counter statistics

Friday, February 28, 2003

Abstinence only - Condoms Don't Work Introduced in the house..............

KEY: stricken = old language to be removed
underscored = new language to be added
NOTE: If you cannot see any difference in the key above, you need to change the display of stricken and/or underscored language.

Authors and Status List versions
H.F No. 580, as introduced: 83rd Legislative Session (2003-2004) Posted on Feb 24, 2003

1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to education; providing for curriculum and
1.3 instruction premised on abstinence until marriage;
1.4 amending Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 121A.23, by
1.5 adding a subdivision.
1.7 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2002, section 121A.23, is
1.8 amended by adding a subdivision to read:
1.9 Subd. 1a. [ABSTINENCE UNTIL MARRIAGE.] A school district
1.10 that complies with subdivision 1 must provide students with a
1.11 curriculum on and instruction in abstinence until marriage
1.12 premised on risk avoidance.
1.13 [EFFECTIVE DATE.] This section is effective the day
1.14 following final enactment.

Peter LeBarbara, a Tom Prichard Clone testifies on Nebraska DP benefits.....

Note this guy, like Lindner, Prichard and Quist in Minnesota can't resist the opportunity to wax eloquent on anal sex. He does seem to be another candidate for the Golden Gerbil awards.


Nebraska Should Avoid the Slippery Slope of ‘Gay' Rights 2/26/2003
By Peter LaBarbera
'Aspen Is Not Selma,' LaBarbera Tells Committee.
Editor’s Note: Peter LaBarbera, senior policy analyst of the Culture & Family Institute, testified before the Nebraska Senate’s Health and Human
Services Committee on February 20, 2003. Nebraska faces four homosexual-oriented bills this session. The Nebraska Family Council is
leading opposition to the bills.
I am here today to testify against LB 671, a bill designed to allow “domestic partners” the ability to control the disposition of deceased persons with whom they had a close relationship. [See the Nebraska legislature’s Website for additional information.] As one who has closely monitored the homosexual movement from a critical, pro-family perspective, I was among those across the country who took great comfort in the overwhelming and decisive vote in 2000 by the citizens of Nebraska to protect the institution of marriage and prevent state recognition of homosexual couplings. Nebraskans spoke loud and clear, so much so, it seems, that well-funded homosexual legal groups such as Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund have chosen not to challenge the pro-marriage amendment in court. So it is a surprise to see “domestic partners” legislation that so clearly violates the intent of Nebraska’s citizens. The bill [LB 671] is unnecessary, vague, unpopular with professionals in the mortuary business, and an avenue to the wider “gay” agenda, which I will speak to here. Gay activists and homosexual proponents have become experts at castigating their foes as uncaring and uncompassionate, and portraying themselves as defenders of the downtrodden—although I hesitate to use the term “downtrodden” in the same sentence as “gay activists.” After all, this is a movement that holds annual strategy sessions in Aspen, Colorado (to take advantage of the great skiing, I suppose). I hardly consider it analogous to the real civil rights movement. Aspen is not Selma. Despite efforts by the “gay” lobby and its friends to demonize family advocates, most of the latter are moved by a simple desire to affirm right over wrong, and prevent the advance of a harmful lifestyle, especially to children. Legislation like LB 671, like similar “gay”-related bills before the Senate, opens the door to a wider agenda—a slippery slope we have witnessed in state after state that initially began with seemingly innocuous and well-intentioned “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination laws.

Just another ‘orientation’?
Is homosexuality just another “orientation” like heterosexual, normal marriage? No, it is not. All major faith traditions have proscribed homosexual conduct, and the Bible discusses people who formerly practiced the sin of homosexuality. But one need not rely on conservatives or religion to make the case against homosexuality. Listen to the writings of gay medical doctor Stephen Goldstone; this quotation is taken from his book “The Ins and Outs of Gay Sex” (Remember, Dr. Goldstone is a vocal “gay” advocate, and I apologize in advance for this uncomfortable subject matter):
Pages 21 and 22:
In one medical study of men who practice anoreceptive intercourse [that is, men who are on the receiving end of anal sodomy], 25 percent reported at
least isolated episodes of fecal incontinence. An age-similar group of heterosexual men had only a 3 percent incontinence rate. … What does this mean to men who enjoy anal sex? Although the threat of incontinence is small, it is present nonetheless. Incontinence in men who practice anal sex is thought to result from repeated injury to their internal sphincter muscle.

Dr. Goldstone’s book describes other health-related byproducts of “gay” male sexual activity, including “anal fissures,” STDs, and, of course, HIV/AIDS. I bring up Dr. Goldstone’s decidedly squirm-inducing book to illustrate a side of the “gay” debate that is rarely heard, and yet is more relevant than abstract discussions about “discrimination”—especially since it seems gay activists are having a hard time finding people who have been fired due to their sexuality. (Yet we can now point to many people who experienced Politically Correct harassment—for example, “tolerance” seminars that offend their moral beliefs—or have lost their job because they opposed homosexuality.)

Are boys and teenagers who think they might be “gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender,” and that it’s perfectly OK, being told about the risk of incontinence arising from gay sex? Are they told of the life-threatening diseases that have cut off so many gay men—including, recently, celebrity photographer Herb Ritts—in the prime of their life [Ritts was 50 years old and reportedly left behind a male lover]? No, they are being fed a glamorized version of being “gay” that does not line up with the sad and dangerous reality of homosexuality. Inevitably, pro-“gay” legislation translates into more programs in schools that seek to put homosexuality in the most positive light, to the exclusion of traditional viewpoints that discuss aspects like the health risks I just mentioned and the existence of thousands of “ex-gays.” I believe that true compassion guides people away from destructive behaviors that cause premature death. I don’t want men to die in their prime, which is why I’m a firm supporter of ex-gay ministries.

Outside partners?
What about “domestic partnerships”(DP’s)? Is there a strong tradition of fidelity in the homosexual world? Again, the answer is no. In fact, the “father of the gay movement,” a man named Harry Hay, who died last year, testified to having thousands of sexual encounters in his life. (Hay, by the way, was a lifelong defender of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association.)

More “conservative” gay advocates like the writer Andrew Sullivan provide evidence of the real risks associated with recognizing homosexual “domestic
partnerships.” Alternative and strange ideas about “monogamy” will further erode the foundation of marriage, just as alternative models of parenting
(for example, two lesbians and two gay men “co-parenting” children) have on the family. Incidentally, some gay writers have already noted that it is
heterosexuals who are exploiting “domestic partnership” laws and corporate DP programs. Seeing that that they can get all the material benefits of
marriage without going down the aisle has given them another reason to avoid marriage—an ill-intended byproduct of “gay rights.” Andrew Sullivan, in his book Virtually Normal, describes an aspect of “gay” relationships that he says “could nourish the broader society as well.” But I’m not so sure. Sullivan writes:

Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and, at times, among gay male
relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds. Some of this is unavailable to the
male-female union: there is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets.

For those of you who are married, ask yourself: would your spouse look favorably on a plea for “extramarital outlets”? Mine sure wouldn’t.

The ‘gay’ slippery slope
“Gay rights” is indeed a slippery slope. First comes homosexual-inclusive “hate crimes” and “sexual orientation” nondiscrimination laws. Then pro-gay activists apply them to schools (or push for separate school nondiscrimination laws); this leads to more openly homosexual teachers in the classroom, who encourage GLBTQ kids to organize. (That stands for “Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning” youth.) Next comes “domestic partnership” ("civil union") laws and homosexual adoption advocacy, which places very young children unnecessarily in unhealthy and intentionally fatherless or motherless environments. Lastly, we see calls for “gay marriage” and powerful homosexual legal groups challenging the right of even religious-oriented groups like the Boy Scouts to live by their own moral code. (By the way, I would not count on the survivability of religious exemptions—and who says religious people should live by a different legal code than everyone else, anyway?) It might interest you that the vast legal campaign against the Scouts arose from a seemingly innocuous “sexual orientation” law in the state of New Jersey. The law’s effect on the cherished boys’ organization was not seriously debated as the bill was rushed through the state Legislature. [The New Jersey bill was signed into law in 1992.]

Nebraska can avoid all these problems by not getting on the slippery slide of “gay rights” in the first place.
Thank you.

MFC's ''Get It Done'' List for 2003
Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard has put together a legislative agenda for the 2003 session. These are issues he’s talking to state lawmakers about on a daily basis — issues that affect Minnesota families like yours. We would to see our lawmakers work hard to:

  • Eliminate the Profile of Learning, and replace it with academic standards and testing in core academic areas.
  • Promote abstinence-until-marriage sex education. Amend the sex education requirement so school districts will make available an abstinence-until-marriage sex education course or curriculum if students are required to take a sex education course.
  • Grant parental access to the medical records of minor children. Current law prohibits parents from accessing their minor children’s medical records when the child receives treatment for STDs, drug and alcohol abuse, or pregnancy symptoms — unless the child consents. This restriction should be dropped.
  • Balance the Budget without raising taxes. This includes freezing overall expenditures at current biennium levels and reducing costs by increasing efficiencies and streamlining departments and programs.
  • Protect individual medical records from state scrutiny. Outside of a compelling state purpose, the collection of personal medical data should require informed consent by parents and/or individuals.
  • Pass “Woman’s Right to Know” legislation. This measure would require that a woman seeking an abortion be given information on abortion alternatives and wait 24 hours before having an abortion.
  • Defund abortion-promoting organizations. Organizations that provide, promote, or refer for abortions should not receive taxpayer support.
  • Require Internet pornography filters for public libraries and public schools. Material that is not accessible to adults or children in other forums because of its harmful, degrading nature should not be accessible to adults or children through public school and public library computers.
  • Drop “sexual orientation” from the state’s human rights statute. Interim steps would include exemption of public schools, dropping of transgender persons from inclusion in the statute, and exemption of religious persons from coverage under the act. This law has been used as a vehicle to promote acceptance of homosexuality.
  • Ban on domestic partner benefits in state employee contracts and similar mandates by local governments. These measures would prohibit the governor from granting domestic partner benefits to state employees, as well as prohibit cities and other local government units from requiring private companies doing business with them to provide domestic partner benefits to their employees.

Your involvement in the governmental process is crucial. You can help us by writing, e-mailing, or calling your state legislators and encouraging them to work for passage of these measures.
Give us a call at 612-789-8811 for more information on specific bills or for more information on how to get started.

The Minnesota Family Council on Domestic Partner Benefits

I checked out the Minnesota Family Council website. They have alerts urging the legislature to pass a statute prohibiting domestic partner
benefits. You can sign up at the site -- and send a letter to your legislator -- state senator or representative. This is what the letter
would say:

As your constituent I am writing to encourage you to support legislation
that would prevent inclusion of domestic partner benefits in state employee
contracts at any time.

Would you please let me know where you stand on this issue? Thank you.

From the background MFC provides:

These benefits would subsidize individuals who have greater health problems. For examples, the rates of domestic abuse for domestic partners
is 4 to 25 times greater than the rates for married couples. This will lead to higher health costs.

EY: Is there any truth to this? I haven't seen that statistic before. The MFC tends to make stuff up, so I wouldn't be surprised if they are bearing false witness again.


Domestic Partner Benefits (E-Mail Your Senator)

Once again the issue of domestic partner benefits for state employees is being considered in the state legislature. Employee contracts were not
ratified last year and will not be again this year with those provisions. We want to see a state statute that stops the government from offering
these benefits as a part of the state employment package at any time in the future. Contact your legislators and ask them to support legislation
preventing the government from adding these benefits to future contracts with state employees. Tell them you don't believe marriage benefits should
be given to homosexual partners of state employees nor should your hard earned tax dollars be used for this purpose. If you have problems please go
to Frequently Asked Questions.

TALKING POINTS:1. Domestic partner benefits are used to help redefine the family by granting marriage benefits to homosexual partners. Strong
marriages are essential for a healthy society. Redefining marriage will only serve to further weaken marriage and thus harm children. 2. It is
contrary to the state's existing policy on marriage and family. The State Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and state law limits
local units of government granting marriages benefits to only include spouses and dependent children. 3. Current family members such as an
elderly parent, grandchildren, grandparents or an adult child are not eligible for benefits under this agreement. If we truly want to help family
members, these individuals should be helped first. 4. It forces taxpayers to fund behaviors many may object to for moral and ethical reasons. 5.
Heterosexuals who aren't married but cohabiting are excluded from coverage simply because they are not homosexuals and can claim sexual orientation
discrimination. They will likely file lawsuits demanding coverage. 6. Granting domestic partner benefits to state employees is a significant step
towars redefining marriage in the state unless it is stopped. The state is the largest employer and it will create pressure on private employers to do
likewise. 7. These benefits would subsidize individuals who have greater health problems. For examples, the rates of domestic abuse for domestic
partners is 4 to 25 times greater than the rates for married couples. This will lead to higher health costs. INSTRUCTIONS:Following is a sample
letter. We encourage you to edit and modify to your own words as much as possible. Please fill out all fields on this form, then click the "Compose
Email" button below. We urge you to fill out all fields, for purposes of identification and so that your letter will be seen as a legitimate
expression of your opinion. You will then be given a chance to review your final letter before sending it.

Thursday, February 27, 2003

Predictably the TVC bleats about another Boy Scout Leader getting arrested.... Also predictably Kirk Zimpfer (aka "homosareperverse") posts this on the rushroom egroup.

hmmmm - seems like the boy scouts aren't doing enough with background checking on this one -- the guy had a record of molesting boys -- while a scout leader, then moves to a different state and does the same thing -- all while the BSA has that "no gays" policy in place.
It sure doesn't seem to work to prevent child abuse.


Former Boy Scout Leader Arrested — Homosexual Child Molestations

Date: Thursday, February 20, 2003

Topic: Child Molestation

Traditional Values Coalition

Summary: Several recent child molestation cases point to the need to
protect our kids from homosexuals.

On February 13, 2003, a former Wisconsin Boy Scout leader was
convicted of 20 counts of child sexual abuse and sentenced to 65
years in jail.

The judge said he wanted Gary Radloff to die behind bars for his
crimes against children. Judge Patrick Haughney told Radloff: "Absent
a serial killer, this case doesn't get any more serious because what
we have here is a serial child molester. Mr. Radloff is evil. Mr
Raloff is vile. He is a child molester who ran a house of evil. I
intend this to be a life sentence."

Radloff had been convicted of child molestation in Illinois in the
1980s as a Boy Scout leader, but served only two years. He moved to
Wisconsin and was charged last year with molesting three boys in his
Scout troop.

In Visalia, California, a police officer and two other men (one who
is HIV positive) have been arrested for molesting a 16-year-old boy
they met in an American Online chat room called "Fresno Male for
Males." The boy became concerned about being infected with AIDS after
learning that one of his molesters, Aaron Rodriguez was HIV positive.

Wednesday, February 26, 2003

Sviggum Softens Stance on DP Benefits Associated Press, February 25, 2003

Softened stance on domestic partner benefits
House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, softened his stance on
benefits for gay and lesbian state workers, agreeing to permit paid funeral and sick leave to care for a live-in partner. His change of heart doesn't entirely settle a dispute that has kept the Legislature from ratifying state union contracts, but it clears a roadblock. Bills moving toward passage in the House and Senate ratify the pacts only after canceling health insurance for same-sex domestic partners as of June 30. Now, the main issue left to resolve is one of semantics.
The Senate bill, sponsored by Majority Leader John Hottinger, leaves
intact references to domestic partners in the case of sick and bereavement leave. Sviggum's bill allows paid leave for absences because of the illness, disability or death of "a regular member of the employee's immediate household."

Why not just allow health benefits for those that fit the speaker's definition...... Eva

Monday, February 24, 2003 - Viewpoint Duct Tape and Cover: Weapons of Mass Distraction

By Bob Minor
Minor Details
Words of wisdom from the Department of Homeland's Security's response poster to a nuclear attack: 'Minimize time spent exposed will also reduce your risk' We should definitely be on Orange Alert. None of the advances LGBT people have made is safe. Though we've made some headway, in the last few months we've also seen an upsurge in efforts to thwart progress and undo legal victories.
In addition to dozens of attempts to undo protections in cities, counties, and schools, for example, in early February Minnesota Republicans introduced a bill that would delete legal protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Never giving up, they're back to undo one of our most liberal state's 1993 laws. A Colorado legislative committee killed a bill that would have granted legal recognition to same-sex couples. A Missouri measure would make it difficult for school systems to adopt policies protecting LGBT youth. And full Southern Baptist pressure is on Nashville to keep the city from protecting LGBT people.

EY: yeah, yeah, yeah - what he doesn't mention is that Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty and Republican Speaker Steve Sviggum both oppose this piece of legislation. It ain't gonna pass. There is other legislation we should focus on.

Sunday, February 23, 2003

And "Vicblitz", a typical idiot on that list bleats back:

You are indeed a bleeding heart liberal. I have been a conservative Republican since Barry Goldwater ran for office. Ever heard of him? I choose not to accept your definition of neo-conservatism nor do I choose to follow you down that path. When you get to where you are going, say hi to Eva for us.

Michael Mernette on "Worship of the Poor"

Worship of poor people and criminals

(from that same egroup - republicanparty2).

See, Jae, what simply amazes me is that we wonder why those "liberal idiots" that you speak of have no desire to listen to anything we say. When I read your post, my first thought was a line from Dicken's Oliver Twist, "Are there no prisons, are there no workhouses?" You practically want to have me lynched for questioning whether or not we have a culpable responsibility for certain aspects of our society. In truth, this attitude is what conservatives have been attempting to debunk for years now. Every time I hear a "fellow conservative" say things like this, I get pissed off, because it puts the movement back years. You cannot govern people without responsibility, and responsibility starts with a certain amount of compassion. I have long said and will say again...IF A GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO PROVIDE FOR ITS PEOPLE, THAT GOVERNMENT WILL BE TAKEN OVER MY INTERNAL FORCE OF ARMS. Your arbitrary treatment of the poor in this society is in actuality the reason the problem continues to exist. If private sector charities were recieving enough private sector money, then welfare wouldn't be necessary. I believe in reforming the system, I believe in reducing the tax burden of the working American, I am one. But it won't work until attitudes like yours change, and money starts flowing from the private citizen into the program that will enable these people to get training, to get jobs. You know what the problem with the system is? These people don't know HOW to work. Their parents and grandparents have been in the system for so long, children are growing up never remembering their ancestors going to work.

Lastly, if you wonder how I can make the relatively safe assumption that you know nothing about private sector charities and therefore are probably not giving a enny to them, Habitat for Humanity is not publicly funded. It is a private sector organization that relies on donations of time and money from businessmen and women in the community where it builds the homes. So, Jae, why don't you put YOUR money where your mouth is, or don't bitch when government has to take up the slack for people that bitch about tax reform but don't do anything to take away the tax burden.

I know I sound liberal, but conservativatism needs a reality check when we forget that we are talking about other human beings. If we claim to have the higher moral ground, then we cannot look at THOSE people as worthless and unfeeling. Granted, we may need to bring them around to understanding the work ethic and conservative dynamic, but they are as much American as you and your children.

Peace to Innocents,
Hell to Enemies,

A list that is an embarrassment to Republicans

Check out the Republicanparty2 yahoogroup ( It's truly got some of the looniest of the looney over there. I was booted off after I exposed one of the folks over there who was complaining about someone making fake posts in her name - and I proved the "fake posts" came from the same computer as the person who was complaining.

Well now the "new right thought police" over there are making all Republicans sound like they have no compassion for the poor.

Apparently, according to certain people on this message board, having any type of sympathy for the truly downtrodden, not the crack dealers, is a tragic flaw that is tantamount to Johnny Bin Walker's treason in Afghanistan. And, God Forbid! Someone in the Republican Party is willing to say something that isn't said by Limbaugh, Hannity, or plastered on a billboard at the party caucus.

Vicblitz, let me just make you aware that your argument weakens to that of a 5 year old child when it falls to name calling and insults, ie, say Hi to Eva for me. And by the way, while I wasn't alive when Mr. Goldwater ran for office, I just finished reading his book, Conscience of a Conservative, which, if you consider him such a hero, maybe you should read, because you obviously have no idea what he stood for.

And Jae, I respected your argument right up until this quote, "I don't want to know any poor people...and...poor people are
worthless." You see, I am a successful restaurant owner, but I've worked for every penny I have ever had. I started out calling Bingo
at a firemen's club when I was 12 and have gone from literally scrubbing toilets at a truck stop to living my dream. See, the joy
of all this is that I haven't forgotten where I came from, and I also haven't forgotten all the people like you who wouldn't give me a
break, who couldn't take the time to show me the lessons I needed to be successful. I really hope you are so well off that the words you spoke do not come back to haunt you, but as for me, if never being poor is the required membership to your SOCIAL CLUB, then I withdraw my application. I am a conservative, one who has grown up in realism with nothing handed to me, and I don't want to hand it to anyone else, but to not recognize need when it exists is a flaw more fatal than any business mistake I've ever made. I don't want the government in my pocket either, it hurts me on a daily basis, but I can't believe that the majority on the Right agrees with you.

Being conservative doesn't mean being soulless.

Peace to Innocents,
Hell to Enemies,

Darwin Award Candidates:

The idiots who oppose the war in Iraq going over to Iraq to volunteer to be "human shields" for Sadam Hussein.

And my response to Hanson's drivel about Republicans......

MPD: RE: In my own defense, the Stanek matter.

At 05:40 AM 01/25/2003 -0800, popman wrote:
I have been admonished time and again for calling the G.O.P. members and the people who vote for them and support their positions and agendas, reTHUGlicans.

Well I personally think this type of sentiment says more about the author of same than it does about Republican members of the list.

What do you call this? Below is just a few posts, a thumbnail example, if you will, of the pure EVIL these people do to their fellow citizens everyday. If you think these posts are alarming, you just wait. The rethuglicans are not done with us yet.

Excuse me, this was a post about police brutality. And I think the issue of the police brutality complaints against Stanek are a legitimate issue. However saying all Republicans are thugs, and by implication no DFLers are thugs is just well poor logic.

I don't want to hear that Stanek is just a "bad apple" cop. He's a rethuglican and the backrooms of the local versions of the G.O.P. are dancing with glee.

First of all, what I want to know is whether the complaints against Stanek that the city paid settlements for were legitimate. Paying a settlement does not always mean the complaint was legitimate, sometimes it is just that the city doesn't want to spend the money to defend the case. Companies also do that at times.

Obviously the newspapers are discussing this, because I read about these settlements in the Star Tribune.

Eva Young
Better a RINO than a DINOsaur

Tamir Nolley's original post on Stanek:

Pawlenty picks Stanek and supports police brutality

Jim Miller's response - agrees about Stanek, disaggrees about police in general:

Pawlenty picks Stanek and supports police brutality

You're absolutely right about Stanek and his racist attitudes and brutal history. His actions as a thug cop are well documented. What the stories in the papers don''t tell is the way many Minneapolis cops feel about him. If you talked with a few who have worked with/for him over the last few years you'd find that many think he is an overbearing, arrogant prick. Minneapolis political leaders have
been troubled by his role in the legislature writing laws on police procedure and behavior while he was employed as a police officer.

I disagree with you assessment of Minneapolis cops. Most are hard working, honest guys who don't deserve the rap that they get because of a few jerks like Stanek.

Kristin Harley then responds very thoughtfully:

That's true, I'm sure. But "hard-working, honest" guys can still be racist and sexist and/or bullying. Take my hometown, for example. (That's a misnomer--my hometown was never "home" for my family or me.) Two of the biggest bullies from my graduating class--including the lunatic who used to pull a knife on me after summer school until I told my parents--are now cops.

It's been twenty years since high school and I'm sure that both of these guys is hard-working and honest enough to remain employed by their police departments. I'm sure they're very nice guys to whoever they are being nice to. By many accounts, including some American journalists, Osama Bin Laden is a "nice guy" too, when he isn't killing the Americans he dehumanizes.

Dehumanization is the question. The point is, who are the people doing the dehumanizing? Who are the people who take the attitude of, "These people are trash, so I can treat them like trash. I'm doing society a favor"? This is the violent rationale of the nice, hard-working guy who thinks he is never wrong about anything, and therefore acts like a jerk to people who, as it turns out,
are not trash after all.

Kristine Harley

Predictably R. Hanson tries to tie Stanek's bullying to all Republicans.........

I don't want to hear that Stanek is just a "bad apple"
cop. He's a rethuglican and the backrooms of the local
versions of the G.O.P. are dancing with glee.

Incidentally, Pawlenty should be held to answer by the
newsies, but he won't.

The only problem that I would have with these
respective posters below, is that they are not using
the CORRECT adjectives.

Rethuglican?…What else would you call them?

Too stupid to win

House Democrats are proving this over and over. Pawlenty delivered a perfect pitch with nominating Rep. Rick Stanek to public safety commissioner. Tamir Nolley made some eloquent arguments for deep sixing the Stanek nomination. What does house DFL leader Matt Etenza do instead - sponsor a hit piece against Matt Dean, that raises eyebrows with the use of an image of a man, waist down in a tutu with the tagline "toeing the party line?" The rest of the piece was fair - making hard hitting comments about Dean being an extremist (which is a matter of opinion, and no way of proving truth or falsehood with that), but the image was inappropriate.

As I posted on mn-politics-discuss about a month ago:

Tamir Nolley writes:
Stanek little more than a very politically savvy racist thug, who commands a group of thugs. He has personally beaten people up during traffic stops and by his own admission, bullied and intimidated people of color although his explanation is "I have a forceful personality (Star Tribune 1/24/03.)

From the strib:

Even in the law enforcement milieu, Stanek can raise hackles. Appointed
chairman of the state Peace Officers Standards and Training Board at age 29
by Gov. Arne Carlson, Stanek engineered the firing of its executive
director, William Carter, in a dispute regarding the director's power over
police chiefs who ignored board directives.

Carter sued Stanek and the board, alleging whistle-blower retaliation,
defamation and other misconduct. The state eventually settled the case for
$148,000. Earlier, Minneapolis paid settlements totaling at least $55,000
to two black motorists who alleged that Stanek used excessive force in
traffic stops.

Stanek denies wrongdoing in all three cases. He has blamed the Carter
dispute on partisan politics and the excessive-force settlements on
cost-saving expediency by city officials.
"I have a pretty strong personality that I'm often criticized for," he has
said. "I'm a cop. I ask a lot of questions, and people feel they're being
grilled. But I work very hard at drawing consensus."

Nolley continues:
Republicans along with everyone else should be concerned. He has cost the city of Minneapolis a significant amount of money in settlements and has a history of complaints, but Stanek is not unique among the Minneapolis Police department, rather he is like most of it's officers, a thug and a bully.

I don't agree that most of the MPD officers are thugs and bullies, but I do think these settlements for police brutality are legitimate issues that should be raised at committee hearings on his confirmation. Stanek is extremely abrasive, and I did see that first hand when I tried to lobby him on the RASSL bill.

But does Etenza or Hottinger pick up on this one -- perfect pitch, and with the strib story about the police brutality settled complaints, they could have taken this and run with it. Stanek is certainly not represenative of the Minneapolis Police Officers I have encountered. I have had mostly (but not completely) positive experiences with the Minneapolis police. Stanek's "forceful personality" is using bullying and intimidation tactics to get his way. Certainly Minneapolis doesn't need to recruit bullies to its police force, and in my opinion, Stanek is a net embarrassment - and a perfect target for the DFLers - but they missed their opportunity.

Too stupid to win.


Eva Young
Near North

but the Minneapolis List Queen shuts down the LGA thread:

Let's get off state taxation levels and back, specifically, to the city of

David Brauer
List manager

It was good discussion -- and we need more of it.

The FRC Sodomy Dossier is up

from the dossier:

The argument concludes that Texas may constitution-ally choose to protect marital intimacy by prohibiting same-sex “deviate”
acts, while tolerating similar behavior by unmarried opposite-sex persons. The critical difference upon which the legal distinction rests is not the raw physical behavior but the relationships: same-sex deviate acts can never occur within marriage, during an engage-ment to marry, during a courtship prior to engagement, or within any relationship that could ever lead to marriage. Physically similar sexual acts between married persons are constitutionally protected.

Physically similar acts between unmarried persons of different sexes occur within relationships which Texas may wish to encourage, either as valuable in themselves, or because they could mature into marriages, or both.

huh? More of this nonsense can be found here......

Permanent Partners Immigration act - HR 832 introduced

On Feb. 13th, HR 832 was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in the 108th
Congress. This Congress, the bill is starting off with 89 Cosponsors including Rep. Martin Sabo of MN's 5th and Rep. Betty McCollum of MN's 4th congressional districts.

I was very moved today at a workshop on same sex marriage at the Rainbow Families Conference here in
Minneapolis by the stories of two binational couples who are threatened with being torn apart due to the
lack of legal recognition of their familes.

The Permanent Partners Immigration Act would remedy this situation by recognizing permanent partners as a
family. For more on the text of the bill, visit and type in HR 832 in the numeric
search field.

Please take the time to contact your Representative
and let them know of your support for this


David Strand
Marriage Equality MN