counter statistics

Friday, May 30, 2003

Mayor Rybak comments on Northside Target Closing......

"I'm deeply disappointed about Target's decision to close their West Broadway store in north Minneapolis, however I remain committed to developing Broadway's potential as a prime retail center. Over the past 48 hours, I've been in in-depth conversations with Council Members, Target and other developers and retailers interested in the site. The City has partnered with Target in both the downtown and the Broadway stores. I'm asking them to continue this partnership by working aggressively with us on a new future for the site." Mayor R.T. Rybak said.

The Mayor has also made a special appeal to Target to stay open through the end of the year to retain jobs and maintain activity in the area while we develop new options for the community.

"It is especially unfortunate that Target is choosing to leave just as West Broadway is starting to realize its full potential," Mayor Rybak continued. "This neighborhood is on the entrance to I-94, right next to the brand new Heritage Park neighborhood, and at the center of a community that is seeing a strong increase in income and property values. A decade from now, West Broadway will be the success story Phillips is today. We're working together to make the retail core a landmark this community on the rise deserves," Mayor Rybak said.

Laura Sether, Office of Mayor Rybak

EY: Where is Natalie Johnson Lee?

Tom Johnson from the PR - er Law Firm - Smith Parker is called out.......

Check out Central Traffic for the details.

Thursday, May 29, 2003

DFL Playing Cards vis Shot in the Dark (Mitch Berg's Blog)

Microsoft to pay AOL $750 million in Netscape Suit

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- Microsoft said Thursday that it will pay $750 million to settle a private antitrust lawsuit brought by AOL Time Warner on behalf of its Netscape unit.

Late day Dow slide overshadows tech run
CIT Group, John Hancock IPOs touched by controversy
SCO shares fall over Unix patent dispute
US Q1 GDP revised higher to 1.9%

Free! Sign up here to receive Thom Calandra's StockWatch e-Newsletter!

My Portfolio Alerts
Company: Microsoft Corporation Add
Company: AOL Time Warner Inc. Add

Get Breaking News sent directly to your inbox

Create A Portfolio | Create An Alert

The companies also announced a seven-year pact under which AOL will use Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player for free over the next seven years. The two companies said they agreed on a "variety of steps" designed to make their products work better with each other.

"With Microsoft's media technology expertise and AOL Time Warner's content expertise, we believe we can accelerate the adoption of digital media for the Internet and help content providers across the entire industry," said Bill Gates, Microsoft chairman, in a prepared statement.

EY: Will this help the end users of computers and the internet?

Hit Pieces on Yours Truly by the Culture and Family Institute

Concerned Women for America - ‘Gay’ Log Cabin Minnesota Leader Linked to Violence-Prone ‘UsQueers’ Web Activists

EY: This one was also picked up by Worldnet Daily.......

Concerned Women for America - Log Cabin Republicans Leader Still on ‘us_Queers’ Forum Log Cabin Republicans Leader Still on ‘us_Queers’ Forum 5/7/2003
By Allyson Smith
Eva Young and Friends Blast CWA with Expletives

from the article:

In media interviews, national Log Cabin Executive Director Patrick Guerrierro has called on both the homosexual and pro-family sides to ramp down their rhetoric. But Young, in one of her e-mails posted to the “usQueers” discussion group, used highly crude sex slang terms to ridicule Culture & Family Report and our story last week reporting her ties to Ross and his followers.

EY: Yes, I probably wasn't wise in the terms I used. I referred to the Culture and Family Institute as the Cunts and Fuckers. So they got me there. Still the question is, using less rude synonyms for the meaning of those words - well was I inaccurately describing the Culture and Family Institute?

That same week, the C&Fers were bleating about the meeting they and other "christians" had with Marc Racicot, Republican National Committee Chair.

The next week, they refer to this nonsense again with their article about the White House meeting with Log Cabin Republicans.

From the article:

The White House meeting was consistent with other meeting with homosexual GOP activists, beginning during George Bush’s campaign for the president. But homosexual activists seized on this latest White House-LCR meeting to chastise social conservatives who have strongly criticized the GOP for moving in a pro-homosexual direction.

John Aravosis, the homosexual author of an Internet column named “THE LIST” who has appeared on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor, hosted by Bill O’Reilly, gloated like a child over the meeting in his May 12 newsletter:

Falling on the heels of the radical anti-gays meeting with RNC head Racicot to bitch about him meeting with evil homosexuals, the White House one-upped Racicot and met with us too! And it wasn't just the White House butler who met with 200 of us evil fornicators, it was, according to the New York Times, "senior White House" officials. And in Washington-talk, that means big important SENIOR people.

All I can say is that the religious right ought to be screaming bloody murder, because the White House just drove a big wooden stake through their nasty little heart. Got news for you folks: The White House doesn't meet with people who are akin to bestiality and pedophiles. They don't meet with people who are "aberrant." People who are "deviant" and people who are "immoral." And they sure as hell don't send "senior White House officials" to meet with you if you fall into any category other than someone-important-who-they-want-to-woo. I'll bet you this was a response to the Santorum incident. . . . [I]t was the White House's way of saying "sorry."

So for all you uber-Christians out there reading this, you just got whacked by your own President. Na na na na na.

Aravosis’ use of “uber-Christians” is in line with his penchant for comparing pro-family leaders who oppose homosexuality, especially Christians (including this writer), to genocidal Nazis. On a website he created to show the alleged similarity of pro-family arguments against homosexuality to Nazi propaganda against against Jews, Aravosis even discounts health-based arguments used to show homosexuality is unnatural. (See quote in this issue of Culture & Family Report.)

Rich Tafel, former head of the Log Cabin Republicans, used the same tactic, once remarking that a speech by Pat Buchanan to the Republican National Convention sounded better “in the original German.”

Despite such extremism, new LCR President Patrick Guerriero has pledged to ramp down the inflammatory rhetoric, even as a member of his organization is reported to have connections to the militant creators of an “usQueers” website—taken down by court order—that celebrated the murder of pro-family leaders such as CWA founder Bevery LaHaye. The man behind the “usQueers” site, B. Allan Ross, is now free after being sentenced to a year in jail after storming a Baptist Church in San Diego and threatening a pastor there.

Eva Young, the Log Cabins' representative in Minnesota, co-moderates an Internet discussion group that includes Ross. Young has praised the website, although she said in an interview that she disagrees with calling for the "horrible death" of pro-family leaders.

LCR has to date taken no action against Young.

Intolerance and Religion in the Public Square

Apology or not, David Horowitz might want to reconsider his stance

By Robert Knight

I’m in the middle of a tiff with a friend, David Horowitz, who is taking issue with Christian conservatives’ attempt to keep the GOP from falling into the camp of “gay” activists. He has written two columns on his website. The first, “Pride Before a Fall” (May 20), accused Christian conservatives of intolerance and poor judgment concerning their meeting with Republican Party Chairman Marc Racicot to discuss Mr. Racicot’s earlier meeting with 300 homosexual activists.

The latest column, “Render Unto Caesar” (May 27), responds in large part to a column I wrote last week, “Mr. Horowitz Owes Christians an Apology” (May 28).

In “Render Unto Caesar,” Mr. Horowitz repeats his charge of intolerance, but takes it up a notch:

“Why do I owe Christians an apology, since I have not attacked Christians? To accuse a Jew of attacking Christians is a serious matter and goes to the heart of the political problem that ‘social conservatives’ often create for themselves when they intrude religion into the political sphere. Why is religion even an issue in what should be entirely a political discussion?”

Some observations:

1) Mr. Horowitz warns that we need to keep religion out of politics or even any public discussion, but he led off his initial column by distorting Jesus’ teachings, thus injecting religion into the discussion. Then he accuses Christians of injecting religion into the issue because some of us corrected his distortion of Scripture. Apparently, only Mr. Horowitz gets to opine about religion and politics. By the way, many, many people who are not religious support family values and oppose homosexual activism.

2) Mr. Horowitz assails Gary Bauer, and by extension, other politically active Christians, for being “mean-spirited.” (Later, he accuses me of harboring “prejudice dressed up as a moral position.”) I don’t know about you, but I consider being accused of bigotry an “attack.” Black racists have used the same tactic on Mr. Horowitz for his courageous stand on campuses opposing slavery “reparations.” He should know that disagreement is not evidence of bigotry, and that morality is not prejudice. But homosexual activists and their allies use these false comparisons to try to silence their opponents. The following is even worse.

3) “To accuse a Jew of attacking Christians is a serious matter.” Why does Mr. Horowitz bring up his being Jewish? I certainly didn’t. He could be a lapsed Baptist for all I care. We debate all comers. The message seems to be that if we defend our Christian beliefs on this issue against his criticism, it amounts to something approaching anti-Semitism. Given that Mr. Horowitz knows me and knows that I am not anti-Semitic, his hinting it is out of bounds. (I’m thinking of getting a bumper sticker that says, “Friends Don’t Call Friends Bigots!”) By his reasoning, only Jews can discuss the political application of Christian theology without running the risk of being accused of something hideous.

4) “They intrude religion into the political sphere.” The last time I looked, religious speech was protected in the Constitution, which nowhere limits public discussion to only what atheists and secularists find appropriate. The Founding Fathers fully expected religion to play a prominent role in shaping public policy.

Elsewhere in his column, Mr. Horowitz continues his defense of injecting Jesus into the discussion:

“To repeat, I did not charge Christians with anything. Nor did I make pronouncements on the subject of Jesus’ moral teachings. Perhaps this is too fine a point. I did not say that Jesus approved homosexuality, but I did point out the contrast in the degree to which Jesus considered it important to the salvation of one’s soul and the way some conservative Christian leaders considered it important to the coming election of an American president.”

What we have here is apples and oranges. If an organized group were trying to impose the values of Sodom on Jerusalem during Jesus’ time, He might well have addressed the “issue.” But they weren’t. The organized sodomy lobby is a byproduct of a modern culture adrift from its Biblical foundations. And Jesus condemned all “fornication,” that is, sex outside marriage. He did not need to itemize, since Moses already did that.

Using Horowitz's argument, Abraham Lincoln didn't think homosexuality was a bad thing since he didn't mention it in any of his reported speeches. The Log Cabin “gay” Republicans are shamelessly exploiting Lincoln’s image, while some activists even promote the preposterous fiction that Abe was himself “gay.”

Christian sexual morality comes directly from Jewish law. When Peter and the rest gathered in Jerusalem to discuss which part of the Law should be applied to Gentiles entering the faith, they exempted converts from the dietary laws and circumcision, but required that they abstain from fornication. That was non-negotiable — no sex outside of marriage. One would suppose that Peter, Andrew and the rest of the apostles knew more about what Jesus thought on that subject than Mr. Horowitz. Paul made it clear in I Corinthians 6:9-11 that homosexuality is just one of many sins that, if unrepented, can lead to a grim eternity. But he said to his followers, “such were some of you,” clearly indicating the early church’s view that sin, including homosexuality, is well within God’s ability to help the believer overcome.

But Mr. Horowitz’s real charge is that Christians who take their faith seriously enough to engage in political battles had better not make moral arguments. He welcomes our contributions, so long as they are entirely secular. Thus, politics and lawmaking cannot be informed by faith, at least not publicly. This would be news to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, not to mention one of Mr. Horowitz’s heroes, Ronald Reagan.

Mr. Horowitz also lobbed this little nugget in the original column: “Moreover, the fact that it is, after all, crosses the Ku Klux Klan burns, might suggest a little more humility on the part of Christians addressing these issues” [emphasis in original]. Why? Christian conservatives consider the Klan a blasphemous terror group. Does Mr. Horowitz think we regard them as one of the family? Why would he think that, unless he really believes that conservative Christians are just slightly different in degree?

There’s a bit more: “As a veteran of leftist revolutions, I know the difference between a leftist gay activist and a Log Cabin Republican, and so should Robert Knight.”

Well, I do. The first type wears a Hillary button and backs “gay” marriage, “gays” in the military, “hate crime” laws and special rights based on sexual behavior. The second wears a Bush button and backs “gay” marriage, “gays” in the military, “hate crime” laws, and special rights based on sexual behavior. Both are attempting to use the power of law to overturn millennia of social norms and create a libertarian pornotopia that will little resemble America as we know it. This will happen all in the name of tolerance, of course.

Mr. Horowitz’s main complaint with leftwing homosexual activists seems to be that they are leftwing. But leftism is not the only evil that can cause harm. Destroying the moral foundations of a society is arguably more serious and is a key part of the effort to build the socialist nanny state that Mr. Horowitz opposes.

Christian conservatives are not the only ones to whom Mr. Horowitz might consider softening his rhetoric. His sweeping dismissal of the ex-gay movement, which includes the Jewish group Jonah, seems based on what homosexual activists might be telling him. He says, for example, “All evidence points to the contrary. The conversion movements have been miserable failures.” First, there is no credible scientific evidence of any genetic or in-born factor causing homosexuality. Second, thousands of people have overcome same-sex attractions, most of them through the grace of God. Third, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in taking homosexuality off the list of psychological disorders in 1973, did his own study recently and concluded that homosexuals can change. Mr. Horowitz himself concedes that “a tiny minority of what is itself a tiny minority of people willing to go through the conversion process achieve a well-adjusted heterosexual result.”

“Conversion process” sounds too clinical to me. A lot of people overcome unwanted desires, from porn addiction to adultery to alcoholism. Most of them do so quietly and go on with their lives. The same can be said for people who conquer same-sex desires. Mr. Horowitz owes it to himself to get in touch with the folks at Exodus International in Orlando, who are counseling thousands of people out of homosexuality.

Finally, Mr. Horowitz unbinds himself from all restraint, and pens this to finish his column:

“A mission to rescue homosexuals is a religious mission; it is not an appropriate political cause. Would Robert Knight like the government to investigate every American to determine whether they are homosexual or not and then compel those who are to undergo conversion therapy — or else? This is a prescription for a totalitarian state. No conservative should want any part of it. But this is how Robert Knight sums up the political agenda of social conservatives. Those who agree with him should think again.”

Mr. Horowitz is not normally prone to such overstatement, which is more characteristic of our common leftist opponents, so I am puzzled. Nowhere do I suggest the state should do any of the above. I did say that our agenda is to dissuade people from engaging in homosexual behavior and offering a helping hand to those who seek to change. We honestly don’t believe the public schools should mislead children about the nature of homosexuality or that businesses should be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.

Mr. Horowitz’s entirely ad hominem argument is that because I think homosexuality is wrong and should be discouraged, that I favor a totalitarian government. Actually, I see totalitarianism coming in on the heels of the “tolerance police,” (let’s call them the Gaystapo) who will brook no opposition to their insistence that God, the Bible and medical evidence are all wrong and that homosexuality is normal and right. If you don’t believe that the Log Cabin Republicans are as radical as the “gay left,” then why did they call for the head of Sen. Rick Santorum for merely defending current law and family values?

If Mr. Horowitz wants to preserve freedom, he should speak out (as he has, on occasion) against the homosexual activists who are trying to turn America’s moral order upside down, criminalize ex-gay counseling, and pave the way for a Canada-style repression of religious freedom in the name of “tolerance.”

In fact, to his credit, Mr. Horowitz notes that, “I have opposed the gay left’s attacks on the Boy Scouts; that I have decried the intrusion of the gay left’s sexual agendas into the public schools and that I have written the harshest critiques of the gay left’s promotion of organized promiscuity and subversion of the public health system, as the root cause of the AIDS epidemic….”

Bravo, Mr. Horowitz. As homosexual activists of all stripes move closer to their goal of suppressing dissent, we could use some more help from your prolific and effective pen.

Robert Knight is director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America.

Letter to Rep Martin Sabo

Dear Representative Sabo:

I understand you have worked to bring federal appropriations for the 35W Access Project. While I agree that adding a southbound exit from 35W to Lake St and a northbound entrance from Lake to 35W is a good idea. I disagree that we need to add an ugly "flyover ramp" to keep Wells Fargo employees coming in from the suburbs from seeing 3 city blocks of traffic.

I am also concerned about any widening of 35W done in this project. I don't want more through traffic that doesn't stop in Minneapolis using 35W rather than the beltway - 694 and 494. The only way to encourage beltway use, and discourage traffic through (but not into) the city, is to widen the beltways and leave the through freeways (which were mistakes to begin with) alone. We ought to be developing mass transit alternatives - Dedicated busways, subways - or that sort of thing on the freeways that come into the city.

I would appreciate a specific response on this topic. The letter you sent me did not clearly explain your position on this issue. I find this rather disingenuous.

Eva Young

Bauer & Weyrich should meet Jefferson

And the naming of the homosexual act for the town of Sodom was an historical mistake, based on NO UNDERSTAND of the phenomenon of homosexuality. I come to this belief from a reading of the plain meaning of the text of this story. And I can't bebunk the fundamentalits interpretation of Leviticus in the same way, because that text is quite clear in its condemnations.

So I will repeat, from a plain reading of the narrative, a town of thugs (and there is no evidence that they were homosexually inclined, so I am presuming that had a "normal" heterosexual orientation, and heterosexuals using the act of homosexual rape as an act of violence is nothing peculiar, it happens all the time in our prision systems) tried to subject two strangers to a brutally VIOLENT act of gang rape.

What does this have to tell us about VOLUNTARY homosexual acts between consenting adults? Nothing.

Interesting argument on the Sodom and Gommorah Story

And the naming of the homosexual act for the town of Sodom was an historical mistake, based on NO UNDERSTAND of the phenomenon of homosexuality. I come to this belief from a reading of the plain meaning of the text of this story. And I can't bebunk the fundamentalits interpretation of Leviticus in the same way, because that text is quite clear in its condemnations.

So I will repeat, from a plain reading of the narrative, a town of thugs (and there is no evidence that they were homosexually inclined, so I am presuming that had a "normal" heterosexual orientation, and heterosexuals using the act of homosexual rape as an act of violence is nothing peculiar, it happens all the time in our prision systems) tried to subject two strangers to a brutally VIOLENT act of gang rape.

What does this have to tell us about VOLUNTARY homosexual acts between consenting adults? Nothing.

Horowitz responds to his critics

Yet the response to my article was – how shall I put this? – anything but tolerant. I will take one exemplary case, an article by Robert Knight that appeared on the website of Concerned Women for America. Knight is the director of the Culture and Family Institute, "an affiliate" of the organization. His article was titled, "David Horowitz Owes Christians An Apology."

Concerned Women for America is one of the groups that met with Racicot, and whom I criticized. I share its concerns about the left’s assault on American values and on the American family in particular. I have appeared on radio and TV shows sponsored by Concerned Women for America and would do so again. I consider the Concerned Women for America and the Christian right generally to be important elements of the conservative coalition who have made significant contributions to the conservative cause. Through moral persuasion they have succeeded in dramatically reducing the number of abortions, helped to strengthen the American family, and been on the frontlines opposing the left’s malicious assault on America’s culture and institutions.

In other words, I am a supporter of Christian conservatives even though we disagree on the matter at hand, and perhaps on the larger issue that underlies it. That issue, politically expressed, is the issue of tolerance. Theologically, it involves the distinction between the sacred and the profane, between this world and the next.

Why do I owe Christians an apology, since I have not attacked Christians? To accuse a Jew of attacking Christians is a serious matter and goes to the heart of the political problem that "social conservatives" often create for themselves when they intrude religion into the political sphere. Why is religion even an issue in what should be entirely a political discussion?

EY: You can comment about this article on the so-called "christian" conservatives (or Unchristian theocrats) here. You can comment about Pride Before a Fall on the Frontpage site here.

There are also a number of comments worth reading on these articles.


Lou Sheldon Bleats about Horowitz

An Open Letter to David Horowitz

Thursday, May 22 @ 09:33:20 CDT

By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Dear Mr. Horowitz:

First off, I want to express my appreciation for the significant work you have done in exposing the anti-American Left in the United States. Your FrontPageMagazine web site and your Center for the Study of Popular Culture have been important educational tools for concerned citizens to use in fighting the “hate America” crowd.

However, your recent editorial, “Pride Before the Fall,” published on May 20, 2003, deserves a careful response.

In it, you discuss a meeting I attended along with other religious leaders with Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot. The meeting was to discover the reasoning behind Racicot’s recent meeting with members of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), a leftist homosexual group based in Washington, DC.

You attacked our meeting with Racicot as an example of intolerance and suggested we might exercise a bit more humility in addressing the issue of homosexuality.

I believe your comments were based upon two inaccurate assumptions about homosexual activism and homosexuality in general.

In the first place, you seem to be basing your views about homosexuality upon the incorrect assumption that homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable. This is untrue. Even homosexual researchers have now admitted that there’s no such thing as a “gay gene” and that homosexuality is a behavior.

I would urge you to read some of these comments, which have been published by the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Their comments are available in “The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy”.

In addition, Exodus International, a national group of ex-homosexuals, has produced a good deal of material on the causes and cures of homosexuality. I would encourage you to access the Exodus International web site for details: Exodus International.

Traditional Values Coalition has published a number of Homosexual Urban Legends that explain various faulty information and assumptions presented by homosexual activists. I would encourage you to read these: Homosexual Urban Legends.

Second, homosexual activists are not content to be tolerant of Christians and other faith groups or of our beliefs about homosexuality as a sin and a sexual perversion. Homosexual groups like HRC are determined to silence any opposition to the homosexual agenda. They are working aggressively to impose restrictions on our freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of religion—in public, private, and religious organizations. These efforts are typically carried out by imposing speech codes in schools and by passing “hate crime” laws that punish speech and religious expression.

Homosexuals are intolerant of anyone who opposes their agenda. And what is this agenda? It has been spelled out repeatedly throughout the past thirty years.

For example, at the 1993 homosexual March on Washington, homosexual activists issued a detailed list of their demands and goals. Among those demands was the lowering of the age of sexual consent so that homosexuals can gain legal access to children; the abolition of any laws prohibiting sexual behavior between “consenting adults” (legalizing prostitution and sodomy); and the passage of laws prohibiting so-called “discrimination” against drag queens, transsexuals, or cross-dressers in public employment. The March on Washington demands are available here: 1993 March on Washington Demands.

In 1987, two homosexual activists outlined how they would “overhaul straight America” in an article published by Guide magazine. These strategists created a marketing strategy designed to vilify their opponents and to portray themselves as “victims” in a media blitz that has gone on for years. You will learn a great deal about the homosexual agenda by reading this article: “The Overhauling of Straight America.”

As a former Communist, you are undoubtedly aware of the Marxist background of Harry Hay, who is considered the father of the modern-day homosexual “rights” movement. Hay formed the Mattachine Society and based it upon the Communist cell principle and revolutionary activism.

You are also undoubtedly aware of Leslie Feinberg, a radical Marxist and male-to-female transgender who is an editor with the Worker’s World Party. Feinberg is fueling both transgender activism (blurring the distinctions between male and female) as well as being a major influence in the anti-war efforts by ANSWER and other anti-American groups. Feinberg and others view homosexuality and transgenderism as “sexual liberation” from all social norms.

The Human Rights Campaign is now partnering with GenderPac, a transgender group based in Washington, DC. HRC has also sponsored a “Two Spirit” event with transgender groups. At this conference, sexually confused girls were shown how to have their breasts removed so they could become “men.”

This is where the homosexual movement is headed—and this is why Traditional Values Coalition is so opposed to the normalization of homosexuality and transgenderism in our society. These sexually confused individuals need counseling, not societal approval or “tolerance.”

It is my hope that you will carefully read the resources I’ve mentioned to you in this letter and that you will take a principled stand against the spread of sexual confusion in our nation. Our children deserve to be protected from the purveyors of sexual perversion and dysfunction. We do them a disservice by “tolerating” those who wish to prey upon our children and who wish to stifle free speech and religion.

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Traditional Values Coalition

Wednesday, May 28, 2003

More Comments on the Revised 35W Excess Project from a Minneapolis Discussion Forum

With the word that the 35W Access project has been “phased,” we are now, in essence, talking about a whole different project with a different emphasis and result for communities. I wonder if the neighborhood reps to the PAC feel like they have been hornswoggled.
So let’s review. “We” get the flyover ramps with the removal of housing; we get ramps at Lake street with the resultant widening of Lake street and removal of small businesses and the impossibility of bicycle and pedestrian friendly design. We get a great big expanse of pavement (think Hiawatha and Lake) smack dab in the newly “revitalized” Lake Street corridor.
Residents near 35th and 36th get nothing that I see until the far off date of 2015, with no guarantee, realistically speaking, that it will ever be any relief under the auspices of “Access.” Meanwhile, 38th street must exist in a suspended state, with plans on the board for what amounts to a major redesign of the whole corridor that won’t happen for more than a decade.
It is time to take the red pill (Matrix reference, sorry.) folks. As residents concerned for the future of south Minneapolis, we (and I do mean we this time) need to start having a real conversation about what future holds in terms of traffic and urban design.
I was against the Access project before, and I still am.
I invite those who had hoped that Access would improve their quality of life along 35th and 36th to rethink things now. Do you want a widened Lake street and a flyover ramp to the doorsteps of the corporate drivers of this project without the lessened traffic burden in your immediate area? Do you think that Smith Parker leveled with you in having a meeting on the redesigned traffic circle (formerly ellipse about) at 38th when the notices of the delay were already in the mail.
We need to stop this mutating monster. Forget the federal money. . .it’s no bargain if we further distort south Minneapolis in pursuing it. Stop the 35W Access project. . .then we can really start talking about the future.
Russell Raczkowski

Access Project Bullying by Tom Welling

Lisa McDonald wrote this last fall on the Issues List when Peter McLaughlin was still trying to deny that he made a deal with Wells Fargo for the taxpayers to build their driveway:

During my tenure on the City Council during the very early days of this discussion, the common knowledge was always that the County, Mayor, Abbott Northwestern, Wells Fargo and the Met Council were for this fly-over because it would so to speak, "beam these employees into the mother ship", as opposed to having to drive through the neighborhood. At that time, and now, I was very much against the fly-over because I believe when people see the size of it they will have a bird. I remember Peter and I having an argument at a public meeting about the flyover. I indicated that I was against it. He not so politely indicated I should keep my opinions to myself.

Tom sez:

It looks to me like Peter McLaughlin is about the only office holder who is enthusiastic about the Access Project boondoggle. If you look at how he treated a strong female such as Lisa McDonald, it makes me wonder if it is only bullying tactics that have gotten the project to the point where it is today. Many of the project supporters are well known for their bullying tactics - Basim Sabri, Wizard Marks, Scott Persons, and Tom Johnson.

Tom Welling

Comments from the Peanut Gallery on the Excess Project

In my opinion, the only portion of the project that will surely be built is the portion that was part of Peter McLaughlin's promise to Wells Fargo. The rest of the items were gleaned from the neighborhood processes in order to gain neighborhood support or acquiescence. The mitigation and enhancements are also just a ploy to get the neighborhoods to accept something that was a bad idea from the start. Unfortunately, some of the residents were so greedy about the enhancements and moving ramps to other people's back yards that they went for it. It's really a study in divide and conquer. Peter McLaughlin and the Smith Parker principles should be ashamed.

Tom Welling

Steve Brandt reports on the Access Project

"Project officials have offered to delay some ramp changes to Interstate Hwy. 35W in south Minneapolis by several years in order to address state concerns about the cost of the $153 million project.

"That means it might be 2015 before the E. 35th-36th Street ramps are shifted south to E. 38th Street to allow safer merging and the 5th Avenue S. entrance is rebuilt to ease I-35W congestion. Those suggested postponements would delay $50 million in work."

EY: The flyover and additional 35W lanes are the things that should be delayed.

From David Piehl on the Excess Project

Regarding the delay of the 38th St ramps as part of the Excess Project, the Star Tribune reported "Those suggested postponements would delay $50 million in work."

Didn't Peter McLaughlin say just last week that the reason Hennepin County would be making a loan to MNDoT for their portion of the project was to save money by "beating" inflation? I'd speculate that at most, Hennepin County's loan would save a year or two based on conversations at the PAC. Delaying 38th Street for up to 15 years doesn't fit the stated strategy of "build now to beat inflation".

David Piehl

Target to close North Minneapolis store Target to close North Minneapolis store


Minneapolis-based Target Corp. said today it will close its namesake discount store on West Broadway Avenue in north Minneapolis effective Aug. 2.
The store closing will affect about 123 full- and part-time workers. Employees will be offered positions at other Target stores in the area or will be provided with a severance package based on their time of employment, the company said.
Target’s decision to close the store, at 701 W. Broadway Ave., comes after several efforts to improve its financial performance, company officials said in a statement.
Despite those efforts, however, the store has continued to be among the chain’s weakest performers, the company said.
A major factor hindering the store’s financial performance: Its small size, the company said. The north Minneapolis store is about 83,000 square feet, two-thirds the size of the typical Target store. The store’s small size and the impracticality of extensive remodeling forced the decision to close, Target officials said.

EY: This is sad. I regularly visit this store. This ofcourse is another example of does freeway access in a City = economic development.


Is Jackie Cherryhomes Running against Natalie Johnson Lee?

From the Minneapolis Issues list:

Booker T Hodges
I have received creditable information that Mrs. Cherryhomes plans on running for office again. From what I here there will be a fund raiser held for her on May 27, 2003 at a certain state senator’s home. I have tried to contact the state senator and state representative who are alleged to be hosting the fundraiser, but they have both failed to offer any response. I will update everyone once I have more information.

From Ron Edwards Weblog
May 14, 2003
Scuttlebutt says Minneapolis elections to be scuttled.
Reliable sources tell me that the Minnesota legislature will attempt to mandate to the City of Minneapolis to either hold an election this fall, in which all would run at-large or wait a year and hold an election in 2004 using the ward boundaries for 2005. This would pit Samuels against Johnson-Lee, Zimmerman against Schiff, leaving the 8th ward open, leaving Lilligren uncontested, and opening it up so Jackie Cherryhomes can run again in Ward 5. Now, it would seem, we know why Keith Ellison and Linda Higgens are holding a fund raiser for Jackie in the next couple of weeks. So now the redistricting scam that I write about in my book, Chapters 12 and 13, are back in play. And now Jackie can go from council to developer and now back to council. Even Boss Tweed wasn't that brazen. So, Minneapolis, whither goest thou?

This is ridiculous. It's like talking to paparazzi-like conspiracy theorists. The LIE was put out by Ron Edwards' web lob. It's further theorized in chapters 12 and 13 of his book "The Minneapolis Story, Through My Eyes.", co written by Peter Jessen (plug for the day). I've got to read this book now. Representative Hornstein informed the original poster that the bill is dead this year. Since Jordan didn't reply, I assume he took the Representative's word, since he is in the legislature. Not good enough for all. Booker T. furthers the lie by stating something about his own 'reliable sources', a fundraiser tonight and that he tried contacting the Senator and Representative for information. The Senator directly refutes that. And now Schmitz wants a promise from someone who walked away and has not made an attempt to come back - or given it a thought. The thought ONLY lives on this list. What this really shows is that there are those, including Mr. Edwards, who have no clue of how impossible it is to build or sustain a real 'party machine' in Minneapolis. It also show the lack of knowledge when it comes to the political process and bureaucratic procedures involved with these monumental accusations. They do give us a DFLers a lot of credit for being a far more organized Party with one mindset, than we really are. I guess that if it fits your agenda, truth or lie, you'll use it. Reminds of how the Republicans can't let go of Clinton. Eric Mitchell Maple Grove (St Paul in 30 days)

Note: Jessen is the ghostwriter for Ron Edwards blog.....
From: "Peter Jessen"
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Jackie - Higgins Truth
X-Original-Date: 28 May 2003 07:20:29 -0700
Date: 28 May 2003 07:20:29 -0700

SUMMARY: Booker T Hodges and Ron Edwards did not lie. The Ellison - Higgins fund raiser was scheduled, twice. They printed flyers. Twice, giving the date and location (Linda's home). The story about it appeared in the Spokesman and was old news before Ron put it on his web log. You can tell Booker T was NOT quoting Ron, as Ron never indicated a date nor a location, although Booker T did. There is a terrible double standard here. Higgins is taken at her word, despite her artful spin (and it is a glorious job indeed; one of the best I've seen), yet Booker T and Ron are not. I am troubled that those complaining did not double fact check because of their eagerness to smear the reputations of Booker T and Ron. Both Booker T and Ron have the proof. They acted independently. Both care enough about the community to speak the truth. And if that means exposing the DFL as serving itself rather than the community, they will say so. But the truth is not wanted. So they call the truth tellers liars. And people want to know why there is such tension in this town along racial lines. Very cleverly, Higgins is trying to get people to shoot the messengers of truth for her.

DETAILS. When I read Linda's post I immediately got on the phone to call my contacts. None of my contacts have ever misled me. Which makes me wonder why Linda is so willing to mislead and squander her credibility. But because her spin was so artful, she has nothing to retract except her self-confessed crankyness, which is also part of her spin. I can only conclude that too many want Booker T and Ron discredited precisely because they speak the truth. Booker T and Ron expose the reality that the truth is for sale, as seen in the fact that most of Jackie's files are missing, about which the White community has raised not a whimper in complaint.

MORE BACKGROUND. Higgins is very clever. She protests reading about a fund raiser that is not being held on a specific date. That is true. It is not on that date. What is not true is the implication that it was never planned. There is the lie. It was scheduled. The flyers exist. She suckers others to then shill for her and tell the list that what Ron wrote is a LIE (yes, it was capitalized). The leap is ten made about the redistricting bill being dead, as if in death it never existed and that in death it doesn't represent an attempt by the DFL machine to steam roller the elections. Is this said to lull people into sleep so they can try again?
Because Booker T and Ron have written about this the DFL has chosen to slander them.

Booker T. says : I have received creditable information that Mrs. Cherryhomes plans on running for office again. From what I here there will be a fund raiser held for her on May 27, 2003 at a certain state senator=92s home. I have tried to contact the state senator and state representative who are alleged to be hosting the fundraiser, but they have both failed to offer any response. I will update everyone once I have more information.

To which I say: I read on Ron Edwards' website that Rep Keith Ellison and I are holding a fundraiser for JPC at my home. Then I read here that it's tonight. I don't know where you get your "information" but it's not worth the bits and bytes it's written on. And you haven't tried to reach either of us. Neither did Ron Edwards when he posted that nonsense on his website. And let me say this again. Jackie is a private citizen now. It's time for you to butt out of her life.

Linda Higgins still senator and still crabby Old Highland

Brauer Quashes Cherryhomes Thread

Hi folks -

This topic seems sure-fire to cross the line of our rules against inflammatory dialogue..and with few facts, it has.

The only one who's qualified to answer the "will Jackie run?" question is Jackie Cherryhomes. If she chooses to respond, she has an open invitation here.

But until/if she does, let's let the thread die. This is a sure-fire flame-maker.

David Brauer
List manager

Monday, May 26, 2003

Vote for Mark Foley in the Broward Federation of Republican Women's Poll - Foley vs McCollum...... Currently it's around 60-40 Foley's favor.


Sunday, May 25, 2003

Matt on Sodomlist hits the nail on the head about the notorious US Queers website......

Sodomlist is pretty engaged in debate...... Mrs. Judy O Christian from Landover Baptist Church has joined sodomlist. Matt is another gay republican that participates in that notorious us_queers egroup.

Kirk Zimpfer on Sodomlist......
Yeah, everyone else needs to seek mental guidance, but the lunatic from Florida that expresses death wishes toward almost everyone he disagrees with is totally sane.

Allan Ross needs mental help and he should be getting it in prison.


The Nuremburg files expressed death on abortion providers and abortion advocates AND president Bush.

Allan Ross was demonstrating the same absurdity as those people.

Allan Ross deserves the same free speech as the Nuremberg files.

Comparing and Contrasting the Leviticus Crowd and Al Queda..... You decide

from Sodomlist

Sodomlist is comparing/contrasting Bob Enyart and his 100 day plan, and Kirk Zimpfer's modest proposal with Osama Bin Laden. Are Bob and Kirk comparable to Bin Laden. Here are some points - you decide. Ken Connor of the Family Research Council comments about how the Leviticus crowd might sit out the 2004 election.... I forwarded these to sodomlist, and this is how the thread started:

Ken Connor's Bleatings from the FRC:
While Mr. Ponnuru might find this idea fantastic, Karl Rove still laments that four million evangelicals failed to vote in 2000. Since
church attendance was the single best indicator of voting behavior, the stay-at-home evangelicals cost Mr. Bush the popular vote and very nearly the election. If these evangelical voters were not highly motivated by eight years of the smarmy Clinton presidency, and were not eager to "run to the polls" and put the whole sorry Clinton era behind them, then it is dangerous to dismiss the possibility they might stay home again on Election Day 2004 if their core issue is treated in a cavalier fashion.

Rusty Morris:

What he is "right" about is one thing....that being.
If their "core" issue is to hurt, attack, and discriminate against gay people...they need to do alot more than "stay home"...they need to seek mental health guidance as to their obsessions and desire to "have a group of people to bash".


Kirk Z, Homosareperverse
Yeah, everyone else needs to seek mental guidance, but the lunatic from Florida that expresses death wishes toward almost everyone he disagrees with is totally sane.

Allan Ross needs mental help and he should be getting it in prison.


Rusty Morris:
Whine Whine you hope osama bin laden dies?...think he should be sniffing daisey roots?

If so, are you issueing a death threat...LOL

Wishing you dead does not equal a "death threat"... ya moron

Oh, and i do , with gleeful abandon.

Get over it.


Kirk Zimpfer, homosareperverse:
Bin Laden is murderer, moron, and a direct threat to millions of people. Of course, someone like you can't tell the difference between Bob Enyart and mass murderer...

Rusty Morris:
LOL..of course want to kill queers for your religion, bin laden wants to kill non-islamics for his religion...If you had you way,
you would be a DIRECT THREAT to millions of people....NAH no difference at all...AT moron.


Eva Young

I'd say there is a difference. As far as I know, Kirk hasn't got a network of terrorist cells that is actually carrying out violence. Bin Laden did.

Kirk doesn't want to personally kill gays, but he does want the Government to execute gays - as they do in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and several other countries.



That's not right, either. I want the same type of laws that existed in this nation and for the majority of the past 500 years of Western
Civilization. Homosexuals were only executed when they committed a crime.

So, I oppose retroactive laws that punish someone for an act when the law wasn't in effective. At least, get it right.


Kirk Zimpfer's Modest Proposal on AIDS Prevention
Is this part of Bob Enyart's 100 Day Plan?

Yes, I want the original laws of our nation restored and laws that comprised the majority of the past 500 years of Western Civilization. The result of those original laws was the execution of four homosexuals. The result of not having those laws is about 500,000 homosexuals having died tortured cruel deaths from AIDS.

If we had laws against sodomy, very few homosexuals would be dying. People like you have given hundreds of thousands of homosexuals death sentence. Are you proud of your work, Eva?

US Queer's productions presents: The Sodom List as the cast of Deliverance by Kirk Zimpfer the source for the C&F Institute Hit pieces on yours truly

Can some strike up the Duel Banjos theme song, please....

US Queers Productions presents the off-Broadway theatre production of Deliverance, featuring the cast of Sodom list and friends of Sodom List.

Starring, as the four campers:

Edward TJ Brown as Bobby Trippe, the sodomite victim
Aaron Laffin as Ed Gentry, the hero
Dave "The Papa Bear" as Lewis Medlock
Rusty Klein as Drew Ballinger

Co-starring as the two sodomite, rapist hunters:

Bruce Allan Ross as the sodomite, rapist mountain man
Rusty Morris as the toothless sodomite, rapist accomplice

As starring:

Eva Young as the sheriff
Mr. Judy as the geeky, banjo player
Janette Spaht as nurse Lilley
James Nimmo as the first deputy
Matt Raingod as the second deputy

Special guest appearance by"

David Horowitz as the doctor

I'm sure Allan Ross and Rusty Morris will be putting in a lot of work
on this one...Apologies to Mr. Morris for denying him the line, "Can
you squeal like a pig, boy"

EY: I haven't seen Deliverance. I'll have to send this to David Horowitz to see what he thinks of it.