counter statistics

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Republican Infighting in Minnesota Has Gotten White House Attention

From Kennedy v the Machine:

Pawlenty left extremely angry. He spent roughly thirty minutes with Bill Pulkrabek between the first and second ballots attempting to get him to endorse Eibensteiner — an unlikely prospect, but considering Pulkrabek chaired Eibensteiner’s 2003 reelection campaign, not completely out of the realm of the possible. Pulkrabek left the meeting and immediately endorsed Carey. The Governor was last seen storming out of the State Central meeting, having taken the defeat very personally — as it was probably intended by the 193 delegates who voted for Carey.

. . .

News of the friction between Pawlenty and the Carey supporters spreads fast - so fast that none other than the White House called, during the convention, to attempt a start to smoothing over the hurt feelings. With Pawlenty's emotional exit, that obviously wasn't accomplished today.

As they say in the big leagues, more news as this story develops. . .

On the comments I asked about this:

# Eva Young:
June 11th, 2005 @ 10:00 pm

Where did you hear that the White House called? That's quite interesting.
# First Ringer:
June 11th, 2005 @ 10:24 pm

Several high sources managing State Central and a couple of high-profile SD Chairs along with the normal chit-chat game of telephone that happens on convention floors.

Oooh, anoymous sources. We’re so like the Washington Post.

I'll try and get more info on it.

Developing. . .

There's quite a cat fight about the party on another of Kennedy v the Machine's comment threads.

UPDATE: REW from Powerliberal has an account of another Saturday Morning Catfight.

Evolutionary History of Cats

Darksyd takes us there. It's well worth a read.

Hat tip: Pharyngula.

Upset: Ron Carey Defeats Ron Eibensteiner for Party Chair

I stopped by the Republican State Central Committee meeting today.

Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman were pushing for Ron Eibensteiner. Here was David Strom's analysis:

1/3 of the votes against Eibensteiner were those who had the typical grievances in this sort of body - phone calls not being returned. Eibensteiner not showing up for a local party unit event.

1/3 were mad because Eibensteiner had been real out front with supporting gambling - and pressured Jack Meeks to resign from the party because of his involvement with MN Citizens Against Gambling Expansion (MNCAGE).

The final third wanted to send a message to Tim Pawlenty. Republican Activists are not happy with Governor Pawlenty's position on Gambling, nor are they happy with his support for corporate welfare for professional sports. They are also not happy with his proposal to increase taxes on cigarettes.

I mentioned Strom's analysis to Rep. Jeff Johnson and Rep. Matt Dean - who were both at this meeting - and they both said, they thought that was a good assessment.

I had heard a story from Dan Dobson from No Stadium Tax who said he got it from Phil Krinkie that Strom had made a deal with Pawlenty that in return for Pawlenty's support for the Taxpayer bill of rights, the Taxpayer's League would downplay opposition to the Stadium. Strom didn't recall making this deal, but said he would not deny doing so - and said he would have made this deal. Strom also said he feels that the Governor hasn't kept his part of the deal.

Developing . . .

Friday, June 10, 2005

More on Hoplin

English Teach from Left in the Heartland wraps it up. She points to a hard hitting letter sent out to State Central Committee members from Executive Committee Member, Greg Menzes about Eric Hoplin. Hoplin's reponse is also posted.

English Teach's post also includes a number of articles posted about the College Republicans Fundraising Scandal.

Developing. . .

There's a real Meltdown on the MN Conservative Blogosphere Over Eibensteiner

Ourhouse blog:

The model of late for Party chair has been "rich guy as chair." The theory is that the rich guy can get all his friends to pony up, better than some young exec type even with a stable of cute young fundraisers. The rich guy model, embodied by Bill Cooper took the party out of the dark ages and away from some embarrassing losses. When he retired as party chair in 1999, he left a party of financial as well as political strength. Ron was tapped as following this model as well. A venture capitalist, specializing in high tech companies, he was seen as providing the same kind of financial leadership as Bill with the additional bonus of a connection to the information technology world.

Parties live and die by their lists and by their ability to mobilize and communicate with the base using every technology resource available. In the wake of the 2004 elections, complaints surfaced that lists were bad: that phoning had not yielded the results that it had in the past and that some local candidates had not even used them because they were so inaccurate. Forcing a local candidate to develop his or her own list from scratch is like making them reinvent the wheel. It chews up volunteer or paid consultant time that would be better spent on other things. What's a party organization for anyway, if not to give this labor and capital intensive kind of support? And what's the deal with Ron, that he can't prioritize this concern, given his area of expertise?

With the drift in the Pawlenty administration, Ron's tactic of tying himself to the Governor isn't going to work for very long. Already big donors displeased with many of Pawlenty's reversals (some RIGHT AFTER promises were made in private that there would be no change or cave) are backing away. Many are certain that despite Ron's and Tim's words to the contrary, some kind of deal for a broader income tax is in the works. Even more scary sounding is the line going around that, If we're going to have Hatch around anyway, we might as well have him as Governor than AG. Under Hatch, the AG's office has become the ultimate bogeyman for many businesses as Hatch looks around to see who he can target next. He's busy with the healthcare industry right now but in a few months he might well be coming after you. One of the problems with the office of AG is that it is vaguely construed in the Minnesota Constitution. So much so that the AG can even sue the Governor (as is in play now with the potential government shutdown). Hatch as Governor would not be so free to carry out these little vendettas. With this line of logic, business leaders who contribute to the party might well take their marbles and go home.

King over at SCSU Scholars is over there trying to calm things down a bit.

Tomorrow is the big day. The election for Party chair will be over and done with after that.

On Republican Party Chair Candidate Ron Carey

From a Reader Tip:

Ron Carey is running to replace Ron Eibensteiner as chairman of the Republican Party of minnesota. Take a look at Carey's record: he is a michele Bachman republican.

The Republican Convention: Party's Religious Right Raises Its Voice
By Jackie Calmes. Asian Wall Street Journal. New York, N.Y.: Aug 21, 1992.
The evangelical political movement is rooted in these activists' long crusade against abortion; but their "family values" agenda is broader than that. Increasingly, the fight is against gays. "The scripture is very clear that homosexuality is a sin," says Ron Carey, a Minnesota delegate and vice chairman of the state Republican Party. Here in Houston, tough language against gays was among the group's platform victories.

GOP Puts Family Values in the Spotlight Issues: Bush hopes to win back lost ground by appealing to conservative Americans. But the Democrats have presented a strikingly different version.

JONATHAN PETERSON. Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, Calif.: Aug 19, 1992.
"What the Republicans mean by family values is instilling Judeo-Christian values in their children and love of the country, the flag, all that good stuff," said Ron Carey, a Minnesota delegate who on Tuesday attended a celebration of conservative values hosted by Phyllis Schlafly, the Illinois Republican who crusaded against the equal rights amendment.

"Democrats are talking family values," the computer software salesman continued, "but what they mean is special rights and privileges for the gay and lesbian community."

The Republican Party should be an inclusive party and open to debate. Individual party members disagree with party platform on issues from gambling, abortion and
gay equal rights.

In 1992, rhetoric such as that of Ron Carey helped torbedo President Bush's campaign to a humiliating defeat.

In Minnesota, a single minded focus on an anti-gay constitutional amendment at the expense of doing getting a bonding bill passed resulted in 13 Republicans losing their seats. The only Democrat to lose a seat, Rebecca Otto, voted in favor of the anti-gay amendment.

The other candidates are Ron Eibensteiner and Bill Pulkrabek. Pulkrabek is a Washington County Commissioner, and also apparently closely connected to Michele Bachmann. Eibensteiner is the current party chair.

The Pioneer Press has an interesting story on the race here.

From the article:

But many high-ranking past and present party officers are supporting Eibensteiner's challengers: Ron Carey, a Shoreview business executive and current state GOP secretary-treasurer, and Washington County Commissioner Bill Pulkrabek, a veteran party activist.

"Obviously, if they (the challengers) are successful, it will embarrass Pawlenty," Bill Morris, a Minneapolis pollster and former state Republican chairman, said Wednesday. "I guess you can always count on Republicans to shoot themselves in the head when things are going well."

That's not what the challengers have in mind.

"We're trying to help the governor. We're trying to enhance his re-election chances," Carey said.

Said Pulkrabek, "You'll never hear me speak an ill word about Governor Pawlenty."

They criticized Eibensteiner, a Minneapolis venture capitalist, for failing to provide strong, energetic leadership in the past two years.

But some of their supporters, without mentioning Pawlenty by name, have disparaged his proposals to expand gambling and impose a 75 cents-a-pack cigarette "fee" or tax to balance the state budget. The party platform opposes gambling expansion and tax increases.

In a recent letter to GOP leaders, Republican National Committeewoman Evie Axdahl, deputy state GOP chair Michelle Rifenberg and four other party officers wrote, "Some Republican elected officials drew the wrong conclusions about the 2004 election results and now advocate tax increases, gambling expansion and increases in government regulation."

But instead of faulting Pawlenty, they blamed Eibensteiner for not doing more to "enforce party discipline and party principles." They endorsed Carey.

Those aren't the biggest knocks against Eibensteiner. The toughest assessment came in a letter mailed Monday by his three immediate predecessors — former state Republican chairmen Bill Cooper, Chris Georgacas and Bob Weinholzer.

They were Eibensteiner supporters when he was first elected in 1999, but in the past two years, they wrote, "we have witnessed a disturbing pattern of drift, disengagement, decline and defeat." They criticized the chairman for failing to raise more money for the party, letting Democrats out-organize the GOP at the grassroots level and falling short in providing candidate services.

"Amidst the growing challenges which face us in 2006, our party cannot triumph with a leader who is just coasting," the three wrote as they endorsed Carey.

Carey's supporters also blamed Eibensteiner for failing to carry Minnesota for President Bush and losing 13 state House seats last year, as well as for promoting Pawlenty's gambling expansion plans.

Eibensteiner couldn't be reached for comment, but he rebutted many of the charges in a letter to the 350 GOP central committee members who will decide his fate at Saturday's meeting in St. Louis Park.

The party should have been put more focus on the local races rather than the waste of time effort for Bush.

Marty Andrade on Eric Hoplin

A while back, I called Marty Andrade a "bitchy queen" in jest over a post about Eric Hoplin who is running for deputy chair of the Minnesota Republican Party. Marty's concerns are serious concerns. Read more here.

Andy at Residual Forces and Luke Hellier at Student for Bachmann were snowed by Hoplin's effort at damage control. Marty calls out Hoplin and suggests that Hoplin agree to an interview that Marty would audiopost to blogger.

My guess: Hoplin won't have the balls to do it.

Tony Garcia from Race to the Right interviewed Hoplin. Tony's post also gives valuable background.

More on Tony Perkins and his connections to David Duke and the Racist Council of Conservative Citizens

From Americablog:

The Family Research Council's executive director, Tony Perkins, reportedly paid former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke over $80,000 for his who's-who-of-racist-America mailing list in 1996. This should be the death of the Family Research Council, one of the religoius right's lead organizations, and the end of Tony Perkins career.

Who on the left is smart enough to plunk down some money to organize the campaign destroying the FRC and their executive director because of his dealings with the Ku Klux Klan?

This was 1996, people. That is well beyond, years beyond, the date that the entire nation knew Duke to be a rabid KKK-loving racist. But our pinnacle of family values, Tony Perkins, had no problem enriching black-hater David Duke to the tune of $82,000. And what's more, Tony Perkins had no problem trying to woo David Duke's avowed racist following.

With the religious right trying to reach out to black folk, and more generally trying to lecture the rest of us on morality, I want to know why Tony Perkins hasn't been forced to resign, or, why the Family Research Council hasn't been ostracized from the entire religious right community.

Bob Knight and the rest of the Concerned Women for America, and the American Family Association and Lou Sheldon and all the rest of you supposed Christians, are you concerned that your good buddy Tony Perkins appears peppered with racism?

Dump Bachmann had an alert on this topic a month and a half ago. I asked Chuck Darrell from Minnesota for Marriage to comment on this, and he has avoided comment on the topic.

Developing. . .

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Neal St Anthony does a Puff Piece on Colin Powell Youth Center Boondoggle

This is following up on this.

Neal St Anthony business columnist for the Strib wrote a puff piece on the Colin Powell Youth Center:

From the article:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Angus Wurtele, John Thompson, Bryson Holliman, Dick Pettingill and a couple of dozen other supporters and prospects met privately with Powell. They then joined Urban Ventures staff, volunteers and about 150 other business and community members for a rousing presentation in the intimate Urban Ventures auditorium.

John Turnipseed, once a south Minneapolis street criminal and derelict father, couldn't believe he was introducing one of America's best-known statesmen and most-admired leaders.

"I don't want my story replicated," said Turnipseed, who now counsels teens and dads on the virtues of education, work and generational accountability.

"I grew up in a family that created the Bloods street gang around here. We cost the state a lot of money," he said. "Now we're fixing men here."

Several teenagers and adults said the counseling, tutoring and support they received at Urban Ventures made the difference in helping them reject drugs, stay in school or reject criminal life and return to school.

This is something of an ecumenical-business effort that spans all faiths and reaches a variety of people ranging from Mexican to Somali.

Erickson, a former Methodist youth minister, has spent 38 years working and living in the Central neighborhood. Erickson, who is paid $55,000 annually to run an outfit with a $2.5 million budget, is assisted by a couple of retired business executives, Ralph Bruins and Ed Lucas, whose passion for making a buck was superseded years ago by a desire to work for a nonprofit that would target at-risk kids for graduation and success.

And Cristo Rey, a Jesuit-run high school, has inked a deal with Urban Ventures and several area businesses to open a school at the Powell Center in which neighborhood kids effectively will finance their four-days-a-week education with internships paid by participating companies.

Anthony ends with:

Hats off to the sharp investors in the Colin Powell Center. The return on this investment will be incalculable in saved lives and benefits to community and country.

Neal St. Anthony can be reached at 612-673-7144 or

I called Neal St Anthony - and told him I thought the piece was really just a puff piece - and didn't address the issues of whether UV's program is really going to end up doing the good they claim. I'm all in favor of having programs like this in the inner city, but I don't think UV is a good organization to run them. Art Erickson, who is President of UV has a long history of anti-gay activity in the neighborhood. City Pages covered some of this in 1996:

While it is clear that Erickson and Bruins are adept fund-raisers, critics maintain that their roles as supposed leaders in the community is suspect. Although Erickson maintains he had a successful run at Park Avenue Methodist, others claim that his leadership style is contentious and precluded his working with other strong personalities. "We were never able to develop any leadership under him," says a Park Avenue parishioner. "Any strong leaders left as he demanded to hold the reins."

A neighbor of the church, John Hustad, says that while he was not a congregant, he nonetheless butted heads with Erickson on a number of occasions. According to Hustad, the church held an annual festival called "Soulebration," and the ensuing crowds and noise wreaked havoc on the neighborhood. "City ordinances state that these kinds of events can't run more than three nights, but this event would run for seven. The noise was unbelievable, there was trash everywhere, and parking was a nightmare," he says. What was most galling, he contends, were the messages disseminated by festival speakers. "Some of them were extremely inflammatory. They were against certain minorities--specifically gays. I resented having religious messages beamed down my throat night after night," he says.

The Urban Ventures website is here:

Colin Powell Center website is here:

Augsburg, Bethel, Dunwoody, Northwestern and the University of Minnesota are listed as partners for the Colin Powell Center on the Colin Powell site. I have not verified that information with these higher ed institutions yet. In the past, UV and Colin Powell Center have claimed partnerships that have not existed. One example is when they claimed a partnership with the Minneapolis Park Board that turned out to be greatly overstated.

After they were busted by Lloydletta breaking the story about their participation on the Midwest Chaplains Prayer Proclamation for the Bachmann amendment, Art Erickson sent me an email that denied giving permission for Midwest Chaplains to use their names on this proclamation - and said a "retraction is forthcoming". More than 2 months later, the promised retraction has yet to be posted at either the Urban Ventures, Colin Powell or Midwest Chaplains websites.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Chuck Darrell: God and Children Crucial for Marriage Debate

Craig Westover offered Minnesota for Marriage's Chuck Darrell an opportunity to defend the push for an anti-gay marriage amendment. Chuck's article is here.

Comments are here.

From the comments:

You said, "If we are truly concerned about civil rights and diversity, then we should take steps to protect a child’s right to the diversity of a man and woman, married, and in the home."

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that children of same-sex couples should be placed in heterosexual homes? Should same-sex couples be banned from adopting children? Should single parents lose their children?

I don't really see how a ban on gay marriage will protect your idea of "civil rights and diversity".
Carson | Homepage | 06.07.05 - 8:04 pm | #

Chuck: What are your comments about Tony Perkins - keynote speaker at the Minnesota for Marriage Rally - and his connections with white supremacists. This is from an investigative report published in the Nation:

Four years ago, Perkins addressed the Louisiana chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), America's premier white supremacist organization, the successor to the White Citizens Councils, which battled integration in the South. In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was the campaign manager for a right-wing Republican candidate for the US Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the campaign Perkins ran $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.

Dennis Sanders from Moderate Republican went to the Council of Conservative Citizens site and finds:

We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

More from CofCC:

(1) We believe the United States is a Christian country.

We believe that the United States of America is a Christian country, that its people are a Christian people, and that its government and public leaders at all levels must reflect Christian beliefs and values.

We therefore oppose all efforts to deny or weaken the Christian heritage of the United States, including the unconstitutional prohibitions of prayers and other religious expression in schools and other public institutions.


(6) The traditional family is the basic unit of human society.

We believe in the traditional family as the basic unit of human society and morality, and we oppose all efforts by the state and other powers to weaken the structure of the American family through toleration of sexual licentiousness, homosexuality and other perversions, mixture of the races, pornography in all forms, and subversion of the authority of parents.

EY: Were you aware of this when you got Perkins to come and speak at this rally?
Eva Young | Homepage | 06.07.05 - 8:57 pm | #

Another quote from an anti-gay Black minister:

"If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them," Rev. Gregory Daniels, a Chicago Black minister, said from the pulpit in February.

EY: Rep. John Lewis - D, Georgia wrote an article supporting Gay Marriage:

"This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry.

Some say let's choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights but call it something other than marriage. We have been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights to liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms, without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.

Some say they are uncomfortable with the thought of gays and lesbians marrying. But our rights as Americans do not depend on the approval of others. Our rights depend on us being Americans.

Sometimes it takes courts to remind us of these basic principles. In 1948, when I was 8 years old, 30 states had bans on interracial marriage, courts had upheld the bans many times, and 90 percent of the public disapproved of those marriages, saying they were against the definition of marriage, against God's law. But that year, the California Supreme Court became the first court in America to strike down such a ban. Thank goodness some court finally had the courage to say that equal means equal, and others rightly followed, including the US Supreme Court 19 years later.

Some stand on the ground of religion, either demonizing gay people or suggesting that civil marriage is beyond the Constitution. But religious rites and civil rights are two separate entities. What's at stake here is legal marriage, not the freedom of every religion to decide on its own religious views and ceremonies."

Coretta Scott King:

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," King said to a sold-out crowd of 550 in the college's Performing Arts Center. Another 250 watched on closed-circuit television in a lecture hall. "A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages," she said.

I think this is rather academic for both Chuck and myself - neither of us are African American.

African Americans are individuals - and they don't all think alike.

A good resource on this topic is here.

Eva Young | Homepage | 06.07.05 - 9:07 pm | #

Eva --

Stay on topic. The Tony Perkins stuff is not relevant to the question of same-sex marriage -- not on this site. It wasn’t in the other thread, it’s not in this one.

You're right, it's academic to talk about which Blacks best represent the community, so let's not talk about it.

Chuck’s syllogism is this:

Black experience with non-traditional families is a disaster.

A same-sex couple is a non-traditional family.


Same-sex families will be disasters.

He can correct me if I’m wrong. I’m only stepping in because this site is not going down the road of which side has the most bigots or the most whores on the payroll. It’s just not.
Craig Westover | Homepage | 06.07.05 - 9:25 pm | #

Chuck writes:

It seems mean-spirited to say that "people who believe that children need mothers and fathers are the legal and moral equivalents of racists." If we are truly concerned about civil rights and diversity, then we should take steps to protect a child's right to the diversity of a man and woman, married, and in the home.

EY: I think this still brings back Craig's question: What are you going to do about the kids who have single parents (gay or straight), or a mother and a grandmother, or a gay couple? Do you want to take those kids away from those parents?

Chuck: Throughout the entire debate, one question seems to be overlooked: How will same-sex-marriage affect children? There is a mountain of sociological data that demonstrates the best environment for a child is in a home with a mother and father. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the African-American communities where leaders, such as Starr Parker, contend that a child needs more than just a mother, or even two loving persons of the same sex. Starr points out that many blacks have attempted to raise children with a mom and grandma, and found it wanting.

EY: This particular situation sounds like it's about fathers abandoning their families - and leaving their girlfriend (or wife) with their mother - along with the out of wedlock kids. This isn't comparable to a gay couple - where both parents are taking responsibility for the kids.

I think these are serious issues, and I don't see how these problems - an increase in fatherlessness, and increased out of wedlock birth rate can be linked to gay people.

Dale Carpenter's debate with Glenn Stanton from Focus on the Family at the MacLaurin Institute addresses these issues.

I'm sure the discussion will continue. Thanks to Craig Westover for hosting.

Strib Letters Fisk Kersten


Gays shall overcome

Katherine Kersten is flat wrong ("Heterosexual marriage: A universal institution," June 2). Gay marriage is the civil rights movement of our generation. It will be as embarrassing to our children as segregation is to our parents.

My daughters will equate President Bush with Alabama Gov. George Wallace, and compare people like state Rep. Michele Bachmann and columnist Kersten to the sidewalk hecklers who screamed at little black girls.

Katie Pierson, Minnetonka.

Fix straight marriage first

If Katherine Kersten's mission is to protect marriage as the "best way of binding fathers to the mothers of their children, for the benefit of all," perhaps she would be willing to consider these suggestions, since more than half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce:

  • Amend the Constitution to prohibit divorce for any couples with children.

  • Force parents with children to marry within six months after the death of a spouse, or have a marriage partner appointed by the government.

  • Prohibit the birth of a child to an unwed partner (see above).

  • Criminalize adultery with penalty, fines and punishment for married partners with children.

All of these solutions would be far more effective than society's "norms and reinforcements" to bind the failing heterosexual "universal institution" more firmly.

Shannon Leigh, Minneapolis.

Love has no age limits

My grandmother was married three times. My mother was married three times. My first stepfather was married twice. My second stepfather has recently married for the third time.

So for Katherine Kersten to state that heterosexual marriage exists for the purpose of men and women to make babies is insulting not only to me, as a gay man, but particularly to my grandparents, parents and stepparents -- many of whom found true love late in life and married in their 60s, 70s and, recently, in their 80s, when childbearing was impossible.

So now as my partner and I approach our 26th anniversary, I only want what Bopie and Gompa, Mom and Uncle Dad (yes, imagine, my mother married my uncle), and Don and Patti reached for and found: approval from no one and nothing but their own loving hearts, and the legal protection (health, inheritance and the more than 100 other benefits) to safeguard their soul mates and their unions.

If only my mother or her mother, Bopie, were alive -- they'd be dialed up to high witch over Kersten's neofascist column. And trust me, it wouldn't be pretty.

R.D. Zimmerman, Minneapolis.

Learned Foot over at KoolAid Report fisks the letters. The main point appears to be that the writers are moonbats.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Manic Depression and Medication

I really don't want this blog to become a manic depression resource center. I've had people suggest books to read about manic depression. I have read An Unquiet Mind by Kay Jamison which was suggested in the comments.

Blog Adversary and sometimes blog ally, Stacy Harp blogged about my post:

Recently a fellow blogger-ette wrote about her experience with bipolar disorder and how she "came out of the closet". And I found her comments interesting because even though it's 2005 it's amazing to me the stigma that mental health issues still have for some people.

What I found ironic going through grad school though was that probably well over half of the students in the Clinical Psychology program I was in were on some type of medication for depression, anxiety or other mental health related issues.

In fact, we had one professor say at one point that medication for mental health was soon going to be considered the equivalent of taking vitamins everyday.

I'm not sure about that personally, but I can say that I'm never shocked when I'm told a friend of mine or even an acquaintance is on some form of medication for emotional help.

Which is why I try to urge my clients to get evaluated for medication if they are having issues. But even in doing that, I've found clients are resistant because they are convinced that they are "crazy" if they go on medication!

So to all of you out there who are taking some form of medication for mental health, I'm here to tell you that it is okay and nothing to be ashamed of. Keep taking the medication as long as it helps you and forget about what the others say who want to mock you or hurt you with their senseless words.

If you'd like to learn more about medication I'd recommend the book below.

The problem is the medication has serious long term side effects. I'm lucky I don't have schizophrenia because the anti-psychotic medications for that cause you to get an drug induced form of Parkinson's disease (tardive diskinesia). I have a friend who is now waiting to get a donor kydney because of long term effects of lithium. I thank my stars I did not take that long term.

I'd like to see more research into medication that can be used on an acute, but not an all the time basis. The problem is there isn't much of a profit motive to develop such medication.

I have a good friend who didn't get diagnosed with manic depression until recently. She had been self medicating with alcohol - and was native american - so the assumption was - drunken indian. I wonder how often alcoholics don't get diagnosed and treated for the manic depression. With my friend, this really did in her liver.

See you in Court


I hate to deal with negative energy in the world, but sometimes it rears its ugly head and throws up on you, completely unsolicited. You see, there's another blog documentary in the works, this one called Fifty-nine Bloggers. 2-minute interviews with each blogger, many of whom I've interviewed or chatted with. But the here's the thing: The "former Hollywood producer" refers to his film as Blogumentary, or a blogumentary, AT LEAST as often as the actual name of his film. I wrote him a nice email saying, best of luck with your cool project, and by the way it might be confusing to say things like "Blogumentary Sponsors" and "Bloggers in the Blogumentary" [Those pages are gone - here are screenshots] on your site. You know, since I already made a blog documentary by that name.

Well. I got a very nasty, wrong-headed email in return. Here's my favorite part:

You say it would cause "confusion" about your project. Just who would be confused? Readers of your blog? Your parents? While you're at it, why don't you complain to the 60 million users of the word "weblog" or "blog" or "journal" since you have one. Blog readers might get "confused" when reading yours, thinking that it resembles a real blog.

Please don't bother me with this bullshit nonsense.

Seems like the blogs took care of this. From the updates:



Hat tip: Powerliberal.

A Stopped Clock is Right Twice a Day

Every once in a while Swiftee makes interesting observations. Is Swiftee a Citizen Journalist?

Interesting story in today's SF Chron regarding the "emergence" of "citizen journalism" on the web.

From what I understand to be their point, the Chron believes there is difference between citizen journalists and bloggers, but they don’t actually define what those differences are.

Personally, I’m thinking of claiming a CJ title for myself if for nothing more than further irritating our local Professional Journalist and Guy Who know Stuff ™.

But have I earned the title? Let’s see how Pair O’ Dice stacks up against the Chron’s choice example site.

I think he'd make a better metro conservative columnist than that useless Katherine Kersten. He actually has done some of the shoe leather stuff with his smoking ban stories. He'd also be better able to write the narrative stories with a message that is the stuff of metro columns. They aren't supposed to just be rants. That's for the oped page. Kersten hasn't adjusted. His only problem is that he loses his temper too much online - and would probably have to temper that. He'd be more entertaining to read than Kersten. Actually in a lot of ways he is a right wing Nick Coleman.

I happen to think the main stream media should have higher standards than blogs. I've seen way too much press release journalism from mainstream reporters - and feel all too often, reporters don't bother to do basic fact checking. I don't claim to be a journalist with the Dump Bachmann and Lloydletta blogs, but I've done more fact checking that some of the reporters from the strib on some stories.

But Swiftee would have to quit this sort of thing. I don't think he'd want to do that. He seems to like his foul mouth. He's already started reacting to commenters making fun of him on his blog:

Dumpster Dan, duck..clue incoming!!

The Globe was the only MSM source to pick up on that important story which has implications for every parent with a student attending a school which GLSEN has infiltrated.

Og, now look what I've done; responded to a certified moron with a reasonable explaination..I'm slipping already.

Colin Powell In Town to Raise Money for Urban Vultures

From MPR:

Powell raises money for Minneapolis youth center
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was in Minneapolis Monday to ask for donations for an inner city youth center named for him.

The Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center in Minneapolis is intended to teach inner city children strong moral values and give them extra tutoring so they can graduate from high school and go to college. Powell said it's important that inner city children have a positive place to learn and play.

"I couldn't have been more proud to have something like this named after me. I have received lots of medals and awards in my life, that's all nuts. This is what's serious, this is what counts. This is what's vital. This is what's important. So I am proud to have this effort named after me," he said.

Organizers for the center say they have raised about $8 million but need to raise a total of $19 million for the project. They want to break ground for the building this fall.

Moral? How is a group like this moral? Does Colin Powell know about this?

Back in the late 90s Eileen Smith from the Central Neighborhood started a
non-profit program for area kids that she named "Young Entrepreneurs", which involved teaching financial responsibility to youth. Eileen was quite successful, and drew a lot of attention. Urban Ventures came to her and volunteered to be her fiscal agent which sounded like a good idea to her at the time. Later that year, when Eileen applied to the Ford Bell foundation for funding, she got a response back that she could only be funded once per year. Upon investigation, Eileen found out that Urban
Ventures had applied for funding in her organization's name, got funded, and diverted the funding. Eileen also discovered that her program and successes were being featured in UV's promotional literature without her permission, and without noting that the extent of UV's involvement was to be her fiscal agent; the literature made it all sound like Art Erickson's idea and Urban Ventures successes.

Real nice example for the kids huh?

Art Erickson, President of Urban Ventures sent me a message over a month saying that a retraction was forthcoming regarding Urban Ventures and the Colin Powell Center's Endorsement of a Prayer Proclamation for the Bachmann Amendment (writing anti-gay discrimination into the state constitution).

"We recently received notification that the Urban Ventures and Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center names were listed in a document entitled "A Declaration and a Call" that appeared on the Midwest Chaplains web site. The inclusion of our name was done without our approval and a retraction is forthcoming."

Call Duane Coleman, Director of Development and lobbyist for Urban Ventures and ask him when the Retraction will be forthcoming. His number is: 612-638-1001.

Call Dan Hall at Midwest Chaplains to ask him whether they plan to post a public retraction on the Midwest Chaplains website: 612-790-2000

Scrubbing websites is not a retraction. A press statement on the Urban Ventures website would be a retraction. Urban Ventures Leaders doing a press conference at the Capitol would be a retraction.

It doesn't really pass the smell test that UV and Colin Powell didn't give their name for the Midwest Prayer Proclamation:

From the Rake:

The last guest at Chaplain Dan Hall's Wednesday prayer meeting was Duane Coleman, vice president for Development at the Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center in South Minneapolis. Supported by organizations like Best Buy, ADC, and General Mills, the center is a $12.6 million South Minneapolis project designed to help inner-city youth acquire secondary-school educations. Duane Coleman has been a repeat guest at Dan Hall's prayer gatherings, and when he arrived on this day, Hall encouraged him to describe the results of the prayers he’d received the week before.

Coleman said that, before last week, only the Senate version of the new bonding bill included cash for the Colin Powell Youth Leadership Center. "So I came last week and we prayed over this," Coleman explained. "And somehow, through divine favor, the money ended up in the House bill, too."

A late arrival, a woman in the back of the room, raised her hand. "Is your group Christian?"

Coleman nodded vigorously. "Yes."

"So what are we praying for today?"

"Success in conference committee!" Coleman replied.

Like many before him, Coleman stood before the group with his eyes closed as the Cannon Falls ladies and Myrna Howes prayed for him. "Lord, my husband is a legislator and I know he received a lot of letters on behalf of this saying it won't do anything," Howes intoned. "Well, I hope those letters to turn to dust." With that, the meeting was over. The group quickly dispersed into dimly lit Capitol hallways filled with legislators on their way to lunch. Charlotte Herzog, however, stopped to tell me how much she appreciates Dan Hall’s ministry at the Capitol. "You know," she said. "Prayer is just so much more effective than all those committee hearings and meetings."

This is the group that Minneapolis Mayoral Candidate Peter McLaughlin supports:

Peter McLaughlin had an item on his website bragging about large county
loan for Urban Ventures soccer fields. I've always wondered why he would
support an organization like this with county tax money. (accessed on Jan 16, 2004 - no longer available)

Homefield Soccer

Art Erickson, President of Urban Ventures, joins Peter McLaughlin at the
construction site of Homefield soccer fields which will serve over 300
urban youth this summer. The county loaned Urban Ventures $500,000 to start
construction. The loan was paid back on time.

I'd like to hear more about the terms of this loan. What type of interest rate did Urban Ventures get on this loan?

When this issue came up before, Senator Linda Berglin cited McLaughlin's strong support for UV to justify her support. I posted Berglin's and Neva Walker's correspondance on this subject here.

I'd like to hear from candidate Peter McLaughlin what he thinks about public funding for the Colin Powell Youth Center now?

Sunday, June 05, 2005

MN Speak Aggregator

I found this by looking at the traffic from Dump Bachmann. It offers a newsfeed for local blogs. Through this, I have found the Science Museum has a blog.

Russert Grills RNC Chair Ken Mehlmann on Gays

Hat tip: Americablog.

MR. RUSSERT: Will the president continue to push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

MR. MEHLMAN: The president strongly believes that marriage in this country ought to be between a man and a woman. He also believes it is something that ought to be decided by the people. He doesn't believe that judges ought to impose their will on the people. And because there have been a number of judicial decisions, most recently in Nebraska, that have made that decision for the people. He believes that a constitutional amendment is appropriate so the people can weigh in.
It's something that's before the United States Senate. It's one of their agenda items they intend to move on this year, and I think we can expect to see them do that.

MR. RUSSERT: You've been trying to broaden the base of the Republican Party and yet Log Cabin Republicans, gay Republicans, issued this statement in the course of last year's election: " is impossible to overstate the depth of anger and disappointment caused by the President's support for an anti-family Constitutional Amendment. This amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships. ... Some will accuse us of being disloyal. However, it was actually the White House who was disloyal to the 1,000,000 gay and lesbian Americans who supported him four years ago in 2000. Log Cabin's decision was made in response to the White House's strategic political decision to pursue a re-election strategy catered to the radical right. ... Using gays and lesbians as wedge issues in an election year is unacceptable to Log Cabin..."

MR. MEHLMAN: I would respectfully disagree with their statement on that. I think this is an issue in which there's some disagreement. The fact is if you look at the exit polls about 23 percent of gays and lesbians voted for this president, so lot of folks disagreed with what the Log Cabin Republicans said. I'm glad they're supporting the president's position on Social Security. But I think that fundamentally for the president and for millions of Americans, this is an issue of principle. Who should decide on a critical question of how we define marriage in this country? Should it be decided by an activist court or by the people? We believe the people should make this decision.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

MR. MEHLMAN: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think it matters to the fundamental question here because at bottom, this president believes in non-discrimination. He believes in equal treatment. He believes in respect for all. He also believes, separate and apart from that question, that the fundamental question of marriage ought to be defined in the way it's been defined for more than 200 years of our nation's history, which is by the people's representative at the state legislatures.

MR. RUSSERT: But the Log Cabin Republicans will say if you're born gay, it's a biological determination, not a matter of choice.

MR. MEHLMAN: And that's--that may be, but the fact is that's irrelevant to question of the public definition of marriage. They're two totally different issues.

Actually most of the gays who voted for Bush agreed with Log Cabin Republicans principled stand withholding endorsement from Bush. The GayPatriot blog is a notable exception to this. Even hard core Bush apologists like Steven Miller supported Log Cabin Republicans decision to withhold endorsement from Bush. Many of the 23% of gays who voted for Bush did so despite Bush's position on the FMA not because of it - and do not disagree with Log Cabin on that issue. It didn't help that Kerry supported a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in Massachusetts.

Minnesotans for Marriage Claims Martin Luther King Supported Their Cause

From the comments to Craig Westover's post:

Chuck Darrell writes: Please don't marginalize by saying not all blacks agree with the comments of Starr, Thomas, Carter, Jackson, Hutcherson, and Martin Luther King. Let's just deal with the ideas set forth in Diversity of Mother and Father... and Kersten's quote of Starr Parker.

Chuck - I don't recall the late Martin Luther King commenting on this issue, since it wasn't an issue when he was alive. King's chief right hand man, Bayard Rustkin, the brains behind the 1963 March on Washington where King gave the "I have a Dream" speech was gay - and was targeted for this by the FBI - and King was fully aware of this, and did not get rid of him over this. I'd just like to challenge you to provide a specific quote and source to back up your claim.

Ward Connerly, a well known black conservative who is most well known for his principled opposition to affirmative action strongly and publically opposed California's proposition 6 - which was a referendum to ban gay marriage. John Lewis, a leading black liberal in congress has written in support of gay marriage.

It will be interesting to see if Chuck Darrell responds.

Steve Miller on Bush Nominee William Pryor - Blame the Democrats

Steve Miller, Bush Apologist at the Independent Gay Forum is blaming the Democrats for the pending approval of the anti-gay William Pryor for appellate court. It was Bush who nominated the man.

My Point (and I Do Have One).
My third attempt to get a letter published in the Washington Blade countering their oft-repeated misrepresentation of a ruling by California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown has succeeded, after I directly asked editor Chris Crain to allow it to run. Chris, apparently, is more willing than his letters editor to allow different points of view to be expressed, for which I am appreciative. Still, the preponderance of gay media will continue to robotically repeat the Democrats' talking points against Brown, no matter how distorted their charges are.

Speaking of Blade editor Crain, he has a nice editorial in this week's issue on the Democrats acquiescence to the appellate nomination of a true anti-gay bigot, William Pryor, and the lackluster response from Washington's leading gay political lobbies. Crain writes:

It is not the job of a civil rights movement to offer political cover at crunch time. Conservative groups understand this and never scream more loudly than at their own allies when they waiver.

But as I've often said, too many of our activists are Democratic Party loyalists first and foremost, and the rest of us let them get away with it.
-- Stephen H. Miller

Log Cabin Republicans is doing the right thing:

William Pryor has gone out of his way to oppose equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans. He authored an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court defending Texas's discriminatory statute, and in particular a state's interest in singling out same-sex relationships for punishment, even though his own state's statute made no distinction between same and opposite-sex relationships. Pryor's brief compared same-sex relationships to pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia. The Court rejected Mr. Pryor's argument that gay and lesbian Americans may be branded as criminals because some in a state disapprove of them. In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Anthony Kennedy—who was appointed by President Reagan—dismissed as "demeaning" the arguments that Mr. Pryor made before the Court. Mr. Pryor advances a jurisprudence that is profoundly out of step with American legal thinking.

William Pryor has repeatedly made references to the Roe v. Wade decision as "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history." In a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Pryor again reiterated his belief stating he opposed the decision as being "morally wrong"; this decision was not based on legal reasoning. He has referred to the 1973 decision as 'the day seven members of our highest court ripped the Constitution and ripped out the life of millions of unborn children.' He does not believe in abortion, even in cases of rape or incest; a view out of step with the majority of Americans.

"Nominees like William Pryor, with a record of pre-formed, inflexible ideals do not rise to the standard set by President Bush during the last election," said Stockman. "Based on his own testimony no one can reasonably believe that Mr. Pryor will respect established law and practice judicial temperament untainted by personal prejudice. This is a lifetime appointment to our federal court system, an un-elected body that relies on its integrity to maintain the trust of the people. Judicial activists do not have the temperament to hold that trust."

Republican Majority for Choice and Log Cabin Republicans are launching an aggressive lobbying and grassroots effort to urge Republicans in the Senate to oppose Mr. Pryor's nomination. "We urge all fair-minded Republicans to contact their Senator today and tell them to oppose William Pryor's nomination," said Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron.

I added this comment to Steve's post:

Steve, why don't you urge people to write their Senators - especially moderate republicans - including John Warner - who is your senator - urging them to reject Pryor's nomination.

I'm sorry, that nomination isn't the Democrats fault - it's Bush's.

Log Cabin Republicans has done that. Where are you? Have you called or written Warner? What about Allen? They are your Senators.
Eva Young

When Gay Bush appologists such as Steven Miller and GayPatriotWest blame the Democrats, rather than writing public letters to Bush and Republican Senators requesting an opposition vote in that up or down vote on Pryor, then they are enabling a vote in favor or Pryor in the Senate.

Is Bush's appellate court nominee Janice Rogers Brown Anti-Gay?

Steve Miller says no:

The Distortion of Justice Brown's Record
The gay media, following the lead of Democratic activists, keeps repeating the canard about Califronia Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown supposedly "anti-gay" adoption ruling. So I hereby repeat my defense.

In Sharon S. v. Superior Court, a convoluted case in which the biological mother and her partner had broken up and now opposed each other in court, Brown wrote that second-parent adoptions ought to require "a legal relationship between the birth and second parent," or else it would "trivialize family bonds." And, in fact, California's 2001 law affords registered domestic partners the same streamlined adoption process as stepparents. What Brown was saying is that the state need not create another right to adopt for two individuals with no such legal bond, and that legislators recognized this when they allowed registered domestic partners to adopt.

As reported by the American Bar Association Journal (Aug. 8, 2003), one of the lawyers in this case, Charles A. Bird, argued that same-sex couples "who for whatever reason don't want to register as domestic partners" should be allowed to enter into second-parent adoptions. That is the position Brown was rejecting, which is not the impression given by the gay media attacks, which follow the talking points of liberal activists who oppose her nomination to the federal bench.
-- Stephen H. Miller

His commenters disagree:

The 2001 domestic partnership law was not at issue in Sharon S. because it was enacted after all the relevant events of the case.

The question was whether dozens and dozens of same-sex second-parent adoptions that took place before that law under the state's regular adoption law were valid. Judge Brown bent over backwards to essentially vote to void them all with untold consequences for all those California families.

If you're looking for pro-gay conservative spin, Mr. Miller has provided it. If, however, you're actually wondering whether you should be concerned about the nomination of Judge Brown, you should not take comfort from Miller's spin.

Since the vast majority of states provide no law similar to the 2001 domestic partnership law in California, it seems fair to infer that Judge Brown, as a federal judge, would be hostile to adoption by same-sex couples generally since, in her view, the absence of a legal relationship between the same-sex partners makes adoption somehow inappropriate.
Stephen Clark