gay marriage/abortion/etc.

If only I could believe this to be a sarcastic exaggeration, but alas... it is true.
From Andrew Sullivan:

The single most important issue for Republican voters, according to exit polls, was not the war on terror or Iraq or the economy. It was "moral values."

It is my belief that in the near future these attitudes will change; at least in reqards to same-sex equality. I am part of a generation that believes sexuality is not a morality issue, but instead one of biology. And while we may have a difficult road with this President... every Presidential election is a step towards a more tolerant future.

Toxic Waste Dump of Perversion

2004-10-30T11:21:00.000-07:00

The Pope and the Vatican have been taking a very active role in hot political debates recently, so it was no surprise when I saw this story in the Pioneer Press today.

Church will obey Vatican's order
Gay pride material to be removed from site

St. Joan of Arc was founded in 1946 and claims 4,000 member households. It has a long history of supporting the gay and lesbian community, including its organization of a hospice for people dying of AIDS and parish participation in Gay Pride events.

Is there anyone who doesn’t believe this is politically motivated? To be more specific… I think this is more likely an extension of our current partisan atmosphere than it is a debate about what the scriptures say about homosexuality.

If you read the Pioneer Press article, you will find this little quote:

Wertin said it's unclear what prompted the order.

So, after a “long history of supporting the gay and lesbian community” it has suddenly become taboo?

Let’s make it perfectly clear- this order was prompted by politicians and/or lobbyist groups who have been pressuring the Catholic Church to pay attention to this issue. There are thousands of groups like this that are actively pursuing discrimination against gays in every possible venue. And a place of worship is no exception. In fact, it is one of the most important to their agenda.

If churches were to allow homosexuals to participate in religion… it would ruin all the nasty stereotypes that are used to denigrate the gay community. How “evil”, “disgusting”, “hedonistic”, and “sex crazed” would queer “sinners” seem if they attended regular mass each Sunday like “normal God-fearing” straight folk?

Needless to say… most churches don’t follow all the strict codes they believe are outlined in their religious texts. Just look at marriage. Most Protestant churches differ on their rules, but for the most part they have varying levels of tolerance. Many relaxed their stance on the issue as the rate of divorce increased in our country.

And it is that arbitrary decision of what is and is not acceptable at any given time that infuriates me.

My partner and I attended a mass at St. Agnes Catholic Church in St. Paul, MN a few months ago. I’m not Catholic but my partner wanted to hear their musicians. The music was excellent, but as we were leaving I found a flier about an upcoming lecture they would he hosting. The subject of the lecture was “Defending the Sanctity of Marriage.” The literature went on to describe same-sex relationships as “a toxic-waste dump of perversion.” Needless to say I regretted dropping a few dollars in the collection during the service.

This is becoming more and more common. For anti-gay activists, the church has become a key battleground. For homosexuals… it is just the place where they go to praise whatever God they believe in.

The Bush administration has also realized how great a tool religion is for pushing a political agenda. His election campaign has been lobbying churches to endorse his reelection and distribute his campaign material.

They even have a list of Minnesota churches they are targeting. This list was among dozens of emails that were inadvertently sent to georgewbush.org, instead of georgewbush.com. If you look at their “Dead Letter Office”, you can read all of the dirt that Bush campaign operatives sent to the wrong email address.

I understand that religion and politics will forever be entangled. It is impossible to get around when a good amount of the people in this country pull all their morals and values from their religious beliefs. But it hurts to see partisans refusing others the same freedom of religion they are enjoying themselves.

Bush Hides Behind Gay Issues

2004-10-30T11:19:00.000-07:00

We have been seeing gay rights issues pop-up quite a bit recently. Whether it is the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Mary Cheney debate, or Bush’s endorsement of civil unions- it is quite a popular debate. But what do we make of this right before we cast our votes?

Well, I think it all really ties together quite well. George W. Bush and his administration have a long history of playing both sides of these issues.

Lets start with AIDS funding. A few years back, Bush took the initiative to increase aids funding to $500 million dollars. As David Corn wrote in an opinion column for the Philadelphia Inquirer:

At the White House, Bush said, "In Africa, the disease clouds the future of entire nations... In the hardest hit countries of sub-Saharan Africa, as much as one-third of the adult population is infected with HIV, and 10 percent or more of the schoolteachers will die of AIDS within five years." He proposed "to make $500 million available" to prevent transmission of HIV from mother to children.

Stopping inherited AIDS is one of the best bang-for-a-buck components of an assault against AIDS. A single dose of medication given at birth will work half the time. This is also one of the least controversial aspects of AIDS prevention because it has nothing to do with sex or condoms. It focuses on newborns, not adults. Consequently, it does not offend the religious right and cultural conservatives.

First, let me ask why in the hell it is controversial to discuss sex or condoms when the subject in question is AIDS??? What a great idea- deal with the problem by ignoring its causes.

Second, I will point out that this type of funding is a great example of what Bush termed his “compassionate conservatism.”

But lets continue reading:

So what's the catch? First, Bush was proposing funding that does not meet the actual need. Second, he was taking credit for money already approved by Congress. Finally, he was covering up the fact that his administration had pressed Congress to lower spending for this activity. Bush was spreading it thick in the Rose Garden.
The President expects his project to prevent nearly 150,000 infant infections over the next five years. The problem is there are about 800,000 children born with AIDS each year, according to the United Nations. That means the Bush initiative is aiming at helping less than 4 percent of this population. Moreover, $200 million of this supposedly "new" initiative was approved for use this year by Congress days before Bush's announcement. What he added was $300 million for this type of AIDS prevention in the following two years. Which averages out to $150 million a year - a cut from the current level.

It gets worse. At the start of June, several Republicans - notably, Sens. Bill Frist and Jesse Helms - were trying to raise overseas AIDS funding this year by $500 million. But the White House leaned on Frist and Helms and got the pair to slice that to $200 million.

So… in other words… Bush was pretending to act like he was leading the cause to fight AIDS in Africa, when he was really working to limit our contribution. Don’t believe me… believe John Kerry.

As Sen. John Kerry, a Democrat who has worked with Frist and Helms to increase global AIDS funding, griped, "Just as we've achieved bipartisan momentum to make a real difference on the toll this devastating disease is taking on Africa, the administration announces a retreat and pretends it's a forward charge."

Lets move on to the Federal Marriage Amendment.
President Bush announced his support for a Federal Marriage Amendment in February of this year.

Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

If you notice the areas in bold… you would think that the President would allow the states to grant legal arrangements for same-sex couples that are similar to those of straight married couples.

But lets take a look at the Federal Marriage Amendment that was introduced in the House of Representatives.

SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

The amendment is specifically worded so at to prevent states from deciding for themselves whether or not to allow equal legal arrangements. And while the President did not write the bill, you would think he would have considerable enough power within his party to get Republican Representative Marilyn Musgrave and her co-sponsors to change the wording to match the Presidents policy. Bush certainly did not speak out against this "radical infringement of states rights."

When John Kerry mentioned Mary Cheney during the third debate, Lynne Cheney was quick to defend her daughter’s honor.

This is not a good man," she said. "Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick.

Wow, Kerry must have said something really hurtful and mean.

"We're all God's children," Kerry said. "And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not a choice."

Well, I can’t really see how that is “cheap”, “tawdry” or in any way inappropriate when the question Kerry was asked was whether or not homosexuality is a choice.

But maybe the Cheney’s just don’t like politicians using their daughter to illustrate their political positions.

Vice President Dick Cheney spelled out Tuesday his differences with President Bush on the volatile issue of gay marriage, while for the first time discussing the sexual orientation of his gay daughter in a public setting.

Asked his position on the subject at a town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, Cheney replied: "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. ... With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."

So it IS okay to use her AND her sexuality to illustrate political positions if you are her father. But what about if you are another Republican? One that just happens to be running for Senate in Illinois?

After saying homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," Keyes was asked if that made Mary Cheney "a selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition."

Wow, that must have made the Cheney’s go nuclear.

Liz Cheney, Mary's sister, refused to comment Wednesday during an interview on CNN.

"I guess I'm surprised, frankly, that you would even repeat the quote, and I'm not going to dignify it with a comment," she told the interviewer.

I bet if John Kerry had said that Mary Cheney was a “selfish hedonist” Liz would have had something to say.

Let’s summarize: The Cheney family only mentions their gay family member when it is politically convenient.

Maybe Bush’s sudden endorsement of civil unions will help create the change needed in right-wing conservatism on this issue. But then again, can you trust a politician who says, “I believe in such and such” but has never once created legislation to support such a statement?

And you may also notice a timeline pattern developing.

The first time Cheney ever mentioned his daughter being “gay” in public- took place the day before a damning census bureau report on the rise in poverty and the uninsured. Wanna guess what got more headlines on the 26th?

Mary Cheney-Gate happened the same night Bush stumbled through his third debate loss in a row. But what got all the headlines instead? Mary Cheney.

What did Bush reveal to the country on the same day that reports started surfacing about missing explosives in Iraq? That he was in support of civil unions.

Maybe this is all just strange coincidence. And maybe God really does speak to Bush.

Out in Minnesota

2004-10-27T19:58:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been contemplating a change in my blog. I have felt more and more compelled to focus on gay rights issues (especially in Minnesota). Hence, my new blog Out in Minnesota.

My new blog will focus on news pertaining to gay rights. I hope to include voting information on politicians and candidates in MN, and maybe nationwide as well. This will include tracking key votes and keeping tabs on their public comments. The goal I hope to achieve starting this new blog is to create a forum for Minnesotans of all persuasions (straight, gay, or bisexual) to discuss and comment on these current events and politicians online. As for Minnesota Liberal… I will continue to write about politics in general.

Recently, I have not had enough time to do one blog—let alone two, but I really want to give it a try. I hope you will go check it out.

The Media: A Reflection of Reality Television

2004-09-24T16:57:00.000-07:00

"You're Fired!", the Donald pointedly informed Stacy J on The Apprentice.

This is what I had to entertain myself with at 8:00pm last night on network television. The television entertainment equivilant of todays political media coverage.

Television line-ups today are dominated by reality shows; including Survivor, Big Brother, Trading Spouses, Who Wants To Marry My Dad, The Next Great Champ, etc. These shows hardly challenge the imagination. Often... they leave you wondering where in the hell they find their participants. Whether they are competing for monetary prizes or attractive mates- they are quite often willing to do anything while the camera is watching. These couldn't possibly be people I would find in my neighborhood, right? Sadly... wrong.

The shows are advertised as "dramatic." Flash to Fear Factor contestants devouring some type of intestine. Or "surprise filled." Flash to Fear Factor contestants devouring some type of intestine.

But what are we really getting from these? No more than we are getting from the media on politics.

There are several areas in which reality tv and political media are similar.

They edit everything down to black and white statements in order to create drama between characters (oops, I mean participants). For example, they show one line from Kerry's latest speech, then one from Bush's.

And don't forget about commentary! What would two talking heads be without two more. David Brooks chimes in on Kerry. First he half-heartedly praises the Senator and slightly chuckles before slipping into some diatribe about how Kerry is so out of touch with "mainstream america." Then E.J. Dionne responds by saying that he "respectfully disagrees" with Brooks. He spends nearly his entire appearence trying to refute what Brooks said, without ever really being able to control the discussion. Often it will be Tim Russert and a conservative guest (think Dick Cheney). They exchange questions and answers and you wonder if the guest just recently hired Timmy as their press secretary.

They also create roles for their characters (sorry, participants). In every reality tv show their must be an Angry (read Bitchy) woman. The media gives us Teresa Heinz Kerry, Condoleeza Rice, or Hillary Clinton. Don't forget your ditzy blonde girls- Jenna Bush/Ann Coulter. There has to be some kind of host (whose job it is to ensure as little intellectual discussion as possible). Enter Katie Couric or Matt Lauer.

I just keep finding myself hoping that, come November... the sweeps weeks for both television and the White House will result in serious change.

One For The Books

2004-09-18T11:51:00.000-07:00

A few years back, I took a class entitled "Writing History." We looked at history, as a concept, and studied several different ways in which it is written. (This class, at the UofM, was taught by John Troyer. He is one of the most brilliant people I have ever met and really a great writer. Try google searching him and read his stuff.)

Anyway... It is an odd concept. Who is it that writes school textbooks? Why do we trust these textbooks? Are textbooks biased in any way?

Many of these questions were very similar to those that were asked when the State of Minnesota was developing new school standards. What is it that needs to be learned by children to understand the history of anything?

One of the nifty little facts we learned was that the state of Texas has an enormous amount of influence over how textbooks are written.

In Texas, they have a law requiring all textbooks be approved by a state board. That board is made up of a majority of Republicans. If they disagree with any of the content within a textbook, they can reject it and ask the publisher to resubmit it after certain changes have been made. Too much language about contraceptives in sex ed books or evolution in science books, and you won't be getting your book published. And this is a big problem because Texas buys more textbooks than almost any other state. And it would cost too much money for a publisher to create multiple different versions of their book. So schools in Minnesota get the same textbooks that were written for the Texas Board of Education.

I was just thinking about this subject because I really wonder how the George W. Bush presidency will play out in these textbooks. With such divided opinion on nearly everything he has done in his 4 years, it leaves us with one question:

We must ask, what is our children learning?
- George W. Bush

Community

2004-09-16T17:20:00.000-07:00

There is a great blog I would suggest everyone check out... New Patriot. Whether it is local, statewide, or national issues... they do a great job.

I think it is really important to encourage discussion that reaches beyond just one or two blogs. Our community offers a wide variety of opinions and ideas, and hopefully through the participation of many...we can make even more of a difference.

A Little Culture

2004-09-16T17:07:00.000-07:00

I encourage everyone to go see "Carmina Burana"- the collaboration of Theater de la Jeune Lune and Minnesota Dance Theater. It is a great mix of opera, ballet, and poetry. Definitely worth the money. Both the Star Tribune and the Pioneer Press loved it.

Kill the messenger!

2004-09-11T09:29:00.000-07:00

Apparently the Minnesota GOP Party doesn't like the Minneapolis Star Tribune's political polling.

They are telling the Star Trib to fire their pollster and hire someone else. Which of course makes sense because they don't bias all their information and sampling methods.

Just another example of the GOP's slime tactics. If you are not one of them... you are EVIL. Or an Angry Democrat. Well damn right we are angry. They have taken over our political system and put our country into chaos.

And if they want to play "gotcha games" with cameras... here is a fine example of the Republicans in this state.

This is the truck that was driving around near the Minnesota State Fair grounds. Until the driver was arrested. The truck is sponsored by Minnesota Citizens for the Defense of Marriage. If you go check out there events page, they were at the AM1280 The Patriot's state fair booth getting people to sign petitions for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. The Patriot broadcast the Savage Nation- a program hosted by a man that has said he wants gays to get AIDS and die. This is a radio station that is frequented by the Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty and U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.

This photo is Coleman with the right wing Northern Alliance bloggers at The Patriot booth at the state fair. And congrats to those bloggers. They have officially made themselves trivial. Check out their ongoing debate over the Bush National Guard memos at the Powerline blog. Continue if you want guys... but you still have not come up with any evidence that shows Bush fulfilled his Guard duties. Your leader was AWOL.

On a more philosophical note...

2004-09-10T16:11:00.000-07:00

After a day and a half of typography forensics debate... let's take a step back from the everyday frustrations of being a liberal in this crazy Faux News world. Instead, I want to talk about the philosophical reasoning behind my political beliefs.

I believe that government is an important part of our society in maintaining security, health, transportation, education, civil rights, labor, and trade. I believe that those who have been blessed with the success this country offers should bear more of the financial tax burden, thus allowing those with smaller incomes to find relief.

Many conservatives would argue that government should be small and not interfere with our lives. But what is small? Where is it okay for them to interfere and when is it wrong?

Was it wrong when courts ruled it was unconstitutional to discriminate against women? minorities? homosexuals? Of course not.

They would argue that we should pay very little in taxes? How little? 2%? 5%? They don't know.

Many Republicans say that don't want their money going to pay for someone else's education or health care... even though they also enjoy the priledges that come from those taxes being paid. The better educated children are... the more productive and innovative they will be in the work place, the more successful businesses will be, and better products will become available.

The more we privatize and individualize our society... the more difficult we make it for a large portion of our society. But as a collective... we have the resources needed to increase the probability of success for everyone.

I recently had a conversation that made me think very hard about what I believe and why.

My libertarian friend Jon said to me,

"You know what I want? I want the right to fail."

Jon believes that our system of government is flawed because it spends so much money and effort trying to ensure that everyone is a success. He thinks that we should forget about those that can't make it on their own. Survival of the fittest.

I wanted to punch him in the face. I felt this anger because Jon is a very successful advertising/art student at MCAD (Minneapolis College of Art and Design). I felt this anger because Jon has never been homeless, starving, without health insurance, without a computer, without hope. I felt this anger because he was spitting on the pain and suffering that millions of people in this country face every day.

Jon thinks that government should only operate on a local level. (Say one candidate represents a couple thousand people). Jon also believes that our two party system is a joke. He thinks that we shouldn't be voting for a candidate unless we agree with that candidate on 90% of the issues. (He believes that currently most voters only agree with Bush or Kerry on about 2 or three issues). What Jon doesn't realize is that he will never be happy unless he is representing himself. Everything is a slippery slope. There shouldn't be a federal government. There shouldn't be a state government. There shouldn't be a county government. Etc. You get the idea.

Jon is just an isolationist contrarian. He exists for only two reasons. To benefit himself. And to tell others they are wrong.

I hope one day Jon fails. Because maybe then he will realize why I care so much about his being successful. Jon's success could very easily affect my own.

Sorry if this posting doesn't completely make sense. I have a lot floating around in my head right now and it is hard to make sense of it all.

I hope to discuss these topics and issues further in future posts.

An Anger One Cannot Properly Express...

2004-09-05T16:30:00.000-07:00

I am sorry I have not posted in so long.

To start off... I feel very sorry for all the residents of Florida. Yet another hurricane (Ivan) is on its way. I hope the state is able to recover from all this mess. As if they didn't have enough to worry about with the upcoming election and the electronic voting machines.

As for our Commander-in-Failure, it is now open season. I can't wait to see all the flood gates open with a whole slew of new books coming out. Kelley. Hersh. Graham.

I really can't believe so many people do not know anything about Bush's rumored abortion, cocaine use, DUI's, etc. I was speaking to a friend today, who pretty well represents the uniformed voter who doesn't pay attention to politics, that had never heard about any of our current President's crazy past exploits.

I sometimes forget how little people know about what is happening in the world around them.

At first when I heard about Kelley's book, which will be considered a pretty trashy tabloid-esque depiction of the President's family, I was scared. I worried that it was this type of rumor-based journalism would hurt John Kerry and his hopes in the election. But after speaking with my un-informed friend... I realized that the more rumors about Bush that get out there, the better. It seems to be the only way of getting the media's attention. After the RNC Hatefest, featuring Zell Miller, and the Swift Boat Vets ads... everything is game.

I was surprised to see that the Star Tribune ran this AP story about Bush's military records. It is actually quite good, (although it doesn't quite point out the differences between criticism of Kerry's record vs. Bush's record).

I have seen lots of different blogs commenting on Bush's poll numbers lately. It seems that he has gotten a significant bounce from the convention and is beating Kerry by about 4 points. I really don't see what this has to do with anything. First of all, it is normal for a candidate to get a bounce after the conventions. Secondly, as we have seen in the past... the public falls for Bush's speechs everytime. He is one of the worst public speakers I have ever seen, but it never seems to hurt him.

So to summerize why the polls don't concern me right now... because Bush is running on a platform of Kerry can't fight the war on terror. The problem he faces is proving he has, in any way, been successful in that same fight.

We have a very successful question to combat the GOP.

"What hasn't George W. Bush screwed up while in office, and why should we give him another chance?"

Haven't I Heard This Before?

2004-06-03T08:44:00.000-07:00

The whole Chalabi mess is really starting to blow up. But now that we have proof he is a crook and a liar... let's take a look at what was being written back in 2001.

Excerpts are taken from:

The New York Times December 3, 2001 Monday Late Edition - Final
Section A; Column 3; Foreign Desk; Pg. 9
Calls for New Push Into Iraq Gain Power in Washington
By ELAINE SCIOLINO and ALISON MITCHELL

In September, the secretary of defense's office of protocol invited Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi who heads the London-based Iraqi National Congress, and Khidhir Hamza, a former director of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, to brief the policy group.

"Rumsfeld was in and out of the meetings and he offered a general statement of support for us," said Francis Brooke, the Washington adviser to the exiles who also attended the meeting. "He said, 'We're with you. Don't worry.' He and Ahmed are good friends."

Neither Secretary Powell nor George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, who have grave reservations about Mr. Chalabi's leadership, knew that the Iraqis were there, senior administration officials said. "It's outrageous that these guys were there," said one senior administration official. "They could end up influencing policy."

If there were concerns being raised about his credibility and leadership back in 2001, why did it take so long for our government to throw him out on his ass when the intelligence he provided us was proven faulty. Not only did they keep him around, but they were paying him $340,000 a month to tell us lies.

Now that Bush and company are cutting ties to him... maybe he will spill the beans on all their dirty secrets. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo is already reporting that he has a stash of dirty info on the bunch.

Hell Hath No Fury Like A Mother Scorned

2004-06-02T12:55:00.000-07:00

A few days ago, Atrios posted a letter to the editor that nearly had me in tears. Read it yourself.

Letter to the Editor
by Sharon Underwood, Sunday, April 30, 2000
from the Valley News (White River Junction, VT/Hanover, NH)

As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

At the core of all your misguided beliefs is the belief that this could never happen to you, that there is some kind of subculture out there that people have chosen to join. The fact is that if it can happen to my family, it can happen to yours, and you won't get to choose. Whether it is genetic or whether something occurs during a critical time of fetal development, I don't know. I can only tell you with an absolute certainty that it is inborn.

If you want to tout your own morality, you'd best come up with something more substantive than your heterosexuality. You did nothing to earn it; it was given to you. If you disagree, I would be interested in hearing your story, because my own heterosexuality was a blessing I received with no effort whatsoever on my part. It is so woven into the very soul of me that nothing could ever change it. For those of you who reduce sexual orientation to a simple choice, a character issue, a bad habit or something that can be changed by a 10-step program, I'm puzzled. Are you saying that your own sexual orientation is nothing more than something you have chosen, that you could change it at will? If that's not the case, then why would you suggest that someone else can?

A popular theme in your letters is that Vermont has been infiltrated by outsiders. Both sides of my family have lived in Vermont for generations. I am heart and soul a Vermonter, so I'll thank you to stop saying that you are speaking for "true Vermonters."

You invoke the memory of the brave people who have fought on the battlefield for this great country, saying that they didn't give their lives so that the "homosexual agenda "could tear down the principles they died defending. My 83-year-old father fought in some of the most horrific battles of World War II, was wounded and awarded the Purple Heart.

He shakes his head in sadness at the life his grandson has had to live. He says he fought alongside homosexuals in those battles, that they did their part and bothered no one. One of his best friends in the service was gay, and he never knew it until the end, and when he did find out, it mattered not at all. That wasn't the measure of the man.

You religious folk just can't bear the thought that as my son emerges from the hell that was his childhood he might like to find a lifelong companion and have a measure of happiness. It offends your sensibilities that he should request the right to visit that companion in the hospital, to make medical decisions for him or to benefit from tax laws governing inheritance.

How dare he? you say. These outrageous requests would threaten the very existence of your family, would undermine the sanctity of marriage.

You use religion to abdicate your responsibility to be thinking human beings. There are vast numbers of religious people who find your attitudes repugnant. God is not for the privileged majority, and God knows my son has committed no sin.

The deep-thinking author of a letter to the April 12 Valley News who lectures about homosexual sin and tells us about "those of us who have been blessed with the benefits of a religious upbringing" asks: "What ever happened to the idea of striving...to be better human beings than we are?"

Indeed, sir, what ever happened to that?

I had planned on posting this letter here, but had almost forgotten about it... until my friend Lisa e-mailed the letter to me saying I should post it. Thanks Lisa. Too bad this isn't in every major newspaper around the country.

Reading this really makes me think about the struggle many have with their friends and family members because of their sexuality.

It has been quite a long road with my own mother. For a long time she was ashamed. Of me. Of my relationship with my partner. Of her "bad parenting." That I, her son, would be "damned to hell." That I would not be providing her the life she dreamed of having (her son getting married to a beautiful woman and having a big beautiful wedding, building a big beautiful home, and creating for her two beautiful grandchildren, etc).

But as time has gone on... she has realized that I am not the "evil" her church made me out to be. That I am a person deserving of love and happiness. And what brought on this radical change? It was losing me. When she had to chose between having a son or having her hate... she started making the right decisions. And that gives me hope.

A Queer Idea of Success

2004-06-01T17:01:00.000-07:00

Andrew Sullivan has once again shown how clueless he really is. His June 1st posting entitled "Just a Question" is a very poor attempt to justify the war in Iraq.

If someone had said in February 2003, that by June 2004, Saddam Hussein would have been removed from power and captured; that a diverse new government, including Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, would be installed; that elections would be scheduled for January 2005; and that the liberation of a devastated country of 25 million in which everyone owns an AK-47 had been accomplished with an army of around 140,000 with a total casualty rate (including accidents and friendly fire) of around 800; that no oil fields had been set aflame; no WMDs had been used; no mass refugee crises had emerged; and no civil war had broken out... well, I think you would come to the conclusion that the war had been an extraordinary success. And you'd be right. Yes, there are enormous challenges; and yes, so much more could have been achieved without incompetence, infighting and occasional inhumanity. But it's worth acknowledging that, with a little perspective, our current gloom is over-blown. Stocks in Iraq have been way over-sold. I even regret some minor sells myself. Now watch the media do all it can to accentuate the negative.

Well Andrew, here is my retort. If someone had said that no WMD stockpiles would be found; that any Al-Qaeda/Iraq connections would be proven false; that Ahmed Chalabi would be completely discredited and exposed as having leaked US intelligence to Iran; that Iraq prisoners would be tortured and murdered by US soldiers; that thousands of innocent people would be killed; that Al-Qaeda would become larger and stronger than ever; that the United States would lose it's credibility in the eyes of most of the world; would you say that the war in Iraq has been an incredible success. NO! While there may be positive elements... this war has been a disaster for our country. There is no spin that can change that.

The logic for Sullivan's arguement is akin to: "Global Warming is good because I don't have to shovel the snow out of my driveway as much." or "Murder is alright because it helps control the human population."

Is this their basis for the war now... let's just look at the good and ignore the bad? Apparently these people don't care what the means(murder, destruction, dishonesty, etc) as long as the outcome satisfies their ideology.

And while it is fine for Sullivan to examine positive news coming from Iraq, it is not okay to use it as justification. Everything is NOT coming up roses. Mr. Sullivan is stuck in his world of wishful thinking.

Sullivan's next posting should sound something like: "The GLBT community should vote for Bush because he has never proposed a law that would have us put to death."

Why have education when you can have war?

2004-05-16T17:14:00.000-07:00

National Priorities Project just broken down the cost of the Iraq war as it pertains to Minnesota taxpayers. Apparently, the proposed budget of war will cost our state at least 3.1 billion dollars!

As National Priorities points out:

By comparison, Minnesota will recieve from federal aid $659.3 million for the No Child Left Behind Act, $182.4 million for Environmental Protection Agency programs, and $205.8 million in Community Development Block Grant programs over the same three-year period.

Thanks to The Center for American Progress including a link to this info on their email newsletter.

I guess this answers questions as to why President Bush has severely underfunded NCLB and nearly every other bill he has passed.

As for Minnesota, many schools are struggling to meet all the NCLB requirements. Whether it is due to the minimal funding or ridiculous standards, you know there are serious problems when the Minneapolis interm-Superintendent David Jennings states, "I think it's the single worst piece of federal legislation written in my adult lifetime."

I think it is time that we, as a nation, decided what our priorities are.

"Attitude is the Result of Leadership"

2004-05-16T16:24:00.000-07:00

Thankfully THAT is over!

2004-05-16T15:52:00.000-07:00

I am finally finished being a full-time student. The Spring 2004 semester was my last full load schedule class session. I only need 3-credits outside my major (Public Relations/Advertising) and a passing grade on the Spanish Proficiency Test.

Now that ALL THAT is over, I can devote more time to writing about politics. Hooray!

As you may have noticed, my template format has changed. I am working out all the kinks right now, and will be personalizing it a little more.

Thanks for reading my blog and I hope that you will enjoy any future posts.

Mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce.... and W's cooked goose.

2004-04-13T19:18:00.000-07:00

Well, I must say, I never thought they would let this happen. "They" being our President's handlers. "This" being tonight's nationally televised press conference. Bush has never been a good public speaker, but... I don't believe anyone expected the most powerful man in the world to look this stupid, this sad, this small, and this careless.

Here is just a few key highlights:

When asked what his biggest mistake after 9/11 was, Bush responded:
"I wish I would have received that question before the press conference."

"Some believe if you are Muslim or brown skinned you can't rule your own country." Yes, you read that right. Bush used the term "brown skinned" to describe Muslim's.

Iraq is "a theater in the war on terror."

"Of course they don't like being occupied. I wouldn't like being occupied either."

"FREEDOM IS A GIFT FROM THE ALMIGHTY!"

"When you act like you're hiding something, it means you've got something to hide." My God... the irony in that statement.

"Nobody likes to see dead people on their television screens."

When asked why he must have Dick Cheney next to him during his 9/11 commission testimony, he replied: " incoherent bumbling" "incoherent bumbling" "To answer their questions." WHAT????? That is not an answer!

Several times he was so confused by the questions he would not be able to give a coherent answer, that is when he said this phrase: "I'm sure something will pop into my head here."

And our "Did he actually say that" moment of the night:

"Had I had any inkling whatsoever that people wanted to fly airplanes into buildings, we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country.''

LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE. It was a lie when Condi Rice said it, and it is a lie when our Commander-in-Thief says it. He received multiple intelligence reports that specifically mentioned Al-Qaeda using airplanes as missiles. Condoleeza Rice, after saying this exact same line during her private meetings with the 9/11 commission, asked the 9/11 to take back her comments as a misunderstanding and that she never meant to say that.

Several reports informed Bush and his administration of increasing threats to our homeland. But Bush says that he never had any intelligence that warned him of this threat. What was he waiting for.... Osama to call him up at home and say "Hello old friend, remember me... Osama... I fought the Commies in Russia for your father. I am gonna fly a plane into the World Trade Center. Just thought I would let you know."
Most intelligence does not say exactly what is going to happen and when. But it is their job to use that intelligence to influence policy decisions, and obviously Bush did not see Al-Qaeda as a very important factor in his agenda.

Bush went on to say that he must rely on his intelligence information to be correct. Well, it wasn't. But Condi still has a job. Tenet still has a job. Chalabi still has a job. NO ACCOUNTABILITY.

And why does Bush keep saying that we will find WMD's in Iraq? He apparantly still believes they will magically appear... even though every intelligence expert says that there are no WMD's.

Several times, Bush was asked whether he had any regrets or was in anyway culpable for what happened on September the 11th. Each time he avoided the question. And when asked more specifically why he wouldn't admit any error, Bush responded that we should blame Osama. I guess it is too much to ask of our leaders to be accountable for protecting us. But it is okay to blame Clinton. Cause Clinton was a Godless son of a bitch, right Georgy?

Thanks for firing up our Democratic base George. We Dems needed that.

I believe it is now time to create commercials only consisting of George W Bush clips. There is plenty of good "gotcha" tape to go around. Can we commission "The Daily Show" pieces as political campaign commercials. My candidate for Vice-President... Jon Stewart.

Lying Liars and the comedian who will take them down

2004-04-09T19:11:00.000-07:00

Let me begin this post by saying that if you have not read Al Franken's book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" you must do so immediatly. I read the book last August and it was, for me, redemption for all of the trash out there like Coulter, O'Reilly, Savage, and Hannity. It screamed "I am mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore." But yet it was funny, smart, and HONEST. It had (oh my God) citations. Yes, that is right... they actually researched their material to make sure it was accurate.

Anyways, Franken has a chapter discussing the whole Condi Rice- 9/11 thing. You should read it. If you already experienced it, go experience again. For those of you without this enlightening text-click here. The chapter has been reproduced on someone's website. It is worth another read in light the debate our country is in.

For more liberal comedians, go check out Air America Radio! This new liberal radio network is spectacular. My favorite program is actually Janeane Garofalo's show "The Majority Report." It is brilliant. And so many awesome guest stop by as well. Recently, Stephen Colbert of the Daily Show and David Cross of Mr. Show. Randi Rhodes is also worth while. She recently shredded Ralph Nader to pieces... for all of her listeners to enjoy. As she put so wonderfully- "The Green Party- the party Ralph Nader created- is not even endorsing him."

Lastly, go check out The Center for American Progress. They are all over Dr. Rice like white on rice on a polar bear in a snow storm.

ONE DAY PHONE BLITZ!

2004-04-07T12:55:00.000-07:00

CALL GOV. PAWLENTY - SETTLE THE TRANSIT STRIKE!
TODAY Wed 4/7, call (651) 296-3391 or (800) 657-3717

Tell him:

- Come to the table directly and settle the strike!
- You can't balance the budget on the backs of transit workers!
- Affordable health care is a right!
- Transit is important to our communities!

This issue is very important. The transit system is relied upon by so many around this community. How are blind citizens expected to get around? How are the poor supposed to afford transportation? How are we going to get in and out of the Metro area.

This is union busting and it won't be stood for. Public transportation is OURS and WE need to take it back!

One nation... INDIVISIBLE... with liberty and justice for ALL

2004-03-25T19:54:00.000-08:00

On Monday, March 22nd, a hoard of hateful bigots stormed the Minnesota state capital. Filled with fear, this mob demanded that our state write discrimination into the constitution. It was a sad day in this state's history.

Led by the Minnesota Family Counsel (check out their webpage- words cannot describe how appalling it is), thousands of "Christians" swarmed lawmakers offices, demanded a ban of gay marriage/civil unions in the constitution, threatened the unseating of lawmakers that disagreed with them, and prayed that homosexuals would be damned to hell.

I don't think I have ever wished anyone be sent to hell.

It has been described by many capital staff members as the ugliest example of blind hatred in they have ever seen.

The governor of our state even made an appearance. Did he lambast this terrible mob. No. Did he ask them to please respect the right of others to live free lives. No. Instead, Gov. Tim Pawlenty supported them. He encouraged them. From his bully pulpit, he led them.

I sometimes wonder what these people really think about the GLBT community. About people such as myself. I know that I rarely ever publicly express the true anger I feel about Bush. So if I have only seen a small piece of their rage, how far would they take their animosity if they could.

It nearly put me in tears, seeing images of large crowds holding signs demanding the defense of "the sanctity of marriage."

But today, I was uplifted by the rallying of the GLBT community (including gay supportive friends and family). Thousands gathered on the steps of the capital with a united cry. A cry for equality, a cry for justice, and a cry for unity.

I brought along a sign with me that read, "The GOD I believe in doesn't promote HATE." My partner, Justin, brought a sign that said, "Our agenda- love and equality." And we were joined by several straight friends.

I am truly blessed to be surrounded by individuals that possess such warmth. And I truly feel sorry for those who wish to persecute others. I can't imagine how empty it must feel... grasping at such desperate straws.

Their boogeyman is out of the closet... and it ain't goin back in.

The little email that could.

2004-03-20T06:35:00.000-08:00

In the latest Republican hypocrisy news...

Please refer to my "Kerry's Defense Team" posting.

Then check out this press release from the MN GOP.

This story by the AP.

And finally this opinion piece in the Crookston Daily Times.

It is really too bad that the DFL "Action Alert" offended a few people. As far as I am concerned, they deserve every darn bit of it's brutal honesty. If they can't take a long hard look at what they have done to this country, I will certainly help point it out to them.

Personally, I have always believed that negative campaign politics are wrong. I think that personal attacks, deceptions, and the misuse of images weakens the hearts and minds of America's voting public. The goal of most political ads is to crush the morale of an opposing candidates supporters, thus helping to kill voter turnout. That is not democracy.

But to expect an even playing field in this landscape of ideology would be ludicrous. Much of political identification is affiliated with peoples views on religion/morality. And people do not weigh those values lightly. I know I am willing to go quite a distance to stop what I believe is "wrong", and quite further to build upon what I know is "right".

Sometimes you just have to say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore." And that is where I began my contribution. I can no longer just sit and watch conservatives do as they like. Whether any of us like it or not, this is where our country is at. Hopefully I can help make it a better place. Then, maybe, we won't need to always be out for blood.

All About the Benjamins

2004-03-13T12:17:00.000-08:00

Campaign financing is one of the most dreadful subjects. To begin with, the normal person (myself included) doesn't understand the rules and regulations. There are so many different types of political organizations, IRS filing distinctions, individual donor limits, and etc. that it is very easy to become confused. So when John McCain started whining about "soft money" Democratic groups I thought I would do a little homework. Soft money is a term used to describe donations made to 527 organizations. 527 is the tax-exempt code given to non-profit political committees by the IRS. They can fundraise and spend money however they like, except they cannot contribute money to political candidates.

For the past year or so, many Republicans have been crying out against these organizations. They believe it is a loophole in the current campaign finance law to allow these groups to spend money in a partisan manner (i.e. commercials against President Bush). The Bush administration is starting to get in on the act of bashing these groups as well. In particular, the Republicans are going after a group called Media Fund. Media Fund has become notorious to conservatives because they are in the midst of a $5 million dollar ad campaign critisizing Bush. The commercial has played quite a bit here in Minnesota and in other states throughout the country. This has the Bushies pissed. They claim that groups like Media Fund are illegal. George Soros, a major financial backer of several 527's, is being crowned the new king of "evil rich Dems." But what they don't tell you is that the commercial does not mention John Kerry a single time. It can't. That would be illegal. But as long as a group is just voicing their opposition to a politician's political viewpoint, what is wrong? It seems to me that by limiting a 527's funding or preventing them from running these types of commercials is a violation of free speech.

And by the way, I wonder what Bush would say about the Bush/Cheney 2000 Inc.-Recount Fund. It raised over $11 million. Or the Republican Governors Association. I am sure it is just a coincidence that their list of top donors is full of pharmaceutical companies. No special interests there. How about the College Republican National Committee. I wonder if that is a partisan political group? Like usual- the elephants want to have it both ways.

The point I guess I am trying to make is that if a millionaire like Soros wants to spend $5 million dollars to produce commericals saying he doesn't like Bush's policies, he should be able to. He is following all of the rules that prohibit him from coordinating his activities with those of Kerry. So what is the big deal.

And why doesn't anyone call the Republicans on their shit either. My interesting factoid of the week: Employees and directors of Enron had given $623,000 to Bush over the course of his political career. That includes $220,700 from executives and directors named in the lawsuit brought against the company. Bush received $74,200 from the top 24 executives and board members in the 2000 election alone. Also, take a look at Bush's top campaign contributors throughout his career. And no one seemed to care when Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was shown to have actually broken campaign laws. He didn't just find a loophole, he broke the law. But he won anyway. Then later we found out that he hadn't even reported significant amounts of income he had made from "independant consulting" for a friends company (which happened while he was running for Governor). He has never been able to document what his "consulting" consisted of or why his friend felt the need to pay him a couple hundred thousand dollars for no such work. It seems pretty plain to me that this was an illegal campaign contribution deliberately disguised as real income.

There are tons for great research tools for following the money:
The Center for Public Integrity
Follow the Money
Federal Elections Commission
Political Money Line

Kerry's Defense Team

2004-03-12T11:43:00.000-08:00

George W. Bush and his party of thugs have made careers of lying, cheating, and misleading the public. Whether it is lying to the citizens of our country to manufacture a war in Iraq, lying about our Presidents National Guard non-service, lying about revealing CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity for political gain, lying about who will benefit from tax cuts, and especially lying about political opponents with war hero records. The Republicans stole former Senator and war hero Max Cleland’s seat by creating commercials comparing him to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. During the 2000 campaign, Bush’s cronies started rumors implying that Senator John McCain fathered a “black child out of wedlock.” For more check out Jim Boyd’s commentary from the Star Tribune.

Now, Republicans are demanding Senator John Kerry apologize for calling them "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen.” Apparently they don’t see the hypocrisy, but we do. And that is why they will get no such apology from any Democrat. Senator Kerry is going to hold them accountable and reveal them for the frauds they are, but he needs our help in doing so. We need to flood every newspaper with examples of the lies they have spewed for so long.

Crazy Midterms Before Spring Break

2004-03-09T18:32:00.000-08:00

You might wonder why I haven't posted for the last couple days. I work 40 hours a week at the front desk of a hotel, 20 hours a week as an intern for the DFL, and attend the University of Minnesota- Journalism School full-time (16 credits). So when every class I take (5 in all) have assignments due... I start to get a little flustered.

Why are my evil professors doing this to me right now? Well, it is that wondrous week before "Spring Break" where every teacher decides to drop some kind of bomb on his/her students. As of this hour, I am studying for a test in Biogeography of the Global Garden, finishing an assignment for College Algebra, and preparing to write a short case study analysis for my Strategic Communications Campaigns class. And did I mention that I am also working at my hotel right now as well. *Multi-tasking is so much fun*

All of these assignments are due tomorrow (I can just hear you scoffing at my procrastination). Even better, I also have a midterm in my Visual Communications course on Thursday and I am about 200 pages behind in the readings. I should be able to catch up before the test, but it sure gets a fire lit under my a**.

I will try and write about something a little more important to what goes on in ALL of our lives tomorrow (like how stupid Bush's political commercials are, or how wonderful it is that Kerry is destroying Bush in the polls). Until then, pity me.

Band-Aid for the Broken Brain

2004-03-05T15:54:00.000-08:00

In case you haven't already heard, Martha Stewart was "found guilty of obstruction of justice and lying to the government." While I feel very little sympathy for someone who may very well have broken the law... give me a break. We are talking about a whole $250,000 worth of stock. There are hundreds of thousands of people who have lost their jobs because of unethical business practices by giant companies. Corporations have devastated our economy with their bogus accounting practices. And the best our government can do is slap a professional homemaker on the wrist? What about the real corporate criminals like Kenneth Lay of Enron, Jack Welch of GE (the primary financial backer to WorldCom), or even President George W. Bush- formerly of Harken Energy. For more info about our President's insider trading history click here. It seems that Martha is the sacrificial lamb of the recent corporate scandals. While most of the charges against her were dropped, any type of guilty verdict is devastating. I guess that is what happens when you are a woman without powerful political connections to protect you. Maybe that was a little exaggerated (Martha probably has plenty), but there are so many bigger fish to fry. Maybe when oil companies are not determining our foreign policy decisions (gas is $3 a gallon in California!!!), maybe when insurance companies provide adequate coverage without being ordered by courts, maybe when discrimination is not tolerated against any groups, maybe when our men and women aren't dying in another country protecting us from the illusion of WMD's, maybe when we have Supreme Court Judges that decide cases without wining and dining with the defendants, maybe when our public education system isn't being flushed down the toilet, maybe when we have a real President that can make real decisions that affect real people. Martha's guilt is just a damnation of this country. We could have real social change, but we will settle with made-for-tv dramatizations.

State Sponsored Racism

2004-03-04T10:22:00.000-08:00

If a lawmaker told someone, "Give me a cut of the profits from your business or else I will pass a law making your line of work illegal," he would be arrested for extortion/blackmail. But if two Republicans tell Native Americans to give the state a cut of their profits or else they will pass a law making gambling illegal, it is business as usual. This is blatant racism of the worst kind. The indian tribes were given the monopoly rights to slot machines in the state of Minnesota... forever. Just because our state is in terrible financial trouble (thanks to Mr. No New Taxes Pawlenty), we have no right to (once again) screw the tribes out of what is rightfully theirs. But as long as racists like Rep. Jim Knoblach-St. Cloud and Rep. Tom Neuville-Northfield continue to get elected, they will continue to discriminate against everyone that is not white and Christian.

Gov. Pawlenty promised not to raise taxes, but wouldn't forcing the Native Americans to give Minnesota part of their profits would be a tax on their community. Not to mention the increases we have all suffered in property taxes, decreases in education quality, and so forth.

The only reason this whole thing is happening is because Pawlenty and his goons want to finance their sports stadiums (God forbid they be remembered as the politicians that made sports franchises leave). This whole mess isn't even about financing our schools (which need money, but not at the expense of a minority group).

Don't let the politics of this confuse you. This is racism. But what did you expect from these Republicans.

And the winner is...

2004-03-02T18:37:00.000-08:00

Congratulations go out to John Kerry, the next Democratic candidate for President. I think he is a good choice to run against Bush. I just feel his voice resonates well with the majority of Americans. Now we can finally begin to organize a unified voice against the Bush administration. I can't wait to see Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Carol Mosely Braun, Al Sharpton, Joseph Lieberman, Bob Graham, Wesley Clark, and the rest of the previous candidates put their support behind Kerry and push things forward.

In honor of the Kerry win you will now find a Kerry 2004 link on my page (as evidence that clearly avoided putting my endorsement on anyone previously- not that anyone would have cared who I endorsed).

The big question now is... who will join to run for Vice-President? Rumor is running rampant about Edwards. In his last few public appearances, the southerner has kindly referred to Kerry as his friend. But who would best compliment the Massachusetts Senator? Personally, I would like to see new face. Not too many people know who this is, but he is a funny Jewish guy named Al. NO! Not Al Gore. He already served two terms as the VP. Al Franken is my choice. (I can hear many of you saying "Oh that would be great" and "That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.") I know this is not really possible - due in part to his new radio show in the works - but a boy can dream, can't he? For a serious candidate, I would look to Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. from Tennessee as a possibility. He is a moderate, young, goodlooking, from the south, African-American, and he endorsed Kerry. There is probably zero chance he will be chosen, but I could see it working well. There will also be talk of Bob Graham, Bill Richardson, Dick Gephardt, and etc.

Let me know who you would like to see as Vice-President.

As of 9:45pm on Tuesday night, 35% of Minnesota precincts have reported their votes on the DFL's homepage. I am amazed to find out that Dennis Kucinich has 19% of the votes. Kerry has 49.4% and Edwards has 26.6%. I would have thought that it would be a little closer between those two.

Am I the only one who finds it annoying when people vote for a candidate that has dropped out? Dean has 344 votes, Lieberman has 16, and Clark has 69. These votes wouldn't really help any of the other candidates out with the percentages like this, but what if the race had been closer? Didn't anyone learn their lesson from Nader 2000?

Super Duper Special Tuesday!

2004-03-01T18:44:00.000-08:00

Go out and caucus! Tomorrow (Tuesday, March 2nd 2004) precinct caucuses are held here in Minnesota. If you don't know where to find your caucus you can just click the Minnesota DFL link. The DFL homepage has a tool where you type in your address and it tells you where to go. It starts at 7:00pm, but you need to get there about 6:30 to register. Caucuses will hold a presidential preference vote. That vote will help determine which candidate will run against Bush in November.

In other news... the Star Tribune reported a very interesting story about voter decision making. Although, there is one small problem with it. It argues that Democratic voters aren't necessarily looking for the candidate that would most likely beat George W. Apparently people are actually voting for the candidate that best represents their view on the issues. Exit polls show that voters who believe that the economy is the most important issue favor Edwards. They also state that among issue oriented votes, Kerry doesn't do well. After all that info telling us people want a candidate based on issues... the story ends with this sentence. "Among those who said they voted primarily on the basis of which candidate could beat Bush, Kerry defeated Edwards by 31 percentage points, which you could say is why Kerry won Wisconsin." So Kerry doesn't do well on the issues, and people want an issues candidate... so they vote for Kerry??? I know. I am confused too. Must have been a slow news day at the Strib.

Addressing the Richard Perle resignation, I must say I am somewhat surprised. Officials have claimed that he resigned because he did not want the Bush administration to be criticized for his personal views on foreign policy (such as wanting to invade every middle-eastern country not named Israel). But I wouldn't be surprised if he was forced out. The White House, according to most of what I have read, has been divided into two camps. Bush and Cheney's. There are certain officials that are part of Cheney's crew (Perle, Rumsfeld, and other war hawks) that don't get along so well with Bush's crew (Condoleeza, Powell, Ridge). If Bush's re-election team thought that the crazy things coming out of Perle's mouth would hurt his chances... he is easily replaced and few will miss him.

Paul Spies (of Minneapolis) wrote a very astute letter to the editor for today's Star Trib. He noted that the new Minnesota social studies standards don't even mention the word "caucus." Our schools are is serious danger. Department of Education Commissioner Cheri Pearson Yecke is a disgrace to this state. Besides trying to indoctrinate children with her warped views of US and state history (such as ignoring the Vietnam War, celebrating President Ronald Reagan, and trivialize the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans), she somehow forgot to discuss our process of electing government officials??? I stand by the view that Gov. Pawlenty and his administration are intentionally trying to destroy public education in order to privitize the entire system.

Remember to go caucus.

If at first you don't succeed, play the God card.

2004-02-29T16:16:00.000-08:00

As a student of Journalism and Mass Communications let me just say...

MATT DRUDGE IS THE SCUM OF THE EARTH!

Wow, that makes me feel so much better. He is an embarrassment to all who strive for more integrity in the media. Playing the pathetic lackey of the GOP- mudslinging Mattey has a story on his page entitled "Kerry not sure God on America's side." The story goes on to quote Kerry from today's Presidential debate in NYC.

Kerry was asked, "President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side. Is God on America's side?"

Here is how Kerry answered, "Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence."

Drudge is full of shit. There is nothing wrong with what Kerry said. Here is the simple difference between Kerry and Bush. Bush believes that the world is black and white, right and wrong, good and evil. He uses his religion as a tool for divisiveness. He believes that if you don't support the "Christian Right's" conservative policies your are irreligious or evil. Bush doesn't believe God is on America's side- he believes that God is on the side of Christians. While it is not wrong to believe in Christianity, it is very wrong to divide our nation with that belief. There is a difference between being religious and being fascist. Kerry understands this difference. That is what his remarks represent. Kerry believes in God, but also believes that America is a nation of plurality. We are not a "Christian" nation- but one of Christians (Catholic/Protestant), Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, and Atheists. That is why Kerry refused to say that he has God's endorsement; he doesn't need it to be the leader of this country. And because of that freedom- we are all better off.

This country is wonderful. We have been very prosperous. But that prosperity is the product of many faiths working harmoniously. I think that our President has forgotten that.

And as for Drudge, well, I hope he can find better uses of his time than making up new stories about the Democratic candidates every week. Oh wait, that's right... he has- exploiting the most bigoted homophobic stories he can find to bad mouth gays. You will also find a link on his page making it sound as if it is a bad thing that the Olympics may allow transexuals to participate. With all of the sensationalism he devotes towards homosexuality (bug chasing stories, gay marriage stories, etc.)... it leads me believe that maybe he is repressing something.

Why does polling rule my opinion?

2004-02-28T17:55:00.000-08:00

Recently I have been skiddish over which Democratic candidate I will support... now that it is down to Kerry and Edwards. The question I keep asking myself is, "What am I basing my vote on for a Presidential candidate?" I guess I would have to put the gay marriage issue near the top, closely followed by income tax plans, and voting record on the war in Iraq. I find all of these topics so important, but in the end they don't even matter. If I don't support the candidate that has the best chance of beating Bush, I will have wasted my vote. Which leads me to an even more difficult choice. When put on the spot, I guess I have to go with the man on top of the polls- John Kerry.

I just hope that all of this ends soon. I think we need to start supporting one candidate. Bush is planning to go nuclear with his campaign advertising in the coming weeks, and the Democratic candidate will need to respond quickly.

1+1+1= Big Trouble!

2004-02-28T07:00:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) announced that the Bush Administration's 2005 budget will "produce deficits totaling $2.75 trillion over the next decade."

That came one day after Forbes magazine released its "Worlds Richest People" list. In that issue, there is a timely piece entitled "The Rich Get Richer." It explains that "the collective net worth of the world's wealthiest jumped half a trillion dollars in the past year." President Bush is trying spin this into meaning the economy is getting better. This years average household income (about $42,000 a year) will be lower than last years. Why? Cause the average person is not a billionaire and did not get a huge tax cut. If you have 9 guys with $100 each and 1 guy with a million dollars, the 10 guys have an average of $100,090 each. Oh, and there is the whole millions of people unemployed thing.

And for good measure, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan announced that we must start cutting Social Security benefits. But as the Star Tribune pointed out, Greenspan didn't mention the fact that Social Security is actually running surpluses right now. That means that the Bush administration, instead of saving this Social Security money for when it will be badly needed by the "baby boomer" generation, is blowing it on their massive budget deficit.

Welcome to the Machine...

2004-02-27T20:43:00.000-08:00

Well, this is the first posting for Minnesota Liberal. My name is Jacob Carson (Jay or Jake to those who are more familiar with me). I work for the Minnesota DFL Party as the Communications/Research Intern and devote a good amount of my time pulling my hair out over the state of our community, state, and country. I also tool around the web searching for that one piece of information I must be missing that will explain this mess to me. I still haven't found it, but I believe I have a good understanding of how the system works. I hope to use this forum to provide insight into what is happening and how it affects us. In recent days and weeks, we have begun to see the fight for social equality with same-sex couples marrying in San Francisco, the beginning of the 2004 Presidential Race, and the unraveling of our state/national education systems. It is time we fight back against the Republican machine, and we can only accomplish that by being as well-informed as possible. And so begins my contribution.