This Week:

Quote of the Week

Nygaard Notes: Why It's So Great (and Why You Want to Make A Pledge)

Off the Front Page: Top Lawman Says "We'll Break the Law"

Oh, Yeah, I Also Read These Things
Big Bird A Trojan Horse in Indonesia
Fees for the Poor, Tax Cuts for the Rich
A Note of Hope from Iraq
"Minnesota Guy" Opposes Gay Marriage Amendment

Greetings,

THE PLEDGE DRIVE CONTINUES.  The goal is 13 new pledgers, and three new pledges have already been received.  So we're still seeking 10 new pledgers.  The second week is often the best one for Pledge receipts, so get your pledge in today!  As soon as the 13 have been received, the Pledge Drive ends.  Incentive!

For people who have already pledged, or who know they are not going to do so right now, just skip the pledge-related article and go to straight to the regular outstanding stuff.  I made it a double issue this week to accommodate everyone's needs!

CORRECTION: Last week I gave the wrong zip code for my P.O. Box.  So, if you sent in your pledge to Nygaard Notes, P.O. Box 14354, Minneapolis, MN 55414, you're fine.  However, if you sent it to the zip code I gave you last week (55454) it probably will take a while to get here, if it ever does.  MY APOLOGIES.  If you did send something to the other zip code, maybe you should email me, and I can tell you when it gets here.

Of course, if you use the handy-dandy PayPal system and pay online, then you don't have to worry about this stuff.

Welcome to the new readers to the Notes!  Some of you may have signed up because you saw my editorial in the Star Tribune on the so-called "gay marriage amendment."  That editorial was shortened to fit in the Star Trib.  A longer version appears in this edition of the Notes.

And THANK YOU to those of you who sent in your new pledge AND to those of you who used the occasion of the Pledge Drive to renew your pledge early.  That's very helpful, as it saves time and money.  It's nice when you renew early.  THANKS!

Until next week,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

A not-very-widely reported story on April 5th had to do with how the Bush Administration's zealous--some might say fanatical--promotion of "abstinence" as an AIDS-prevention strategy is undermining global AIDS-prevention efforts.  No story mentioned that this outcome was widely predicted by experts in the field.  Here is the lead paragraph from the Washington Post, page 3:

"The requirement that a large fraction of President Bush's global AIDS plan go to promote abstinence and fidelity is causing confusion in many countries and in a few is eroding other prevention efforts, including ones to reduce mother-to-child transmission of the virus.  Those are among the chief conclusions of an 87-page report by the Government Accountability Office that examined the most controversial aspect of the giant AIDS plan, budgeted at $15 billion over five years."

If you'd like to read the report, you can find it online, in PDF format, at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06395.pdf

Nygaard Notes: Why It's So Great (and Why You Want to Make A Pledge)

In the first few days of the Nygaard Notes Pledge Drive there have only been three new pledgers, so I can see that I have to continue reminding people of how valuable and unique the Notes is to you.  This article gives a few reminders of why, as one reader put it, Nygaard Notes "offers some unusual insights not found elsewhere."

One of the things that is unique about the Notes is the breadth of subjects covered.  In case you forgot, here is a PARTIAL list of things that have appeared in these pages during 2005 and early 2006:

I did a lot on Hurricane Katrina in the fall, with headlines like Emotions and the News and "Some of Us Did Not Realize this America Existed" Race, Class, and Hurricanes and "Operation Offset" - The "Conservative Response" to Katrina and Hurricane Response I: The "Domestic Security Initiative" and Hurricane Response II: "An Unnatural Disaster" and Grassroots Hurricane Relief, and Beyond.  That set of articles, I think, is typical of Nygaard Notes: Some media criticism, some discussion of the dominant political philosophies and ideologies of the day, some simple reporting of unreported facts, and some prodding and practical help for people who want to take action.  That's Nygaard Notes for you.

/Don't you feel the urge to make a pledge of support to a newsletter like this?/

Several major series' have appeared in the pages of Nygaard Notes in the past year.  It was about one year ago that I did a major series called the "Fantasy Versus Reality" series, focusing on teen sex, teen drug use, and teen crime, a version of which appeared in the national "Z magazine."  In May and June I did an extended series on Social Security.  The year 2005 ended with the Propaganda Series, which went into "The What, Who, Where, When, How, and Why of Propaganda."  Just concluded last month was my mini-series on media coverage of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.  That may also appear elsewhere if I can find the time to shop it around.

Finding that sort of time, by the way, is a function of how many NEW PLEDGES I get!

Of course, there was much, much more about Iraq in these pages than that one series.  Here are just a few headlines that you might remember: "Progress" and "Problems" With the Imperial Occupation and 10 Attacks.  Or 25 Attacks.  Or 40, 50, 100 Attacks.  Or Whatever and Massive Theft in Iraq.

Here are a few other amazing things that you saw in Nygaard Notes over the past year-plus:
* A note on the political power of the Salvation Army;
* Tips on learning empathy and why it's important;
* Facts about the Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and why they are ALL illegal;
* Other thoughts on treaties and law, both international law and U.S. law;
* Analysis of the U.S. government's relations with (and media coverage of) Venezuela, Colombia, and Bolivia;
* A different take on the media coverage of the disappearance of Alabama teenager Natalee Holloway;
* The imminent return of nuclear energy in this country;
* Why "Free Trade" is not about "freedom."

What if you pledged just one dollar for every article that helped you think about something you hadn't thought about before?

And who can forget the number of features I had on reports and studies that didn't make it into the media.  I reported on:
* The Millennium Development Goals;
* The United Nations Children's Fund study "The State of the World's Children";
* The Human Security Report (which showed a "dramatic decline in the number of wars" in recent years);
* The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment from the United Nations Environmental Programme;
* A state-by-state analysis of income trends by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities called *"Pulling Apart";
* Another state-by-state report on children and poverty from the National Center for Children in Poverty;
* The 12th Annual CEO Compensation Survey;

If you hadn't read Nygaard Notes, how many of these would you have missed?  Sounds like a good reason to send in a pledge of support!

As always, Nygaard Notes had a lot about the media and how to use it (or protect oneself from it!)  My piece on "Mind-Reading and Propaganda" was about how journalists often report things they cannot know.  I ran two pieces on "Reporting Lies," about the responsibilities of journalists when their sources are lying to them.  And there was so much more, but I don't have room for it all!

And, finally, I just introduced a new feature called OFP (Off the Front Page), which is aimed at helping people think for themselves when using media, and not just accepting the interpretation of some editor somewhere whose name they don't even know.

Nygaard Notes is media that helps you use the media.  Worthy of support!

Whew!  This isn't even the half of it!  Add your own favorites!  Wouldn't you feel really good if YOU were among the forward-thinking supporters of independent media that actually pledged MONEY to help keep this amazing project going?  Well, you can be among this distinguished crowd.  Two ways to do it:
1.  Go right now to http://www.nygaardnotes.org/ and pledge ONLINE, or
2.  Get out an envelope, make out a check to Nygaard Notes, and mail it to:

Nygaard Notes
P.O. Box 14354
Minneapolis, MN 55414

That's all there is to it.  Let's make this second week a good one!  10 pledges needed to make the goal.  Will YOU be one of them?  I hope so.  Thank you!

NOTE: I put the wrong zip code in my address last week - 55454 is the one you saw.  But the one above, which is also at the end of every email issue of the Notes - 55414 - is the correct one.  If you sent a check to the wrong zip code, maybe you should email me, so I can tell you if it never gets here.  Thanks to reader Rebecca for catching the error!

Off the Front Page: Top Lawman Says "We'll Break the Law"

On April 7th the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) ran a story on the bottom of page 7 reporting that the Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, had been asked in a House Judiciary Committee hearing the day before whether the administration could listen in on purely domestic calls (as opposed to calls where one party is abroad).  Gonzales said, "I'm not going to rule it out."

As the Washington Post reported it (and as it appeared in the Star Trib), this would be "a move that would dramatically expand the reach of a controversial National Security Agency surveillance program."

Interesting word, "controversial."  When the Federal Government brazenly violates federal law and then testifies that it intends to do so even more brazenly, this is "controversial"?  There's the  Liberal Media for you!

The Progressive Magazine online called the intent revealed by Gonzales "a potentially huge expansion of the Bush Administration's lawless spying that violates both [U.S. law] and the Fourth Amendment."  The word they use to describe the nation's top lawmaker refusing to "rule out" the breaking of the law by the Federal government is "bombshell."  The word I would use is "Front-Page."

Oh, Yeah, I Also Read These Things

I should have warned you when I sent out last week's issue that I was expecting to forget one or more sources of information in my list of "What Nygaard Reads."  So, for the record, here are a couple of rather important sources that I inexplicably forgot:

The local email list called "Progressive Calendar," which comes out about 18 times a week (actually, 5-6 times/week) is a must-read for activists or others who want to know what various activists are doing in the Twin Cities area.  It doesn't have everything, but it has a lot.

Another really useful daily listserv that I've been getting for a while is the "Global Net News Summary."  I don't remember how I found it, nor how I got on the list, but it's good--2-3 items per day.

I'm sure there are other things that I forgot, as well.  I'll mention them as they come up.  One reader asked me to write up a one-page summary and make it available to readers.  I'll try to do that.

Big Bird A Trojan Horse in Indonesia

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Indonesia on March 14, where she "praised its government for setting an example of 'moderation, tolerance and inclusiveness,'" reports the Washington Post. Amnesty International, on the other hand, says that Indonesian police in 2005 "resorted to excessive force in responding to protests and when carrying out arrests.  Dozens of people were arrested, detained and tried under 'anti-terrorism' legislation.  Justice for past human rights violations remained elusive..."

While Ms. Rice was there, she announced that the U.S. will provide $8 million to fund an Indonesian version of Sesame Street, complete with puppets wearing Islamic veils.  A spokesman for the Islamic Council of Indonesia, according to The Australian of March 15th, "said the U.S. donations for education in Indonesia were obviously an attempt at propaganda, and an attempt to bend the curriculum to suit U.S. ideas."  No news report mentioned that the 2007 budget proposed by the Bush administration would cut the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) by more than $53 million.  CBP provides "major funding" for Sesame Street in this country, as you might know if you watch the show.

The Secretary of State, according to the Post, "suggested that the United States is sometimes misunderstood..."  She went on to tell the Indonesians that "I understand that the United States has had to do things in the world that have not been popular."

Understatement?  A spokesman for the Islamic Council of Indonesia was quoted saying that Dr. Rice's visit was a "disaster for Indonesia."

Fees for the Poor, Tax Cuts for the Rich

There was a remarkable Page One story in the March 9th New York Times with the headline  "New York Asks Poor to Ante Up In Housing Crisis."  The first paragraph sums things up pretty well, saying, "The New York City Housing Authority, landlord to more than 400,000 poor New Yorkers, is facing a budget shortfall of $168 million and has proposed narrowing the gap by charging residents new fees and increasing old ones..."  The Authority "has proposed charging tenants $5.75 a month to run a washing machine, $5 a month to operate a dishwasher, $10 a month for a separate freezer. Parking fees will rise to $75 from $5 a year on April 1."  In addition, "The Authority plans to raise existing fees for dozens of services..."

"Saul Ramirez, executive director of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, traced the budget shortfall to 'a steady disinvestment' in public housing at the federal level. 'Obviously,' he said, 'there has been a decline that has gotten to a critical point in the area of operations."

The Times reports that "Continuing [federal] cost cuts are likely to have a profound effect around the country, with the nation's 1.2 million units of public housing in danger of deteriorating, housing experts fear."

The Times reported one month earlier (February 7th) that the 2007 White House budget "calls for nearly $300 billion in tax cuts over the next five years, and $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years."

A Note of Hope from Iraq e

Here's an item from the "It Depends on What You Read" bin.  This is from an email sent on March 3, 2006 by a member of the Christian Peacemaker Team in Iraq, (thanks to Martha in Vancouver for sending!):

"Contrary to the New York Times' focus on ethnic hatred, sectarian violence, and civil war, we receive news that almost all the world media ignores.  A good friend of the Team has taken on the role of the roving reporter and calls us daily with stories of Sunni/Shia unity, cries for peace, and deep passion of all Iraqis to live as one family. In neighborhoods that have been hotbeds of violence in the past, we hear of Sunni and Shia working together to repair and rebuild some of the damaged mosques.  We are told of Shia neighbors who gather to protect Sunni mosques.  In a Basrah shrine, Sunni and Shia gather to pray together.  

"While people in power work to manipulate events and pit one group against another, military advisors trained in counterinsurgency plot terror campaigns behind closed doors and government officials rise one day and fall the next, thousands of heroic acts of love and kindness amongst the people in this tattered country go on unnoticed by most of the world.  There is still a grassroots movement to build a decent Iraqi society."

"Minnesota Guy" Opposes Gay Marriage Amendment

[This is a longer version of an editorial that appeared last week in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities! -- http://www.startribune.com/562/story/350993.html) and, I'm told, in some other newspapers around Minnesota.  I am reprinting the editorial here because this is a big issue in many other states, because many readers of the Notes do not read the Star Tribune, and because I've heard from a lot of people that this is worth reading.  Nygaard]

It would seem like the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Minnesota would not affect me, a middle-aged, Norwegian-American, heterosexual man who grew up in rural Minnesota.  I live with my life partner, a woman, with whom I have been in a wonderful, stable relationship for over 21 years.  But the amendment would affect us, and we oppose it strongly.  Here are a few reasons why a stereotypical "Minnesota guy" disagrees with State Senator Michele Bachmann when she says that the gay-marriage amendment is "one of the most uniting issues of our day."

The proposed amendment would read: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.  Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent by the state or any of its political subdivisions."

That's pretty broad language--pretty vague, too--and it frightens me.  Especially when I know that one of the groups in support of the amendment believes that marriage is defined as "A man and a woman [who] commit themselves ... to the wondrous responsibility of bringing children into the world..."

My partner and I, in addition to not being legally married, have chosen not to have children.  So who's to say that the courts won't decide at some point that our lack of children means that our relationship is not legally a "union," even if we are "one man and one woman?"  After all, what is a "union" and how, exactly, would we prove to the State that we are "united?"  Under this amendment, we could conceivably be forced to provide videotapes of...something...as proof of...something...to the State of Minnesota if we want to claim legal rights.

So, why don't we just get married?  After all, being legally married would give us all sorts of rights and privileges that we don't have now--better insurance, inheritance rights, rights to pension and health benefits, and much more.  We know all that, but we also know that Minnesota law already says that our numerous lesbian and gay friends are legally barred from getting married.  For us, then, using our privilege as heterosexuals would feel like joining a "whites only" country club.  And, what would our wedding invitation say?  "Please join us in celebrating our entrance into a joyful realm from which you are legally forbidden?"  I just can't do that.

More broadly, I worry that the vague language of the amendment could be used--as it has been in other states--to attempt to get rid of domestic partnership laws and other attempts to recognize the increasingly diverse ways that people organize their personal lives.  These are things that benefit me and people like me.

This amendment would put language into the Constitution that limits rights.  But one of the points of a Constitution is to protect the rights of minorities within a majority-rule system.  Gays and lesbians are not the only minorities, after all.  If it's OK to limit  the rights of one group, why would any other group be safe?  Like, for example, childless couples.  Or immigrants.  Or people with disabilities.  Or...??

What we call "marriage" is both a civil institution--having to do with politics, economics, taxes, and so forth--and a religious institution.  Freedom of religion says that people can believe whatever they like, and include or exclude whomever they like from whatever they like, including marriage.  But the power of the state is a different thing, especially in a diverse society.  I don't want my state to say that one way of living or loving is legitimate and other ways are not.  The government is supposed to serve everyone.

Not everybody wants to get married, but a choice to live in a different kind of way is not an "attack" on marriage.  More rights and respect for our wonderfully diverse population doesn't take away rights and respect from anyone.  That's just basic solidarity: When everyone is better off, then everyone is better off.  It's not a "zero-sum" game.

I suppose it's possible Senator Bachmann is right when she says that this campaign to ban gay marriage is a "uniter" for a majority of the state's citizens at the moment, but the essence of the effort is to divide us.  The reality is that, whatever the law says or whatever the Constitution says, the choices that people make about who to love, who to have sex with, who to set up households with, and who to raise children with are very personal decisions.

I think that what really unites Minnesotans is a desire to have stable households filled with people happily living as they choose and hurting no one.  If I'm right, then the state's responsibility should be to expand the possibilities in order to accommodate the diverse ways that people actually live, not to try to limit or criminalize them.

The truth is that we can celebrate our wonderful diversity by legally honoring all loving relationships.  People in their churches or synagogues or mosques can honor and worship however they like.  But the effect--if not the intent--of writing limitations on marriage into the Constitution would be to say that some people are "us" and some people are "them."  I don't believe that.  I believe that we're all "us"--gay, straight, old, young, single, married, whatever--and I want my state's Constitution to affirm that, not deny it.