Aid received, per capita, in 2007, in $ of Official Development Assistance per person. Note that grey countries can either be non-recipients or ones for which data is unavailable. The data were converted into dollars using exchange rates, hence may not accurately reflect the purchasing power of the foreign aid received.^[1]

In international relations, aid (also known as international aid, overseas aid, or foreign aid) is a voluntary transfer of resources from one country to another, given at least partly with the objective of benefiting the recipient country.^[2] It may have other functions as well: it may be given as a signal of diplomatic approval, or to strengthen a military ally, to reward a government for behaviour desired by the donor, to extend the donor's cultural influence, to provide infrastructure needed by the donor for resource extraction from the recipient country, or to gain other kinds of commercial access.^[3] Humanitarianism and altruism are, nevertheless, significant motivations for the giving of aid.^[4]

Aid may be given by individuals, private organisations, or governments. Standards delimiting exactly the kinds of transfers that count as aid vary. For example, aid figures may or may not include transfers for military use: to cite one instance, the United States included military assistance in its aid figure until 1957 but no longer does.^[5] The most widely used measure of aid, "Official Development Assistance" (ODA) is such a figure. It is compiled by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The United Nations, the World Bank, and many scholars use the DAC's ODA figure as their main aid figure because it is easily available and reasonably consistently calculated over time and between countries.^[6] The DAC consists of 22 of the wealthiest Western industrialised countries plus the EU; it is a forum in which they coordinate their aid policies.

Types[link]

Humanitarian aid[link]

Humanitarian aid or emergency aid is rapid assistance given to people in immediate distress by individuals, organisations, or governments to relieve suffering, during and after man-made emergencies (like wars) and natural disasters. The term often carries an international connotation, but this is not always the case. It is often distinguished from development aid by being focussed on relieving suffering caused by natural disaster or conflict, rather than removing the root causes of poverty or vulnerability.

U.S. Soldiers unload humanitarian aid for distribution to the town of Rajan Kala, Afghanistan, Dec. 5, 2009

The provision of humanitarian aid or humanitarian response consists of the provision of vital services (such as food aid to prevent starvation) by aid agencies, and the provision of funding or in-kind services (like logistics or transport), usually through aid agencies or the government of the affected country. Humanitarian aid is distinguished from humanitarian intervention, which involves armed forces protecting civilians from violent oppression or genocide by state-supported actors.

The Geneva Conventions give a mandate to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other impartial humanitarian organizations to provide assistance and protection of civilians during times of war. The ICRC, has been given a special role by the Geneva Conventions with respect to the visiting and monitoring of prisoners of war.

The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) is mandated to coordinate the international humanitarian response to a natural disaster or complex emergency acting on the basis of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 46/182.

The Sphere Project handbook, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, which was produced by a coalition of leading non-governmental humanitarian agencies, lists the following principles of humanitarian action:

1. The right to live with dignity.
2. The distinction between combatant and non-combatants.
3. The principle of non-refoulement.

Development aid[link]

Official Development Assistance (ODA) measured in GNI in 2009. Source: OECD

Development aid is aid given by developed countries to support development in general which can be economic development or social development in developing countries. It is distinguished from humanitarian aid as being aimed at alleviating poverty in the long term, rather than alleviating suffering in the short term.

Official Development Assistance (ODA), mentioned above, is a commonly used measure of developmental aid. Development aid is given by governments through individual countries' international aid agencies and through multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, and by individuals through development charities such as ActionAid, Caritas, Care International or Oxfam.

The offer to give development aid has to be understood in the context of the Cold War. The speech in which Harry Truman announced the foundation of NATO is also a fundamental document of development policy:

In addition, we will provide military advice and equipment to free nations which will cooperate with us in the maintenance of peace and security. Fourth, we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas. For the first time in history, humanity possesses the knowledge and skill to relieve the suffering of these people.

Sources[link]

Aid from various sources can reach recipients through bilateral or multilateral delivery systems. Bilateral refers to government to government transfers. Multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank or UNICEF, pool aid from one or more sources and disperse it among many recipients.

• Official Development Assistance (ODA): Development aid provided to developing countries (on the "Part I" list) with the clear aim of economic development
• Official Aid (OD): Development aid provided to developed countries (on the "Part II" list) and international organizations
• Other Official Flows (OOF): Aid which does not fall into the other two categories, either because it is not aimed at development, or it consists of more than 75% loan (rather than grant).

Aid is often pledged at one point in time, but disbursements (financial transfers) might not arrive until later.

Private giving[link]

Private giving includes aid from charities, philanthropic organizations or businesses to recipient countries or programs within recipient counties.

What is excluded[link]

Most monetary flows between nations are not counted as aid. These include market based flows such as foreign direct investments and portfolio investments. Remittances from migrant workers to their home countries are not counted in aid numbers even though, by volume, it is twice as large as what is counted as aid.^[7] Additionally, military support is not counted.

Receiving aid[link]

Types[link]

• Project aid: Aid is given for a specific purpose e.g. building materials for a new school.
• Programme aid: Aid is given for a specific sector e.g. funding of the education sector of a country.
• Budget support: A form of Programme Aid that is directly channelled into the financial system of the recipient country.
• Sector-wide Approaches (SWAPs): A combination of Project aid and Programme aid/Budget Support e.g. support for the education sector in a country will include both funding of education projects (like school buildings) and provide funds to maintain them (like school books).
• Technical assistance: Educated personnel, such as doctors are moved into developing countries to assist with a program of development. Can be both programme and project aid.
• Food aid: Food is given to countries in urgent need of food supplies, especially if they have just experienced a natural disaster. Food aid can be provided by importing food from the donor, buying food locally, or providing cash.
• International research, such as research that went into the green revolution and many vaccines.

Aid conditionality[link]

A major proportion of aid from donor nations is tied, mandating that a receiving nation spend on products and expertise originating only from the donor country. ^[8] For example, Eritrea is forced to spend aid money on foreign goods and services to build a network of railways even though it is cheaper to use local expertise and resources.^[8] US law requires food aid be spent on buying food at home, instead of where the hungry live, and, as a result, half of what is spent is used on transport.^[9] Oxfam America and American Jewish World Service report that reforming US food aid programs could extend food aid to an additional 17.1 million people around the world.^[10]

The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as primary holders of developing countries' debt, attach structural adjustment conditionalities to loans which generally include the elimination of state subsidies and the privatization of state services. For example, the World Bank presses poor nations to eliminate subsidies for fertilizer even while many farmers cannot afford them at market prices.^[11] In the case of Malawi, almost five million of its 13 million people used to need emergency food aid. However, after the government changed policy and subsidies for fertilizer and seed were introduced, farmers produced record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007 as production leaped to 3.4 million in 2007 from 1.2 million in 2005, making Malawi a major food exporter.^[11] In the former Soviet states, the reconfiguration of public financing in their transition to a market economy called for reduced spending on health and education, sharply increasing poverty.^[12][13][14]

Criticism of aid[link]

Aid is seldom given from motives of pure altruism; for instance it is often given as a means of supporting an ally in international politics. It may also be given with the intention of influencing the political process in the receiving nation. Whether one considers such aid helpful may depend on whether one agrees with the agenda being pursued by the donor nation in a particular case. During the conflict between communism and capitalism in the twentieth century, the champions of those ideologies, the Soviet Union and the United States, each used aid to influence the internal politics of other nations, and to support their weaker allies. Perhaps the most notable example was the Marshall Plan by which the United States, largely successfully, sought to pull European nations toward capitalism and away from communism. Aid to underdeveloped countries has sometimes been criticized as being more in the interest of the donor than the recipient, or even a form of neocolonialism.^[15]

Marshall Plan aid to Germany, West Berlin, 1949

S.K.B'. Asante lists some specific motives a donor may have for giving aid: defense support, market expansion, foreign investment, missionary enterprise, cultural extension.^[16] In recent decades, aid by organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank has been criticized as being primarily a tool used to open new areas up to global capitalists, and being only secondarily, if at all, concerned with the wellbeing of the people in the recipient countries.

Besides criticism of motive, aid may be criticized simply on the grounds that it is not effective: i.e., it did not do what it was intended to do or help the people it was intended to help. This is essentially an economic criticism of aid. The two types of criticism are not entirely separate: critics of the ideology behind a piece of aid are likely to see it as ineffective; and indeed, ineffectiveness must imply some flaws in the ideology. Statistical studies have produced widely differing assessments of the correlation between aid and economic growth, and no firm consensus has emerged to suggest that foreign aid generally does boost growth. Some studies find a positive correlation, but others find either no correlation or a negative correlation. In the case of Africa, Asante (1985) gives the following assessment:

Summing up the experience of African countries both at the national and at the regional levels it is no exaggeration to suggest that, on balance, foreign assistance, especially foreign capitalism, has been somewhat deleterious to African development. It must be admitted, however, that the pattern of development is complex and the effect upon it of foreign assistance is still not clearly determined. But the limited evidence available suggests that the forms in which foreign resources have been extended to Africa over the past twenty-five years, insofar as they are concerned with economic development, are, to a great extent, counterproductive.^[17]

The economist William Easterly and others have argued that aid can often distort incentives in poor countries in various harmful ways. Aid can also involve inflows of money to poor countries that have some similarities to inflows of money from natural resources that provoke the resource curse.^[18][19]

Many individuals^[20] and organizations criticize U.S. Aid. Emergency funds from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, for instance, are linked to a wide range of free-market policy prescriptions that some argue interfere in a country's sovereignty. Policy prescriptions from outsiders can do more harm as they might not fit the local environment. The IMF can be good at helping countries over a short problematic financial period, but for poor countries with long lasting issues it can cause harm.^{[citation needed]} In his book The White Man's Burden, Easterly argued that if the IMF only gave adjustment loans to countries that can repay it, instead of forgiving debts or lending repetitively even if conditions are not met, it would maintain its credibility.

In addition to the above criticisms, the logistics in which aid delivery occurs can be problematic. An earthquake in 2003 in Bam, Iran left tens of thousands of people in need of disaster zone aid. Although aid was flown in rapidly, regional belief systems, cultural backgrounds and even language seemed to have been omitted as a source of concern. Items such as religiously prohibited pork, and non-generic forms of medicine that lacked multilingual instructions came flooding in as relief. An implementation of aid can easily be problematic, causing more problems than it solves.^[21]

James Shikwati, a Kenyan economist, has argued that foreign aid causes harm to the recipient nations, specifically because aid is distributed by local politicians, finances the creation of corrupt government such as that led by Dr Fredrick Chiluba in Zambia bureaucracies, and hollows out the local economy. In an interview in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, Shikwati uses the example of food aid delivered to Kenya in the form of a shipment of corn from America. Portions of the corn may be diverted by corrupt politicians to their own tribes, or sold on the black market at prices that undercut local food producers. Similarly, Kenyan recipients of donated Western clothing will not buy clothing from local tailors, putting the tailors out of business.^[22] In an episode of 20/20, John Stossel demonstrated the existence of secret government bank accounts which concealed foreign aid money destined for private purposes.

Some believe that aid is offset by other economic programs such as agricultural subsidies. Mark Malloch Brown, former head of the United Nations Development Program, estimated that farm subsidies cost poor countries about US$50 billion a year in lost agricultural exports:

"It is the extraordinary distortion of global trade, where the West spends $360 billion a year on protecting its agriculture with a network of subsidies and tariffs that costs developing countries about US$50 billion in potential lost agricultural exports. Fifty billion dollars is the equivalent of today's level of development assistance."^[23][24]

Some have argued that the major international aid organizations have formed an aid cartel.^[25]

In response to aid critics, a movement to reform U.S. foreign aid has started to gain momentum. In the United States, leaders of this movement include the Center for Global Development, Oxfam America, the Brookings Institution, InterAction, and Bread for the World. The various organizations have united to call for a new Foreign Assistance Act, a national development strategy, and a new cabinet-level department for development.^[26]

Beyond aid[link]

As a result of these numerous criticisms, other proposals for supporting developing economies and poverty stricken societies. Some analysts, such as researchers at the Overseas Development Institute, argue that current support for the developing world suffers from a policy incoherence and that while some policies are designed to support the third world, other domestic policies undermine its impact,^[27] examples include:

• encouraging developing economies to develop their agriculture with a focus on exports is not effective on a global market where key players, such as the US and EU, heavily subsidise their products
• providing aid to developing economies' health sectors and the training of personnel is undermined by migration policies in developed countries that encourage the migration of skilled health professionals

One measure of this policy incoherence is the Commitment to Development Index (CDI) published by the Center for Global Development . The index measures and evaluates 22 of the world's richest countries on policies that affect developing countries, in addition to simply aid. It shows that development policy is more than just aid; it also takes into account trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology.

Thus, some states are beginning to go Beyond Aid and instead seek to ensure there is a policy coherence, for example see Common Agricultural Policy reform or Doha Development Round. This approach might see the nature of aid change from loans, debt cancellation, budget support etc., to supporting developing countries. This requires a strong political will, however, the results could potentially make aid far more effective and efficient.^[27]

Aid inefficiencies and possible improvements[link]

Aid destinations[link]

It is true that aid is rarely given for motives of pure altruism. However, it is important to look at where aid goes. For example, “only about one fifth of U.S. aid goes to countries classified by the OECD as ‘least developed.’”^[28] This “pro-rich” trend is not unique to the United States.^[28][29] According to Collier, “the middle income countries get aid because they are of much more commercial and political interest than the tiny markets and powerlessness of the bottom billion.”^[30] What this means is that, at the most basic level, aid is not targeting the most extreme poverty.^[28][29]

The form of aid must also be considered. The World Bank, until recently, issued only loans, meaning that the country must repay both the loan and the interest rates. In contrast, the European Commission issues grants, which countries need not worry about paying back. This means that “loans have been going to the poorest countries and the grants to the middle-income countries.”^[30]

Furthermore, consider the breakdown, where aid goes and for what purposes. In 2002, total gross foreign aid to all developing countries was $76 billion. Dollars that do not contribute to a country’s ability to support basic needs interventions are subtracted. Subtract $6 billion for debt relief grants. Subtract $11 billion, which is the amount developing countries paid to developed nations in that year in the form of loan repayments. Next, subtract the aid given to middle income countries, $16 billion. The remainder, $43 billion, is the amount that developing countries received in 2002. But only $12 billion went to low-income countries ($15 billion for all developing countries) in a form that could be deemed budget support for basic needs.^[29]

When aid is given to the Least Developed Countries who have good governments and strategic plans for the aid, it is thought that it is more effective.^[29]

Aid outcomes and implications[link]

The basic criticism of aid is that it neither goes where it was intended nor helps those intended. According to Collier, there are four known traps that contribute this problem. The first such trap is known as the conflict trap. Aid should not be used to finance military endeavors. It is difficult to “design aid in such a way that it works even in the environments of poor governance and poor policy that are most at risk of conflict.”^[30] The second trap is called the natural resource trap. Countries that are resource rich already have a large volume of capital flowing into their economies. However, it is not being used to its potential. The third trap occurs when a country is entirely landlocked, making it difficult for the country to engage in global trade.^[30]

The fourth trap is that of bad governance. However, “there are three ways in which aid can potentially help turnarounds: incentives, skills, and reinforcement.”^[30] Policy conditionalities, or structural adjustments, were reservations put on aid until a government agreed to aid implemented in the 1980s. This did not work. Aid needs to somehow provide incentives for giving the people power. Power needs to be transferred from the governments to the people.^[30] Aid should be restructured in order to allow for skills building in country. According to Collier, “technical assistance is not negligible – money spent on countries with the skilled people who constitute technical assistance is a quarter of total aid flows.”^[30] The problem is not that too little money is being provided, rather that technical assistance is not country specific. Aid is also given as budget support, reinforcement for failing states. There is an opportune moment for assisting failing states but it must be done at the right time. Aid cannot be continually poured into failing states and be expected to produce a turnaround. However if aid is given at the opportune political moment, it can support turnarounds. Collier suggests that when that moment occurs “pour in the technical assistance as quickly as possible to help implement reform” and “then, after a few years, start pouring in the money for the government to spend.”^[30]

Actual impact[link]

Peter Singer argues that over the last three decades, “aid has added around one percentage point to the annual growth rate of the bottom billion.” He argues that this has made the difference between “stagnation and severe cumulative decline.”^[28] Aid can make progress towards reducing poverty worldwide, or at least help prevent cumulative decline.

Improving the economic efficiency of aid[link]

Currently, donor institutions make proposals for aid packages to recipient countries. The recipient countries then make a plan for how to use the aid based on how much money has been given to them. Alternatively, NGO's receive funding from private sources or the government, and then implement plans to end their specific issues. In the views of many scholars, this system is inherently ineffective.^[29] If we hope to eliminate poverty, we must reexamine how we distribute funding, and how we attack problems.

According to Sachs, we should redefine how we think of aid. The first step should be to learn what developing countries hope to accomplish and how much money they need to accomplish those goals. Goals should be made with the Millennium Development Goals in mind for these furnish real metrics for providing basic needs. The “actual transfer of funds must be based on rigorous, country-specific plans that are developed through open and consultative processes, backed by good governance in the recipient countries, as well as careful planning and evaluation.”^[29]

Possibilities are also emerging as some developing countries are experiencing rapid economic growth, they are able to provide their own expertise gained from their recent transition. This knowledge transfer can be seen in donors, such as Brazil, whose $1 billion in aid outstrips that of many traditional donors.^[31] Brazil provides most of its aid in the form of technical expertise and knowledge transfers.^[31] This has been descried by some observers as a 'global model in waiting'.^[32]

Various academic theories[link]

Since the 1960s, improving the efficiency of foreign aid has been a common topic of academic research. There is debate on whether foreign aid is efficacious, but for the purposes of this article we will ignore that. Given that schema, a common debate is over which factors influence the overall economic efficiency of foreign aid. Indeed, there is debate about whether aid impact should be measured empirically at all, but again, we will limit our scope to increasing the economic efficiency.

Philosophy[link]

At the forefront of the aid debate has been the conflict between professor William Easterly of New York University ^[33] and his ideological opposite, Jeffrey Sachs, from Columbia University. Easterly advocates the "searcher's" approach, while Sachs advocates a more top down, broad planned approach. We will discuss both of these at length.^[34]

“Searchers Approach”[link]

William Easterly offers a nontraditional, and somewhat controversial “searching” approach to solving poverty, as opposed to the “planned” approach in his famous critique of the more traditional Owen/Sachs, The White Man’s Burden. Traditional poverty reduction, Easterly claims is based on the idea that we know what is best for those countries, which are impoverished. He claims that they know what’s best. Having a top down “master plan,” he claims, is inefficient. His alternative, called the “Searchers” approach, uses a bottom up strategy. That is, this approach starts by surveying the poor in the countries in question, and then tries to directly aid individuals, rather than governments. Local markets are a key incentive structure. The primary example is of Mosquito nets in Malawi. In this example, an NGO sells Mosquito nets to rich Malawians, and uses the profits to subsidize cheap sales to the impoverished. Hospital nurses are used as middle-women, profiting a few cents on every net sold to a patient. This incentive structure has seen the usage of nets in Malawi spike over 40% in less than 7 years.^[35]

Aspects of “Searcher’s Approach”[link]

Bottom up philosophy[link]

One of the central tenets in Easterly’s approach is a more bottom up philosophy of aid. This applies not only to the identification of problems, but to the actual distribution of capital to the areas in need. In effect, Easterly would have countries go to the area which needed aid, collect information about the problem, find out what the population wanted, and then work from there. In keeping with this, funds would also be distributed from the bottom up, rather than being given to a specific government.^[35]

Utilize aid organizations, and local frameworks[link]

Easterly also advocates working through currently existing Aid organizations, and letting them compete for funding. Utilizing preexisting national organizations and local frameworks would not only help give target populations a voice in implementation and goal setting, but is more efficient economically. Easterly argues that the preexisting frameworks already "know" what the problems are, as opposed to outside NGOs who tend to "guess". ^[35]

Aid individuals, not governments[link]

Easterly strongly discourages aid to government as a rule. He believes, for several reasons, that aid to small “bottom up” organizations and Individual groups is a better philosophy than to large governments.^[35]

Independent evaluation[link]

Easterly states that for far too long, inefficient aid organizations have been funded, and that this is a problem. The current system of evaluation for most aid organizations is internal. Easterly claims that the process is biased because organizations have a large incentive to represent their progress in a positive light. What he proposes as an alternative is an independent auditing system for aid organizations. Before receiving funding, the organization would state their goals and how they expect to measure and achieve them. If they do not meet their goals, Easterly proposes we shift our funding to organizations who are successful. This would prompt organizations to either become efficient, or obsolete.^[35]

Compartmentalized goals[link]

Easterly believes that aid goals should be small. In his opinion, one of the main failings of aid lies in the fact that we create large, utopian lists of things we hope to accomplish, without the means to actually see them to fruition. Rather than establish a utopian vision for a particular country, Easterly insists that we shift our focus to the most basic needs and improvements.If we feed, clothe, vaccinate, build infrastructure, and support markets, the macroscopic results will follow.^[35]

Use the market[link]

The “Searching Approach” is intrinsically tied to the market. Easterly claims that the only way for poverty to truly end is for the poor to be given the capability to lift themselves out of poverty, and then for it to happen. Philosophically, this sounds like the traditional “bootstrap” theory, but it isn’t. What he says is that the poor should be given the fiscal support to create their market, which would give them the ability to become self reliant in the future.^[35]

Ideas[link]

In the end of his book, Easterly proposes a voucher system for foreign aid. The poor would be distributed a certain amount of vouchers, which would act as currency, redeemable to aid organizations for services, medicines, and the like. These vouchers would then be redeemed by the aid organizations for more funding. In this way, the aid organization would be forced to compete, if by proxy.^[35]

Proscriptive "Ladder Approach"[link]

Sachs presents a near dichotomy to Easterly. Sachs presents a broad, proscriptive solution to poverty. In his book, The End of Poverty, he explains how throughout history, countries have ascended from poverty by following a relatively simple model. First, you promote agricultural development, then industrialize, embrace technology, and finally become modern. This is the standard “western” model of development that has been followed by countries such as China and India. Sachs main idea is that there should have a broad analytical “checklist” of things a country must attain before it can reach the next step on the ladder to development. Western nations should donate a percentage of their GDP as determined by the UN, and pump money into helping impoverished countries climb the ladder. Sachs insists that if followed, his strategy would eliminate poverty by 2025.

^[36]

Top down[link]

Sachs advocates using a top down methodology, utilizing broad ranging plans developed by external aid organizations like the UN and World Bank. To Sachs, these plans are essential to a coherent and timely eradication of poverty.He surmises that if donor and recipient countries follow the plan, they will be able to climb out of poverty.

^[36]

Use external framework[link]

Part of Sachs’ philosophy includes strengthening the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the United Nations. If those institutions are given the power to enact change, and freed from mitigating influences, then they will be much more effective. Sachs does not find fault in the international organizations themselves. Instead, he blames the member nations who compose them. The powerful nations of the world must make a commitment to end poverty, then stick to it.

^[36]

Aid through existing governments[link]

Sachs believes it is best to empower countries by utilizing their existing governments, rather than trying to circumnavigate them. He remarks that while the corruption argument is logically valid in that corruption harms the efficiency of aid, levels of corruption tend to be much higher on average for countries with low levels of GDP. He contends that this hurdle in government should not disqualify entire populations for much needed aid from the west.

^[36]

Self evaluation[link]

Sachs does not see the need for independent evaluators, and sees them as a detractor to proper progress. He argues that many facets of aid cannot be effectively quantified, and thus it is not fair to try to put empirical benchmarks on the effectiveness of aid.^[36]

Optimism[link]

Sachs’ view makes it a point to attack and attempt to disprove many of the ideas that the more “pessimistic” Easterly stands on.

First, he points to economic freedom. One of the common threads of logic In aid is that countries need to develop economically in order to rise from Poverty. On this, there is not a ton of debate. However, Sachs contends that Easterly, and many other neo-Liberal economists believe high levels of Economic freedom in these emerging markets is almost a necessity to Development. Sachs himself does not believe this. He cites the lack of Correlation between the average degrees of Economic Freedom in countries And their yearly GDP growth, which in his data set is completely Inconclusive.

Also, Sachs contends that democratization is not an integral part of having Efficient aid distribution. Rather than attach strings to our aid dollars, or only Working with democracies or “good governments”, Sachs believes we should Consider the type of government in the needy country as a secondary Concern.

Sachs’ entire approach stands on the assertion that abject poverty could be Ended worldwide by 2025.^[36]

Economic efficiency[link]

David Dollar[link]

Dollar/Collier showed that current allocations of aid are allocated inefficiently. They came to the conclusion that aid money is given in many cases as an incentive to change policy, and for political reasons, which in many cases can be less efficient than the optimal condition. They agree that bad policy is detrimental to economic growth, which is a key component of poverty reduction, but have found that aid dollars do not significantly incentivize governments to change policy. In fact, they have negligible impact. As an alternative, Dollar proposes that aid be funneled more towards countries with “good” policy and less than optimal amounts of aid for their massive amounts of poverty. With respect to “optimal amounts” Dollar calculated the marginal productivity of each additional dollar of foreign aid for the countries sampled, and saw that some countries had very high rates of marginal productivity (each dollar went further), while others [with particularly high amounts of aid, and lower levels of poverty] had low [and sometimes negative] levels of marginal productivity. In terms of economic efficiency, aid funding would be best allocated towards countries whose marginal productivities per dollar were highest, and away from those countries who had low to negative marginal productivities. The conclusion was that while an estimated 10 million people are lifted from poverty with current aid policies, that number could be increased to 19 million with efficient aid allocation.^[37]

Dalgaard[link]

In a followup study to Collier, Dalgaard finds that regardless of policies and utility, aid seems to be less efficient per dollar in the tropics. He states that aid dollars are likely to be just as effective anywhere, so there must be a mitigating externality that is not being accounted for.^[38]

“New Conditionality”[link]

New Conditionality is the term used in a paper to describe somewhat of a compromise between Dollar and Hansen. Paul Mosely describes how policy is important, and that aid distribution is improper. However, unlike Dollar, “New Conditionality” claims that the most important factors in efficiency of aid are income distributions in the recipient country and corruption.^[39]

McGillivray[link]

One of the problems in foreign aid allocation is the marginalization of the fragile state. The fragile state, with its high volatility, and risk of failure scares away donors. The people of those states feel harm and are marginalized as a result. Additionally, the fate of neighboring states is important, as economies of the directly adjacent states to those impoverished, volatile “fragile states” can be negatively impacted by as much as 1.6% of their GDP per year. This is no small figure. McGillivray advocates for the reduced volatility of aid flows, which can only be attained through analysis and coordination.^[40]

Beynon[link]

Beynon revisits Collier/Dollar’s “efficient aid allocation” and finds much of the same results, although he believes that the model needs to be more robust, with more samplings, and take into account other Millennium Development Goals.^[41]

Aid conditionality[link]

Aid often comes with conditions on its allocation. This is called Aid Conditionality. The two types of conditionality are Outcome and Process based conditionality. Outcome conditionality ties aid to a certain goal, while process conditionality ties aid to a certain method of implementation. These two forms of conditionality are often seen together. The problem with aid conditionality is that it not only restricts the local legislatures in how they shape their own country, but often removes local populations from the goal setting and decision making process entirely.^[42]

Academic research has shown that in many instances, aid is conditionally tied due to political motives, rather than notions of proper policy and implementation.

The European Union double standard of trade policy mentioned above is more illustrated in its trade with Latin America. In their April 2002 publication,Oxfarm Report reveals that aid tied to trade Liberalization by the donor countries such as the EU with the aim of achieving economic objective is becoming detrimental to developing countries.For example, the EU subsidizes its agricultural sectors in the expense of Latin America who must liberalize trade in order to qualify for aid. Latin America having, a comparative advantage on agriculture and mainly forms its export sector losts $ 4bn annually due to the EU farm subsidy policies. The aid money actually, instead of being used to finance other development infrastructure, ends up being used to fund terms of trade deficit brought about by trade liberalization. This inequalities and many others imposed upon developing countries have actually benefited the donor rather than the recipient.This cases clearly illustrate the evolution of development aid assistance from providing financial resource to fuel development to being a foreign policy tool used by donor countries to promote their domestic interests. while this can be considered controversial issues, addressing them adequately may help attain some effectiveness in development aid assistance goals.

Aid and UNSC votes[link]

Axel Dreher showed that over the period 1951-2004, there was a robust positive relationship between United Nations Security Council membership and participation in Internation Monetary Fund programs. Additionally, conditions placed on Security Council member nations' aid are lower in number and severity. ^[43] Member nations of the UNSC received on average .8 more World Bank loans per year. ^[44]

Aid conditionality and good governance[link]

Seemingly in support of Bill Easterly's searcher's approach, Carlos Santiso found evidence that conditionality is quite harmful to development, and advocates a "radical approach in which donors cede control to the recipient country".

Santiso also argues that neither good governance or democracy is sustainable without the other. ^[45]

See also[link]

• Debt relief
• Disability aid abroad
• Global Food Security Act of 2009
• International Aid Transparency Initiative
• Transparency International
• United States foreign aid

Notes and references[link]

Further reading[link]

• Moyo, Dambisa (2010). Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is Another Way for Africa. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-103118-7. 
• Riddell, Roger C. (2008). Does Foreign Aid Work?. Oxford University Press. ISBN [[Special:BookSources/97801995444462|97801995444462]]. 
• Banerjee, Abhijit Vinayak (2007). Making Aid Work. The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-02615-4. 
• Calderisi, Robert (2006). The Trouble with Africa: Why Foreign Aid Isn't Working. Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-7125-0. 
• Easterly, William (2006). The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Effort to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin. ISBN 1-59420-037-8. 
• Lancaster, Carol; Ann Van Dusen (2005). Organizing Foreign Aid: Confronting the Challenges of the 21st Century. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-5113-3. 
• Oxfam America (2008). Smart Development: Why US foreign aid demands major reform. Oxfam America, Inc.. http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/publications/briefing_papers/smart-development. 
• Sogge, David (2002). Give and Take: What's the Matter with Foreign Aid?. Zed Books. ISBN 1-84277-069-1. 
• [5] The cartel of good intentions, Foreign Policy, Washington, Jul/Aug 2002, Authors: William Easterly, Issue: 131, Pagination: 40-49, ISSN: 00157228

External links[link]

Jesse Ventura
38th Governor of Minnesota
In office January 8, 1999 – January 6, 2003
Lieutenant	Mae Schunk
Preceded by	Arne Carlson
Succeeded by	Tim Pawlenty
Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota
In office 1991–1995
Personal details
Born	James George Janos (1951-07-15) July 15, 1951 (age 60) Minneapolis, Minnesota
Political party	Reform Party (1999–2000) Independence Party of Minnesota (2000-present)
Spouse(s)	Terry Ventura
Children	Tyrel Ventura Jade Ventura
Profession	US Navy UDT Professional Wrestler Color commentator Actor Talk Show host Politician Author
Religion	None (atheist)[1]
Military service
Service/branch	United States Navy
Years of service	1969–1975
Rank	Storekeeper Third Class [2]
Unit	UDT 12 SEAL Team 1 (Reserve)[3]
Awards	National Defense Service Medal Vietnam Service Medal

James George Janos^[4] (born July 15, 1951), better known as Jesse Ventura, is an American statesman, actor, author, and former professional wrestler who served as the 38th Governor of Minnesota from 1999 to 2003.

Ventura served as a Navy UDT during the Vietnam War. He later embarked on an 11-year professional wrestling career from 1975 to 1986, taking up the stage name Jesse "The Body" Ventura. He had a long tenure in the World Wrestling Federation as a performer and color commentator, and was inducted into the company's Hall of Fame in 2004.^[4] After leaving wrestling, Ventura began a successful film career, appearing in films such as 1987's Predator.

Ventura first entered politics as Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota from 1991 to 1995. He ran as the Reform Party candidate in the Minnesota gubernatorial election of 1998, running a campaign centered on grassroots events and unusual ads that implored citizens not to "vote for politics as usual". The campaign was successful, and Ventura served from January 4, 1999, to January 6, 2003, without running for a second term.

After leaving office, Ventura became a visiting fellow at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He has also hosted a number of TV shows and has written several political books. Ventura currently lives in both Minnesota and Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.

Early life[link]

Ventura was born James George Janos on July 15, 1951^[5] in Minneapolis, the son of Bernice Martha (née Lenz) and George William Janos, both of whom were World War II veterans. Ventura has an older brother who served in Vietnam. His father's parents were from what is now Slovakia, and his mother was of German descent.^[6] Ventura has described himself as Slovak.^[7] Ventura was raised a Lutheran. Ventura (then still using his legal name of Janos) attended the now-closed Cooper Elementary School and graduated from Minneapolis' Roosevelt High School in 1969.

Navy career[link]

From September 11, 1969, to September 10, 1975, during the Vietnam War era, Ventura served in the United States Navy. Ventura graduated with BUD/S class 58 in December 1970^[8] and was part of Underwater Demolition Team 12^[9] and later as a reservist with SEAL Team 1.^[3]

Ventura has frequently referred to his military career in public statements and debates.^[10][11][12] He was criticized by hunters and conservationists for stating in an interview with the Minneapolis StarTribune in April 2001, "Until you have hunted men, you haven't hunted yet."^[12][13]

In January 2002, Ventura, who had never specifically claimed to have fought in Vietnam, disclosed for the first time that he did not see combat. He did not receive the Combat Action Ribbon, which was awarded to those involved in a firefight or who went on clandestine or special operations where the risk of enemy fire was great or expected. However, Ventura, who was stationed at Subic Bay in the Philippines, was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal, which was given to military personnel who took part in the contributions to the war effort in Vietnam.^[9]

Post Navy[link]

Near the end of his service in the Navy Ventura began to spend time with the "Dago" chapter of the outlaw motorcycle club the Mongols, in San Diego. He would ride onto Naval Base Coronado on his Harley-Davidson wearing his Mongol colors. According to Ventura he was a full-patch member of the club and even third in command of his chapter. While the club may have been involved in some criminal activity Ventura avoided any problems with the authorities.^[14][15][16]

In the fall of 1974, Ventura left the bike club to return to Minnesota. Shortly after his leaving, the Mongols entered into open warfare with their rivals the Hells Angels.^[14]

In Minnesota Ventura attended North Hennepin Community College in the mid-1970s.^[14] At the same time, he began weightlifting and wrestling. He was a bodyguard for The Rolling Stones for a short time before he ventured into professional wrestling and changed his name.^[17]

Professional wrestling career[link]

Early career[link]

He created the stage name Jesse "The Body" Ventura to go with the persona of a bully-ish beach bodybuilder, picking the name "Ventura" from a map as part of his "bleach blond from California" character.^[4] Ventura also picked the name Jesse, claiming he liked the name.^[20] As a wrestler, Ventura performed as a villain and often used the motto "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat!" Much of his flamboyant persona was adapted from "Superstar" Billy Graham, a charismatic and popular performer during the 1970s and '80s.^[4][21] Years later, as a broadcaster, Ventura made a running joke out of it claiming that Graham stole all of his ring attire ideas from him.

Singles and tag team success[link]

In 1975, Ventura made his debut in the Central States territory, before moving to the Pacific Northwest, where he wrestled for promoter Don Owen as Jesse "The Great" Ventura.^[4][21] Sometime later, he adopted the more permanent nickname, "The Body". During his stay in Portland, Oregon, he had notable feuds with Dutch Savage and Jimmy Snuka and won the Pacific Northwest Wrestling title twice (once from each wrestler), and the tag team title five times (twice each with Bull Ramos and "Playboy" Buddy Rose, and once with Jerry Oates). He later moved to his hometown promotion, the American Wrestling Association in Minnesota, and began teaming with Adrian Adonis as the "East-West Connection" in 1979.^[19][21] The duo won the promotion's World Tag Team Championship on July 20, 1980 on a forfeit when Verne Gagne, one-half of the tag team champions along with Mad Dog Vachon, failed to show up for a title defense in Denver, Colorado.^[4] The duo held the belts for nearly a year, losing to "The High Flyers" (Greg Gagne and Jim Brunzell).^[4]

Retirement and commentary[link]

Shortly after losing the belts, the duo moved on to the World Wrestling Federation, where they were managed by "Classy" Freddie Blassie.^[4] Although the duo was unable to capture the World Tag Team Championship, both Adonis and Ventura became singles title contenders, each earning several title shots at World Heavyweight Champion Bob Backlund.^[4]

Ventura continued to wrestle until September 1984, when blood clots in his lungs ended his in-ring career. Ventura claimed the blood clots were a result of his exposure to Agent Orange during his time in Vietnam.^[4][22] Ventura did return to the ring in 1985 forming a tag-team with "Macho Man" Randy Savage & Savage's manager Miss Elizabeth. Often after their televised matches Ventura would taunt and challenge fellow commentator Bruno Sammartino but nothing ever came of this. He also participated in a six-man tag team match in December 1985 as he, Roddy Piper, and "Cowboy" Bob Orton defeated Hillbilly Jim, Uncle Elmer, and Cousin Luke in a match which was broadcast on Saturday Night's Main Event.^[4] After a failed comeback bid, he began to do color commentary on television for All-Star Wrestling (replacing Angelo Mosca) and later Superstars of Wrestling (initially alongside Vince McMahon and Sammartino, and with McMahon after Sammartino's departure from the WWF in 1988), hosted his own talk segment on the WWF's Superstars of Wrestling called "The Body Shop", and did color commentary on radio for a few National Football League teams (among them, the Minnesota Vikings and Tampa Bay Buccaneers).^[4] Ventura most notably co-hosted Saturday Night's Main Event with Vince McMahon and the first six WrestleManias (1985–1990) and most of the WWF's pay-per-views at the time with Gorilla Monsoon (the lone exception for Ventura being the first SummerSlam, in which Ventura served as the guest referee during the main event). Following a dispute with Vince McMahon over the use of his image for promoting a Sega product, McMahon—who had a contract with rival company Nintendo at the time—released Ventura from the company in August 1990.^[23]

In February 1992 at SuperBrawl II, Ventura joined World Championship Wrestling as a commentator. His professional wrestling commentary style was an extension of his wrestling persona, as he was partial to the villains, which was something new and different at the time,^[4] but would still occasionally give credit where it was due, praising the athleticism of Dynamite Kid and Randy Savage (who was championed by Ventura for years, even when he was a fan favorite). The lone exception to this rule was the WrestleMania VI match between Hulk Hogan and the Ultimate Warrior. Since they were both crowd favorites, Ventura took a neutral position in his commentary; even praising Hogan's display of sportsmanship at the end of the match when he handed over the WWF Championship to the Warrior after he lost the title. The praise of Hogan's action was unusual for Ventura because he regularly rooted against Hogan during his matches. Hogan and Ventura were, at one point, close friends.^[24] Ventura, however, abruptly ended the friendship after he discovered, during his lawsuit against Vince McMahon, that Hogan was the one who had told Vince about Ventura's attempt to form a labor union in 1984.^[24] Ventura was released by WCW President Eric Bishoff for allegedly falling asleep during a WCW Worldwide TV taping at Disney MGM Studios in July 1994, though its been speculated the move may have had more to do with Hulk Hogan's arrival shortly before.^[4]

Litigation[link]

In 1987, while negotiating his contract as a WWF commentator, Ventura waived his rights to royalties on videotape sales when he was falsely told that only feature performers received such royalties. In 1991, having discovered that other non-feature performers received royalties, Ventura brought an action for fraud, misappropriation of publicity rights, and quantum meruit in Minnesota state court against Titan Sports. Titan removed the case to federal court, and Ventura won an $801,333 jury verdict on the last claim. The judgment was affirmed on appeal, and the case,^[25] 65 F.3d 725 (8th Cir.1995), is an important result in the law of restitution.

Return to the World Wrestling Federation / Entertainment[link]

In mid-1999, Ventura reappeared on WWF television during his term as Governor of Minnesota, acting as the special guest referee for main event of SummerSlam held in Minneapolis.^[4] Ventura would continue his relationship with the WWF by performing commentary for Vince McMahon's short-lived XFL.^[4] On the March 20, 2003 episode of SmackDown!, Ventura appeared in a taped interview to talk about the match between McMahon and Hulk Hogan at WrestleMania XIX.^[4] Less than a year later, he would be inducted into the WWE Hall of Fame on March 13, 2004 and the following night at WrestleMania XX, he approached the ring to interview Donald Trump, who had a front row seat at the event.^[4] Trump affirmed that Ventura would receive his moral and financial support were he to ever reenter the world of politics. Alluding to the 2008 election, Ventura boldly announced that "In 2008, maybe we oughta put a wrestler in the White House". On the June 11, 2007 episode of Raw, Ventura appeared to give comments about Vince McMahon.^[4]

Ventura was guest host on the November 23, 2009 episode of Raw during which he retained his villainous persona by siding with the number one contender, Sheamus over WWE Champion John Cena. This happened while he confronted Cena about how it was unfair that Cena always got a title shot in the WWE while Ventura didn't during his WWE career. After that Sheamus attacked Cena and put him through a table. Ventura then made the match a Table match at TLC: Tables, Ladders & Chairs. During the show, for the first time in nearly 20 years, Vince McMahon joined Ventura at ringside to provide match commentary together.

In wrestling[link]

• Finishing moves
  • Body Breaker^[4][18][26] (WWF) / Inverted bearhug^[26] (AWA)

• Nicknames
  • "The Great"^[4]
  • "The Body"^[4][18]
  • "The Governor"^[4]
  • "The Mind"^[4]

Championships and accomplishments[link]

• American Wrestling Association
  • AWA World Tag Team Championship (1 time) – with Adrian Adonis^[27]
• Cauliflower Alley Club
  • Iron Mike Mazurki Award (1999)
• Central States Wrestling
  • NWA World Tag Team Championship (Central States version) (1 time) – with Tank Patton^[28]
• Continental Wrestling Association
  • AWA Southern Heavyweight Championship (2 times)^[29]
• International Wrestling Institute and Museum
  • Frank Gotch Award (2003)
• NWA Hawaii
  • NWA Hawaii Tag Team Championship (1 time) – with Steve Strong^[30]
• Pacific Northwest Wrestling
  • NWA Pacific Northwest Heavyweight Championship 2 times)^[31]
  • NWA Pacific Northwest Tag Team Championship (5 times) – with Bull Ramos (2), Buddy Rose (2) and Jerry Oates (1)^[32]
• Pro Wrestling Illustrated
  • PWI ranked him #239 of the 500 best singles wrestlers during the "PWI Years" in 2003
  • PWI ranked him #67 of the 100 best tag teams of the "PWI Years" with Adrian Adonis

Political career[link]

Mayor of Brooklyn Park[link]

Following his departure from the WWF, Ventura took advice from a former high school teacher and ran for mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota in 1990.^[33] Ventura defeated the city's 25-year incumbent mayor and served from 1991 to 1995.^[34]

Governor of Minnesota[link]

Ventura ran for Governor of Minnesota in 1998 as the nominee for the Reform Party of Minnesota (he later joined the Independence Party of Minnesota when the Reform Party broke from its association with the Reform Party of the United States of America). His campaign consisted of a combination of aggressive grassroots events and original television spots, designed by quirky adman Bill Hillsman, using the phrase "Don't vote for politics as usual." He spent considerably less than his opponents (about $300,000) and was a pioneer in his using the Internet as a medium of reaching out to voters in a political campaign.^[35]

He won the election in November 1998, narrowly (and unexpectedly) defeating the major-party candidates, St. Paul mayor Norm Coleman (Republican) and Minnesota Attorney General Hubert H. "Skip" Humphrey III (Democratic-Farmer-Labor). After his victory, bumper stickers and T-shirts bearing the slogan "My governor can beat up your governor" appeared in Minnesota. The nickname "Jesse 'The Mind'" (from a last-minute Hillsman ad featuring Ventura posing as Rodin's Thinker) began to resurface sarcastically in reference to his frequently controversial remarks. Ventura's old stage name "Jesse 'The Body'" (sometimes adapted to "Jesse 'The Governing Body'") also continued to appear with some regularity.

After a trade mission to China in 2002, he announced that he would not run for a second term.^[36] He accused the media of hounding him and his family for personal behavior and belief while neglecting coverage of important policy issues. Ventura later told a reporter for The Boston Globe that he would have run for a second term if he had been single, citing the media's effect on his family life.^[37]

Governor Ventura sparked media criticism when, nearing the end of his term, he suggested that he might resign from office early to allow his lieutenant governor, Mae Schunk, an opportunity to serve as governor. He further stated that he wanted her to be the state's first female governor and have her portrait painted and hung in the Capitol along with the other governors. Ventura quickly retreated from the comments, saying he was just floating an idea.^[38]

Political positions[link]

In political debates, Ventura often admitted that he had not formed an opinion on certain policy questions. Ventura frequently described himself as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."^[39] He selected teacher Mae Schunk as his running mate.

Lacking a party base in the Minnesota House and Senate, Ventura's policy ambitions had little chance of being introduced as bills. Initially, the residents of Minnesota feared Ventura's vetoes would be overturned. He vetoed 45 bills in his first year, and only three of those vetoes were overridden. The reputation for having his vetoes overridden comes from his fourth and final year, where six of his nine vetoes were overturned.^[40] He vetoed a bill to require recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.^[41] Nevertheless, Ventura was successful in several initiatives. One of the most notable was the rebate on sales tax. In each year of his administration, Minnesotans received a tax-free check in the late summer.^[42] The state was running a budget surplus at the time, and Ventura believed that the money should be returned to the public.

Later, he came to support a unicameral (one-house) legislature, property tax reform, gay rights, and abortion rights. In an interview on The Howard Stern Show, he affirmed his support of gay rights, including gay marriage and gays in the military, humorously stating he would've gladly served alongside homosexuals when he was in the Navy as they would've provided less competition for women.^[43] While funding public school education generously, he opposed the teachers' union, and did not have a high regard for the public funding of higher education institutions. Additionally, Ventura supported the use of medicinal marijuana,^[44] advocated a higher role for third parties in national politics, and favored the concept of instant-runoff voting. He also opposed the death penalty.

Ventura was elected on a Reform party ticket, but he never received support from Ross Perot's Texas faction. When the Reform party was taken over by Pat Buchanan supporters before the presidential elections of 2000, Ventura left the party in February 2000, referring to it as "hopelessly dysfunctional". However, he maintained close ties to the Independence Party of Minnesota, which also broke from the Reform party around the same time.

During the first part of his administration, Ventura strongly advocated for land-use reform and substantial mass transit improvements, such as light rail.^[45] He made the light rail project a priority, obtaining additional funding from the Minnesota state legislature to keep the project moving. The Hiawatha Line was completed in 2004.

During another trade mission to Cuba in the summer of 2002, he denounced the economic sanctions of the US against Cuba, stating that the sanctions affected the Cuban public more than it did its government.^[36]

Views on political parties[link]

Ventura, who ran on a Reform Party ticket and advocated for a greater role for third parties in American politics, is highly critical of both Democrats and Republicans. Ventura described both parties as "monsters that are out of control" who are concerned only with "their own agendas and their pork."^[46]

Despite being a supporter of third parties in the past and having voted for Ralph Nader in 2008 as a protest vote, Ventura has since declared he no longer supports the third party movement and advocates that all political parties, including third parties, be abolished. Feeling that the two-party system has corrupted the government, Ventura has expressed concern that if a third party became as successful as the Republicans and Democrats, it "will likewise have to corrupt itself. If you already have a two-headed monster, why would you need three?"^[47]

Wellstone memorial[link]

Ventura greatly disapproved of some of the actions that took place at the 2002 memorial for Senator Paul Wellstone, his family, and others who died in a plane crash on October 25, 2002. Ventura said, "I feel used. I feel violated and duped over the fact that the memorial ceremony turned into a political rally".^[48][49] He left halfway through the controversial speech made by Wellstone's best friend, Rick Kahn. Ventura had initially planned to appoint a Democrat to Wellstone's seat,^[50] but he instead appointed Dean Barkley to represent Minnesota in the Senate until Wellstone's term expired in January 2003.

Political criticisms[link]

After the legislature refused to increase spending for security, Ventura attracted criticism when he decided not to live in the governor's mansion during his tenure, choosing instead to shut it down and stay at his home in Maple Grove. Critics pointed to the loss of jobs for several working-class people at the mansion and the extra cost of reopening the mansion later.^[51]

In 1999, a group of disgruntled citizens petitioned to recall Governor Ventura, alleging, among other things, that "the use of state security personnel to protect the governor on a book promotion tour constituted illegal use of state property for personal gain." The petition was denied.^[52]

During his tenure as Governor, Ventura drew frequent fire from the press in the Twin Cities. He referred to reporters as "media jackals," a term that even appeared on the press passes required to enter the governor's press area.^[53] Shortly after Ventura's election as governor, author and humorist Garrison Keillor wrote a satirical book about the event, spoofing Ventura as "Jimmy (Big Boy) Valente," a self-aggrandizing former "Navy W.A.L.R.U.S. (Water Air Land Rising Up Suddenly)" turned professional wrestler turned politician. Initially, Ventura responded angrily to the satire, but later, in a conciliatory vein, said that Keillor "makes Minnesota proud".^[54] During his term, Ventura appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman, in which he responded controversially to the following question: "So which is the better city of the Twin Cities, Minneapolis or St. Paul?". Ventura responded, "Minneapolis. Those streets in St. Paul must have been designed by drunken Irishmen". He later apologized for the remark, adding that it was not intended to be taken seriously.^[55]

Political future[link]

While Ventura has not held public office since the end of his term as governor in 2003, he has remained politically active and has occasionally stated intentions of running again for political office. In an interview on CNN's The Situation Room on April 7, 2008, Ventura hinted that he was considering entering the race for the United States Senate seat then held by Norm Coleman, his Republican opponent in the 1998 Gubernatorial race.^[56] A poll commissioned by Twin Cities station Fox 9 put him at 24 percent, behind Al Franken at 32 percent and Norm Coleman at 39 percent in a hypothetical three-way race. However, Ventura announced on Larry King Live on July 14, 2008 that he would not run; Ventura's decision not to join the race was partly rooted from a fear of a potential lack of privacy for his family, a concern that contributed to his refusal to seek a second term as governor.^[57] Al Franken ended up winning the election as a candidate for the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party.

In his 1999 autobiography I Ain't Got Time to Bleed, Ventura stated he did not plan on running for the presidency but did not rule out such an idea.^[58] He spoke at Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul's "Rally for the Republic", organized by the Campaign for Liberty, on September 2, 2008. At the event, Ventura implied a possible future run at the U.S. Presidency. At the end of his speech, Ventura stated before a live audience that if America proves itself worthy, then "in 2012 we'll give them a race they'll never forget!" In 2011, Ventura expressed interest in running with Ron Paul for the 2012 presidential elections if the latter decided to run as an independent.^[59] On November 4, 2011, Ventura said at a press conference about the dismissal of his court case against the Transportation Security Administration for what he claims are illegal searches of air travelers, that he is "thinking about" running for President.^[60][61] There had been reports that officials from the Libertarian Party have tried to persuade Ventura to run for the presidency on a Libertarian ticket although the party chairman Mark Hinkle stated, "Jesse is more interested in 2016 than he is in 2012. But I think he’s serious. If Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian, I think he definitely would be interested in running as a vice presidential candidate. He’s thinking, ‘If I run as the vice presidential candidate under Ron Paul in 2012, I could run as a presidential candidate in 2016."^[62]

David Gewirtz of ZDNet wrote in a November 2011 article that he thinks Ventura would have a chance at winning, if he declared his intention at that point and ran a serious campaign, but that it would be a long shot.^[63]

On December 29, 2011, Ventura announced his support for Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show for the 2012 Presidential Election as "the only anti-war candidate." ^[64]

Acting career[link]

Ventura acted in the 1987 movie Predator, whose cast included future California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and future Kentucky Gubernatorial candidate Sonny Landham.^[4] Ventura became close friends with Schwarzenegger during the production of Predator. He appeared in two episodes of Zorro filmed in Madrid, Spain, in 1991. He had a starring role in the 1990 sci-fi movie Abraxas, Guardian of the Universe, and supporting roles in The Running Man, Thunderground, Demolition Man, Repossessed, Ricochet, The Master of Disguise (in which he steals the Liberty Bell), and Batman & Robin – the first two and last of these also starring Schwarzenegger. Ventura also made a cameo appearance in Major League II, as "White Lightning". He also appeared as a self help guru (voice only) in The Ringer trying to turn Johnny Knoxville into a more confident worker. Ventura also had a cameo in The X-Files episode "Jose Chung's From Outer Space" as a Man in Black alongside fellow 'MiB' Alex Trebek. In 2008, Ventura filmed the independent comedy Woodshop, starring as a high school shop teacher named Mr. Madson. The film was released September 7, 2010.^[65]

Other media[link]

In 1989 Ventura co-hosted the four episodes of the DiC Entertainment children's program Record Breakers along with Gary Apple.^[66][67] In 1991, the pilot episode for "Tag Team", a television program about two ex-professional wrestlers turned police officers, starred Ventura and "Rowdy" Roddy Piper.^[68]

Between 1995 and his run for governor in 1998, Ventura had radio call-in shows on (KFAN 1130) and (KSTP 1500) in Minneapolis – Saint Paul. Jesse had a brief role on the television soap opera The Young and the Restless in 1999.

Ventura has been criticized^{[by whom?]} for privately profiting from his heightened popularity. He was hired as a television analyst for the failed XFL football enterprise, served as a referee at a World Wrestling Federation match, and published several books during his tenure as governor. On his weekly radio show, he often criticized the media for focusing on these deals rather than on his policy proposals.^[69]

Media parodies[link]

Ventura has been portrayed frequently by comedian James Adomian since 2009 on the popular Earwolf podcasts Comedy Bang Bang and Sklarbro Country, with the "Ventura" character uncovering a wide range of conspiracies. Adomian also played Ventura in a YouTube parody of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, investigating the secret truth behind professional wrestling.

Post-gubernatorial life[link]

Jesse Ventura's America
250px Ventura on his MSNBC talk show, Jesse Ventura's America
Starring	Jesse Ventura
Production
Location(s)	Saint Paul, Minnesota,  United States
Broadcast
Original channel	MSNBC
Original run	October 4, 2003 – December 26, 2003

Ventura was succeeded in his office on January 6, 2003 by Republican Tim Pawlenty. He began a cable television show in October 2003, on MSNBC called Jesse Ventura's America. The show was broadcast once a week, on Saturdays, unlike many MSNBC shows which are on five nights a week (this show was originally planned for five nights a week as well, but MSNBC executives changed their minds). At the time of its airing, Jesse Ventura's America was the only national television show filmed in Minnesota. Among his guests were Charles Barkley, Gray Davis, Arianna Huffington, Rob Kampia, and Kathy McKee. However, the show was short-lived and ended on December 26, 2003, only a couple of months after the show began. Ventura later claimed that the show was cancelled because of his opposition to the Iraq War.^[70]

In 2004, Harvard graduate student and fellow Navy veteran Christopher Mora promoted the idea that the academic establishment had failed to reach out to citizens experienced in public service, but who did not fit the traditional idea of a politician. He successfully lobbied for the selection of Ventura, who started teaching a study group at Harvard University for the Spring 2004 semester as a visiting fellow at the Kennedy School of Government's Institute of Politics (IOP). His 90-minute study group focused on third party politics, campaign finance, the war on drugs, and other relevant political issues. Ventura scheduled multiple famous friends to appear for his seminars including Dean Barkley and Richard Marcinko.

On October 22, 2004, with Ventura by his side, former Maine Governor Angus King endorsed John Kerry for President at the Minnesota state capitol building. Ventura did not speak at the press conference. When prodded for a statement, Governor King responded, "He plans to vote for John Kerry, but he doesn't want to make a statement and subject himself to the tender mercies of the Minnesota press".^[71] Ventura went on to vote for Kerry.

In November 2004, an advertisement began airing in California featuring Ventura. In it, Ventura voices his opposition to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's policies regarding Native American casinos.^[72] Ventura served as an advisory board member for a group called Operation Truth, a non-profit organization set up "to give voice to troops who served in Iraq." “The current use of the National Guard is wrong....These are men who did not sign up to go occupy foreign nations”.^[73] Ventura also became critical of the War in Iraq, arguing that Iraq had no involvement in the 9/11 attacks. On The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, Ventura compared the 2003 invasion of Iraq to a scenario of invading Korea in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan.

In August 2005, Ventura became the spokesperson for BetUS, an online Sportsbook.^[74] In 2005, Ventura repeatedly discussed leaving the United States. In September 2005, Ventura announced on The Mike Malloy Show that he was leaving the U.S. and planned to "have an adventure". In late October 2005, he went on The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch and reiterated that he was leaving the U.S. and moving to Mexico due to, among other things, censorship.

In September 2006, Ventura endorsed and campaigned with independent Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman, and Independence Party of Minnesota's gubernatorial candidate Peter Hutchinson and Team Minnesota.

Bush/Cheney administration and torture[link]

In a May 11, 2009 interview with Larry King, Ventura twice stated that George W. Bush was the worst president of his lifetime, adding "President Obama inherited something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. You know? Two wars, an economy that's borderline depression."^[75] On the issue of waterboarding, Ventura added:

It's a good thing I'm not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture. I would prosecute the people that did it. I would prosecute the people that ordered it. Because torture is against the law. [King: And you were a Navy Seal] That's right and I was waterboarded...at SERE school, Survival Escape Resistance Evasion (sic). It was a required school you had to go to prior to going into the combat zone, which in my era was Vietnam. All of us had to go there. We were all in essence, every one of us was waterboarded. It is torture. [King: What was it like?] It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation that you are drowning. It's no good, because you — I'll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders. ... If it's done wrong, you certainly could drown. You could swallow your tongue. [It] could do a whole bunch of stuff to you. If it's done wrong or — it's torture, Larry. It's torture.^[76][77]

Ventura then stated that he had no respect for Dick Cheney because he is "a guy who got five deferments from the Vietnam War. Clearly, he's a coward. He wouldn't go when it was his time to go. And now he is a chickenhawk. Now he is this big tough guy who wants this hardcore policy. And he's the guy that sanctioned all this torture by calling it 'enhanced interrogation'."^[76] Ventura also expressed interest in being appointed ambassador to Cuba should U.S. relations with Cuba continue to improve.^[78] On a May 18, 2009 appearance on The View, Ventura asked Elisabeth Hasselbeck if waterboarding is acceptable, why were the Oklahoma City bombers, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, not waterboarded. "We only seem to waterboard Muslims."^[79] Comparing the waterboarding of detainees to the North Vietnamese torture of American P.O.W.s, Ventura asserted, "We created our own Hanoi Hilton in Guantánamo. That's our Hanoi Hilton."^[79] "'Enhanced interrogation' is Dick Cheney changing a word. Dick Cheney comes up with a new word to cover his ass."^[79] On May 20, 2009, Ventura appeared on Fox & Friends. When Brian Kilmeade told Ventura that he would stop supporting waterboarding when "they're dead", Ventura responded, "Really? Have you enlisted? Have you enlisted or are you just talking?... Go walk the walk, don't talk the talk."^[80]

Questions regarding 9/11[link]

In April and May 2008, Jesse Ventura, in several radio interviews for his new book, Don't Start the Revolution Without Me, expressed concerns about what he described as some of the unanswered questions of the September 11 attacks.^[81] His remarks about the possibility that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives were also repeated in newspaper and television stories following some of the interviews.^[82]

Ventura was interviewed on the Alex Jones radio show on April 2, 2008^[83] where he said that he felt that many unanswered questions remain, and he believes that World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by a plane, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11 in a manner which resembled a controlled demolition^[84] Ventura stated:

How could this building just implode into its own footprint five hours later? That's my first question. [...] The 9/11 Commission didn't even devote one page to that in their big volume of investigation.^[85]

He also states the Twin Towers appeared to be pulverized to dust, that they fell at virtually free-fall speed, and that no other massive steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed in this manner due to fire before.^[82]

On May 18, 2009, when asked by Sean Hannity of Fox News, how George W. Bush could have avoided the attacks of September 11, 2001, Ventura answered, "Well, you pay attention to memos on August 6th that tell you exactly what bin Laden's gonna do."^[86]

[edit] Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura

In August 2009, it was announced that Ventura would host TruTV's new show Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura.^[87] "Ventura will hunt down answers, plunging viewers into a world of secret meetings, midnight surveillance, shifty characters and dark forces," truTV said in a statement. On the program, which debuted on December 2, 2009, Ventura travels the country, investigating cases and getting input from believers and skeptics before passing judgment on a theory's validity.^[88] According to TruTV, the first episode drew 1.6 million viewers, a record for a new series on the network.^[89]

The second season of the series debuted in October 2010 and aired 8 episodes through December 2010.^[90] A third season is in the process of being made and will air sometime in 2012.^[91]

Books written by Ventura[link]

After leaving office in 2003, Ventura wrote a number of politically-themed books. In April 2008, a book authored by Ventura, titled Don't Start the Revolution Without Me, was released. In it, Ventura describes a hypothetical campaign in which he is a candidate for President of the United States in 2008, running as an independent. In an interview with the Associated Press at the time of the book's release, however, Ventura denied any plans for a presidential bid, stating that the scenario is only imaginary and not indicative of a "secret plan to run".^[92] On MinnPost.com, Ventura's agent, Steve Schwartz, describes the book thus: "[Ventura is revealing] why he left politics and discussing the disastrous war in Iraq, why he sees our two-party system as corrupt, and what Fidel Castro told him about who was really behind the assassination of President Kennedy."^[93]

American Conspiracies is a book Ventura wrote with Dick Russell, published by Skyhorse Publishing in 2010 which discusses conspiracy theories related to several notable events in United States history.

63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read was written by Ventura with Dick Russell and published in 2011. The book describes documents that Ventura claims the government does not want the public to be informed of, although he stated the documents were not stolen and were only on the public domain.

Ventura also wrote DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans: No More Gangs in Government, which is expected to be released on June 11, 2012. The book expresses Ventura's opposition to the two-party system and calls for political parties to be abolished.^[94]

Lawsuit Against the TSA[link]

In January 2011, Jesse Ventura filed a lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration for being subject to controversial pat-downs. Ventura, who received a titanium hip replacement in 2008 that sets off metal detectors at airport security checkpoints, has asserted that these pat-downs violate citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. Ventura's attorney has claimed that while he is not seeking any monetary compensation, Ventura wants an acknowledgment from the court that his rights were violated and that the TSA halt future pat-downs on him.^[95] Ventura stated that as a former politician and a military veteran and posing no threat, it is inappropriate for him to be subject to pat-downs. Since filing the lawsuit, Ventura has been flying privately.

The lawsuit was dismissed in November 2011 under the ruling that Ventura should have filed the lawsuit in the Court of Appeals.^[96] In related comments to the media following the lawsuit's dismissal, Ventura stated he believed America had become "fascist" for the secret ruling and subsequent mainstream media blackout. The former Governor said he would seek dual citizenship in both the United States and Mexico, having lived in Baja California Sur for a number of years. He also said he no longer felt patriotic and would raise a fist during the playing of the national anthem at public events. Ventura has declared he would no longer fly commercially and has repeatedly stated "I love my country, not my government" in post-press-release interviews. The ultimate outcome of the TSA constitutional matter remains undetermined, and Ventura has not stated whether he would continue his lawsuit.^[97]

Controversies[link]

Comments on religion[link]

In a Playboy interview, Ventura said, "Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live." In his 1999 best-selling memoir I Ain't Got Time to Bleed, Ventura responded to the controversy sparked by these remarks by elaborating on his views concerning religion:

I’d like to clarify [my comments published in Playboy] about religious people being weak-minded. I didn’t mean all religious people. I don’t have any problem with the vast majority of religious folks. I count myself among them, more or less. But I believe because it makes sense to me, not because I think it can be proven. There are lots of people out there who think they know the truth about God and religion, but does anybody really know for sure? That’s why the Founding Fathers built freedom of religious belief into the structure of this nation, so that everybody could make up their minds for themselves. But I do have a problem with the people who think they have some right to try to impose their beliefs on others. I hate what the fundamentalist fanatics are doing to our country. It seems as though, if everybody doesn’t accept their version of reality, that somehow invalidates it for them. Everybody must believe the same things they do. That’s what I find weak and destructive."^[98]

Navy SEAL accusations[link]

Ventura often came under fire for allegations that he lied about being in the Navy SEALs. Bill Salisbury, an attorney in San Diego and a former Navy SEAL officer, accused Ventura of "pretending" to be a SEAL and wrote that Ventura would be blurring an important distinction by claiming to be a SEAL when he was actually a frogman with the UDT. Compared to SEAL Teams, UDTs saw less combat and took fewer casualties. Although Ventura underwent SEAL training, the UDTs merged with the SEALs in 1983, eight years after Ventura left the Navy.^{[10][99][100]} Following that, Governor Ventura's office confirmed that Ventura was a member of the UDTs. His spokesman stated that Ventura has never tried to convince people otherwise.^[10] Ventura stated: "Today we refer to all of us as SEALs; that's all it is," and dismissed the accusations of lying about being a SEAL as "[m]uch ado about nothing."^[100]

Opie and Anthony Incident[link]

The Opie and Anthony Show hosted Ventura on December 2, 2009. During the show, arguments erupted between co-host Jim Norton and Ventura regarding the use of the military overseas as well as the official account regarding September 11 attacks, which Ventura questioned the official account of, but stated on the show he did not necessarily believe the government was behind it. The debate evolved into a dispute over illegal immigration in which Ventura was arguing against what he claimed individuals are asked for their IDs by the Border Patrol deep within US borders in an effort to combat illegal immigration. Ventura argued that such a move violated the Constitution. After Norton disagreed with Ventura's statement and Ventura went on to accuse Norton for not believing in the Constitution, the two continued to argue and Ventura walked off the air. When Norton asked why Ventura was leaving, Ventura angrily replied, "There's a fucking guy here telling me I've got a schedule, asshole," to which Norton replied, "You're using dirty language, asshole." As Ventura left the room, Norton denounced some of Ventura's comments on Norton supposedly not supporting the Constitution, stating, "You put words in my mouth, and you didn't like it when I did it to you. You put words in my mouth saying I didn't believe in the Constitution and that's bullshit! It's not true. I don't agree with abusing it." Ventura then walked off from where the show was being held and Norton called Ventura a "fucking baby." The incident was recorded on camera and gained over a million hits since the video was posted in December 2009 on YouTube as of May 2012.^[101]

Tailgating allegations[link]

In December 2011 TMZ reported that Jesse Ventura was pulled over for tailgating another vehicle in the San Fernando Valley while on his way to the airport and that the police officers who pulled him over let him go with a warning.^[102] However, Ventura dismissed the rumors and one of his attorneys stated he had not been in California since July 15, 2011.^[103] Ventura also stated that he had not left Minnesota for over a month at the time the story was published and that he has refused to fly commercially since filing an unsuccessful lawsuit against the TSA earlier that year.^[104] Ventura warned that he was considering a lawsuit against TMZ over the article, which has since been taken off their website and he also denounced the rumors as a smear campaign against him.^[105]

Chris Kyle controversy[link]

In January 2012, Chris Kyle, a former Navy SEAL who had served in Iraq and had 160 confirmed kills and thus the deadliest marksman in US military history,^[106] promoted his recently released book American Sniper on the Opie and Anthony Show, the same radio show where Ventura got into a verbal acceleration with a host two years prior. When Kyle was on the air, a listener called in and asked about how Kyle alledgedly punched Ventura in a bar fight. After receiving the call, Gregg 'Opie' Hughes asked Kyle about the rumor. Kyle suggested that he punched Ventura in the face at a bar popular with Navy SEAL personnel in Coronado, California for loudly expressing criticism of the Iraq War back in 2006 during a wake for Michael A. Monsoor, a Medal of Honor recipient and Navy SEAL who had been killed in action in Iraq the same year. According to Kyle, Ventura, who was present in San Diego to give a speech to a graduating BUD/S class, was "bad-mouthing the war, bad-mouthing (former President) Bush, bad-mouthing America." Although Kyle, who wrote about the alleged incident in his book but did not mention Ventura by name, stated he asked Ventura to tone down his voice because the families of SEAL personnel were present, Ventura allegedly went on to say that the SEALs "deserved to lose a few guys", after which Kyle stated he punched Ventura in the face and then left the area because police were nearby.^{[107] [108]} After Kyle told what happened, Ventura was interviewed by radio host Alex Jones regarding what happened. During the interview, Ventura denied the rumors and claimed that he never met Kyle nor has he heard of him before. Ventura also stated that the bar, known as Mc P's, was owned by a former Navy SEAL who was his cadre instructor when in the military and that he would not misbehave at the bar. Because the rumors emerged as Ventura was travelling down to his second home in Mexico, Ventura felt that the story was released at that point so he would be unable to properly fight the allegations.^[109] Following this interview, Kyle called the Opie and Anthony Show to clarify what happened and urged witnesses who were present at the bar to come forward to back his claims. Alex Jones, who is also a friend of Ventura, also called and an argument erupted over the validity of the incident. During the argument between the Opie and Anthony hosts and both Jones and Kyle, Kyle offered to meet with Ventura to end the dispute.^[110]

Ventura, who stated in February 2012 that he would sue Kyle for defamation in court,^[111] posted a comment on his official Facebook page stating the following:

The event this man spoke of never happened. I have been to Mc P’s many times since leaving the Navy. I was never there alone. I was always accompanied by other people. If this happened 6 years ago, someone would have known of it before now. Certainly in the UDT/SEAL community it would have been known. This has to be news to all of us. I have always opposed the war in Iraq but I have never spoken or wished any ill will towards the soldiers. My heart aches that soldiers have died or been wounded because this war should never have taken place. I am perplexed over the agenda this man has and why a fellow Navy Seal would tell a lie about an event that never happened. Clearly between this story and the previous week’s story about supposedly getting pulled over for tailgaiting (sic) in CA that was also a lie, someone is out to destroy my credibility. I find it very interesting that both these stories are being spread by Fox news and it’s (sic) affiliates. As a Navy veteran you realize you can’t believe every sea story you hear. Let me finish by stating both of the recent two national stories about me are completely untrue lies, neither event ever happened. Sincerely, Jesse Ventura.^[112]

Personal life[link]

Family[link]

On July 18, 1975, three days after his twenty-fourth birthday, Ventura married his wife Terry.^[5] The couple have two children: a son, Tyrel,^[113] who is a film and television director and producer,^[114] and a daughter, Jade.^[113]

Ventura and his wife split their time living in both Minnesota and Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.^[115] Regarding his life in Mexico, Ventura said, "I live one hour from pavement and one hour from electricity,..." "I drive down and back every year and it's truly an adventure to live down there where I do, because I'm off the grid."^[116]

Steroid use[link]

During his wrestling days, Ventura used anabolic steroids. He admitted this after retiring from competition, and went on to make public service announcements and appear in printed ads and on posters warning young people about the potential dangers and potential health risks of abusing steroids.^[117]

Health problems[link]

In 2002, Ventura was hospitalized for a severe blood clot in his lungs, the same kind of injury that ended his wrestling career.^[118]

Religion[link]

In 1999, Ventura stated in an interview on NBC that he considered himself to be a Christian but does not believe he needs a church to attend.^[119] In April 2011, Ventura stated on Piers Morgan Tonight and the The Howard Stern Show, that he is an atheist and believes that his views could disqualify him for office in the future, stating that "I don't believe you can be an atheist and admit it and get elected in our country."^[1]

Ventura endorsed equal rights for religious minorities, as well as people who do not believe in God, by declaring July 4, 2002, "Indivisible Day". Ventura proclaimed October 13–19, 2002 as "Christian Heritage Week" in Minnesota.^[120][121]

Electoral history[link]

• 1998 election for Governor
  • Jesse Ventura (Ref.), 37%
  • Norm Coleman (R), 34%
  • Hubert H. Humphrey III (DFL), 28%

Books[link]

• I Ain't Got Time to Bleed: Reworking the Body Politic from the Bottom Up (May 1999) ISBN 978-0-375-50332-0
• Do I Stand Alone? Going to the Mat Against Political Pawns and Media Jackals (September 2000) ISBN 978-0-7434-0586-7
• Jesse Ventura Tells it Like it Is: America's Most Outspoken Governor Speaks Out About Government (September 2002, co-authored with Heron Marquez) ISBN 978-0-8225-0385-9
• Don't Start the Revolution Without Me! (March 2008, co-authored with Dick Russell) ISBN 978-1-60239-273-1
• American Conspiracies (March 2010, co-authored with Dick Russell) ISBN 978-1-60239-802-3
• 63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read (April 2011, co-authored with Dick Russell) ISBN 978-1-61608-226-0

Notes[link]