A Democrat who was on the fence as to whether to support a bill that
would legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota says he will vote for the
bill.
Rep. Joe Radinovich, DFL-Crosby, said today that if the bill comes up he's on board.
"To further deny equal rights to all people would be a black eye on this institution and certainly on my own career," he said. . . .
Radinovich acknowledged that his stance on the bill would upset some
of his constituents, including some of his family members. But he said
he believes that a majority of younger voters support same-sex marriage,
and that the trend is that same-sex marriage will be legal soon.
"I'd rather have the voters be upset with me right now than me to be
upset with myself for the rest of my life," Radinovich said.
Ironically, Radinovich is M4M's (Minnesota for Marriage) Legislator of the Day:
#MNleg LEGISLATOR OF THE DAY: Joe Radinovich (DFL-10B) undecided but constituents want #1m1w--tell him vote NO today! bit.ly/107rZKT
In November 2012, sixty-two percent of the voters in Radinovich's district in Aitkin and
Crow Wing County district voted to for the amendment to restrict the freedom to marry. The amendment lost statewide.
Radinovich is scheduled to appear on TPT's Almanac tonight, where the announcement is sure to come up.
Is the heart of rural Minnesota thawing on marriage equality?
Recent developments suggest that the tide is changing for the bill. A new poll by KSTP/SurveyUSA revealed a Dramatic Shift On Gay Marriage Issue:
Votes to legalize gay marriage are likely to happen in the Minnesota
House and Senate next month. With those votes looming, our latest KSTP/SurveyUSA poll shows for the first time a majority of Minnesotans favor changing the law that bans same-sex marriage.
In our poll,
we asked 500 Minnesotans across the state if "the Minnesota state law
that defines marriage as between one man and one woman be changed to
allow same-sex couples to marry?"
The poll
indicates that 51% of Minnesotans favor the idea while 47% are opposed
to changing the law. Only two percent aren't sure. Just over two months
ago, in early February, only 42% of Minnesotans favored changing the
law and 54% were opposed.
Pausing over breakfast at Don's Cafe in Morris, 20-year-old University of Minnesota student Taylor Barker shares his passion for the spirit of rural community that the moderate independent student discovered while attending the liberal arts college in Stevens County.
"I like the small-town atmosphere and values here," Barker said, after noting that he'd grown up in Fridley. "My grandparents are from small towns in Renville and Isanti Counties. I feel like people can sit down and discuss issues over a cup of coffee at cafes like Don's. It's like the way my grandparents talk things over coffee at their kitchen tables with neighbors."
Barker's been drinking decaf while he talks about his development as a straight ally for the freedom to marry. Five years ago, Barker recalls, if he'd heard a news report about derogatory anti-gay slurs, he'd have said, "Attaboy!"
This changed when he got involved in high school theater productions and speech in his sophomore year of high school. "My high school theater program director and speech coach--and later mentor--was gay," he said. "I got to know him and his partner . . .and I realized how stupid homophobia is."
As Barker got to know more gay men and lesbians, he came to believe that all people should be enjoy the freedom to marry the person they love. This realization fit well with Barker's belief in individual liberty and limited government.
Indeed, Barker considered himself a Republican until the 2012 election, when he thought that political purity--"candidates competing to see who is 'more conservative'" -- and religious dogma became more important than the ability to consider individual rights and liberties. Like many young voters, he's turned off by the social conservatism of Republican platform positions that don't acknowledge the full citizenship of all Americans.
During the 2012 campaign season, Barker spoke out against the amendment to restrict the right to marry.
Although raised in the suburbs, Barker hopes to remain in Greater Minnesota and work in community-based radio. "Local people decide what the schedule and content are in community-based radio," he observed, pointing to the member stations in AMPERS.
Whether in politics or professional ambitions, Barker said he's drawn to a sense of community that values all people. "I keep coming back to this: we think getting to know people is important in Greater Minnesota," he said. "Our values of being a good citizen, part of a community--once you get beyond stereotypes, it's clear that same-sex couples are like their neighbors and only to marry the person they love."
Barker had to dash off to introduce students to the little campus on the prairie, in a town which banded together to help elected Jay McNamar while rejecting the amendment by 58.37 percent of the ballots cast.
Photo: Taylor Barker in the studios of KUMM-FM.
This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families. For earlier posts in the series, click on the related articles below.
In St. Paul, the state legislature's picking sand mining lobbyists over trout, while back in greater Minnesota, conflict continues to flare as citizens scrutinize the industry.
Despite a series of political defeats, a Red Wing lawmaker vows to keep fighting for legislation to protect trout streams from silica sand mining.
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, said he will keep pushing to prohibit silica sand mining within a mile of trout streams, springs and fens in southeastern Minnesota.
"Hopefully, people realize that we are not asking for the world here. All we're asking for is to be proactive and to give our agencies the tools they need to do their job and give our local decision makers the assurance that we are getting this right," he said.
But the first-term senator faces a tough fight. Republicans and Iron Range Democrats have teamed up to defeat the proposal. Last week, the measure was stripped out of the Senate's game and fish bill. On Tuesday, an attempt by Schmit put the regulations back into the bill failed by one vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
Sen. Jeremy Miller, R-Winona, was among those voting against the trout stream language. He said he wants to protect trout streams but believes other legislation will address the issue by helping set model standards and making agency experts available to help local governments. Local officials he talked to said Schmit's proposal goes too far and would amount to a de facto moratorium on mining in Fillmore and Houston counties.
"That would eliminate just about any opportunity for industrial sand mining in those two counties," he said. . . .
Twin Cities bicyclists will be among those gathering at an event tonight to raise concerns about frac sand mining.
Several silica sand mines close to
the Mississippi River in western Wisconsin are near areas where cyclists
like to ride and stay in bed-and-breakfasts. Some of the proposed mines
in southeastern Minnesota are also located in scenic areas where
cycling is popular. . .
"Bicyclists care about frac sand
mining for the same reasons that I've heard a lot of southeast Minnesota
residents testify at the State Capitol, and that's health, safety and
scenery," [Tracy] Sides said. "Degraded scenery undermines the cycling and
tourism. I've visited mining locations in Wisconsin, and industrial frac
sand mines look like open sores on the land."
Sides said increased truck traffic
from sand mining threatens a resource on both sides of the river. . . .
Can the pristine St. Croix River experience and the silica sand mining operations expected to proliferate near the riverway, co-exist? As industrial silica sand mining expands in this region, that’s ripe with geologic formations that support silica sand deposits; will local officials be prepared for this vastly more intensive form of mining?
Leaders from towns and counties all along the Wisconsin-Minnesota border and in the St. Croix watershed came together last weekend to learn about what’s being done to regulate silica or “frac sand” mining. Some who have been involved in this issue for several years came to share their personal experiences with this industry. The conference was hosted by the St. Croix River Scenic Byway, and River Coalition and was held in St. Croix Falls’ Public Library. Frac sand or silica sand mining is causing concerns for local zoning authorities, public health officials and for citizens suddenly finding their farms, homes or cabins on the edge of a sand mine. . .
Residents in Winona County have asked the Minnesota Court of Appeals
to reverse a decision that would allow a proposed frac sand mine to move
forward without an in-depth environmental review.
The Winona County board voted last
month that the proposed Nisbit frac sand mine in Saratoga Township does
not need to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
But 12 residents backed by the Land Stewardship Project say the county
failed to address concerns about the mine's potential impact. They say
the county needs to take into account the potential cumulative effect of
several mines opening nearby. . . .
Here's the Land Stewardship Project press release:
The Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture conference committee meets at 1:00 p.m., and Bluestem hopes that the House conferees--Jean Wagenius, David Dill, Jeanne Poppe, Rick Hansen, and Andrew Falk--can prevail on keeping $190,000 for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program in the final conference report.
Competitive grants for up to $25,000 are awarded to individuals or
groups for on-farm sustainable agriculture research or demonstration
projects in Minnesota. The purpose of the Grant Program is to fund
practices that promote environmental stewardship and conservation of
resources as well as improve profitability and quality of life on farms
and in rural areas. . . .
Eligible recipients include Minnesota farmers, individuals at Minnesota
educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and local natural
resource agencies. Priority is given to projects that are farmer
initiated. All non-farmer initiated projects must show significant
collaboration with farmers. . . .
The program objectives are to research and demonstrate the
profitability, energy efficiency, and benefits of sustainable
agriculture practices and systems from production through marketing.
Grants are available to fund on-farm research and demonstrations and may include, but are not limited to:
enterprise diversification and organic production using traditional and non-traditional crops and livestock;
cover crops and crop rotations to increase nitrogen uptake, reduce erosion, or control pests;
conservation tillage and weed management;
cropping systems to implement integrated pest management systems for insects, weeds, and diseases;
nutrient and pesticide management including prevention of entry into water bodies;
energy production such as wind, methane, or biomass.
The program does not fund projects that duplicate previously funded projects. . . .
It's not a big program, but one that's useful for farmers, especially those in fast-growing sectors like community supported agriculture (CSA). It's not as if traditional production agriculture is starved in either chamber's bill, so the omission of the program in the Senate bill seems a casual error that can be easily corrected.
Here's the Land Stewardship Project's position on the project (via LSP's lobbyist Bobby King:
Funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program. LSP
supports the House position that provides $190,000/ year funding for
this program. (HF 976 lines 6.7 – 6.20) There is no dedicated funding
in the Senate position.
Here's the House staff comparison and contrast chart. Perhaps the greater problem with the Senate bill is the absence of funding for the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Program, which would be developed by the Minnesota Department of Ag and a board composed mostly of farmers and local soil and water commissioners. Oddly, Republicans have objected that farmers would not have a voice in establishing the program's policies. The program is a priority of the Minnesota Farmers Union.
With the suspension of the sustainable food production diploma program at M State-Fergus Falls, a peculiar hostility to toward small-scale, innovative agriculture seems to be gaining steam among some state lawmakers and bureaucrats. This is unfortunate, as the local food movement has been a boon for small business and job creation for those who seek to serve consumer demand.
Update: Those who support fostering our state's sustainable farming sector might consider contact the senators on the conference committee to ask them to agree with the House bill and fund this modest program. Be polite to the legislative aides who answer the phones and listen to the voicemail messages.
David Tomassoni: 651-296-8017
Tom Saxhaug: 651-296-4136
Dan Sparks: 651-296-9248
Jim Metzen: 651-296-4370
Torrey Westrom: 651-296-3826
Photo: Sexy buffer strips, via MnDA.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
One of our favorite poems is Wendell Berry's "The Peace of Wild Things." A lifelong Baptist, man of letters, academic, cultural and economic critic, and farmer, Berry has been a strong moral voice for traditional agrarian values and the environment for many years.
Thursday's Winona Daily News includes a letter from Berry to John Heid, Right and wrong:
The following letter was written by Wendell Berry, author, farmer and environmentalist, to John Heid (formerly of Winona), in support of the Catholic Worker campaign against frac sand mining.
Dear John,
You have offered me the privilege of joining by letter with you and your friends in Winona in opposition to "frac sand mining." and I am happy to accept.
I will say, first, that there is never, for any reason, a justification for doing long-term or permanent damage to the ecosphere. We did not create the world, we do not own it, and we have no right to destroy any part of it.
Second, most of our politicians and their corporate employers are measuring their work by the standards of profitability and mechanical efficiency. Those standards are wrong. There is one standard that is right: the health of living creatures and the living earth.
Third, we must give our need to eat, drink, and breathe and absolute precedence over our need for mined fuels.
I wish you well.
Sincerely,
Wendell Berry
It's not likely this will discourage those looking to loot a piece of wild things, but the gesture may give grassroots activists courage.
Hours after meeting with Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-CD6), Minnesota Latino immigrants remain hopeful, but cautious.
While grateful for an opportunity to discuss the issue of immigration reform with Representative Bachmann, members of organization La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles were disappointed that Representative Bachmann had opened up the meeting to an out-of-state congressperson whose comments in the meeting were inappropriate. While Representative Bachmann may believe that others are experts at the topic at hand, La Asamblea members believe that Representative Bachmann should be an expert in attempting to understand the experiences of her constituents.
However, La Asamblea members do applaud Representative Bachmann for agreeing to continue listening to stories and constituent perspectives regarding immigration reform. . .
The press release went on to praise the tone of the meeting:
"The meeting had a very positive tone of building bridges between the Latino community and Mrs. Bachmann. At the meeting, we had the impression that freedom for many immigrants is closer and we made it clear to her that the Latinos have a growing voting muscle in politics that we are ready to use," said Pablo Tapia, La Asamblea organizer.
Bluestem has learned that the other member of Congress was Alabama representative Mo Brooks, who serves his state's fifth congressional district on the Tennessee border.
Update: Bluestem's original post was not clear about the logistics of the meeting, which took place in Minnesota with Bachmann and one of her Washington staff members. Brooks joined the meeting via speaker phone. [end update]
Brooks 2011 statement: "I will doing anything short of shooting" undocumented workers
"As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of
shooting them," Brooks said. "Anything that is lawful, it needs to be
done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American
citizens."
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, (D-Texas) head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, blasted Brooks remarks.
"Rhetoric referencing acts of violence has no place in the
discussion for realistic solutions to our country's immigration
problems," Gonzalez said. "Words have consequences"
Brooks 2.0: Gentler anti-immigrant rhetoric in 2013
We don't know yet what "inappropriate" comments Brooks made in the recent meeting, but he's one of a handful of congress people who have been critical of current bipartisan efforts to move comprehensive immigration reform.
His rhetoric does seem to have mellowed in the last two years.
After the media reported that an immigration deal among the Senate’s Gang of Eight was imminent, a number of conservatives in the House told their leadership on Wednesday that they didn’t want to get steamrolled by the upper chamber.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) told The Hill, “We probably won’t know anything until a bill is drafted and presented.
“Keep in mind, it’s just eight people. It’s not sanctioned by anybody,” he noted, adding “it’s going to be very difficult for me to agree to ratify illegal conduct.”
. . .With both groups seemingly close to producing legislation, King and
the others believe it’s time for them to make their voices heard before
the momentum becomes overwhelming.
“We’ve held our powder dry,” King said, but “decided its time
to come forward now because we are seeing the inertia and we are
concerned about having this wash over us and not have the opportunity
for the constitutional conservatives in this country and in this
Congress to have their voice heard.”
A group of Republican House members led by Iowa Rep. Steve King spoke forcefully in opposition to a mass legalization before first solving the problem of illegal immigration at an event with reporters Thursday. . . .
Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks said that the immigration system should serve Americans and stressed that in terms of immigration, America “is the most compassionate nation in history when it comes to allowing foreigners to become citizens of our country.”
“I want to emphasize the culture that we have in America, that we welcome immigration,” he said, explaining the issue is illegal immigration.
“We have to make a choice: Are we going to have laws, or not have laws? If we are not going to have open borders then that means we have to have laws that restrict who can come and who cannot come in. And we have to enforce those laws,” Brooks said, explaining that it is only a small percentage of people “who have chosen to disregard our laws as their first act on American soil.”
He added that with so many people wishing to come to America, the country should focus on accepting the most valuable and productive people.
“I urge that we get behind an immigration policy that focuses on bringing to America those who are clearly going to be on the productive side of our economy, less likely to be on the consumptive side of our economy,” he said, adding that illegal immigrants contribute to keeping wages low and Americans out of work.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio went on seven Sunday talk shows
to pitch a bipartisan immigration reform deal, while a handful of
Republican lawmakers famous for their wacky cable news interviews can't
get any attention. An anti-immigration "gang of six" in the House is
trying to stop the pro-immigration "gang of eight" in the Senate, The National Review's Robert Costa
reports, but hardly anyone's listening. The six are cable TV favorites:
Minnesota's Michele Bachmann, Iowa's Steve King, Texas' Louie Gohmert,
Alabama's Mo Brooks, Pennsylvania's Lou Barletta, and California's
Dana Rohrabacher. There were zero "anti-amnesty" Sunday show guests
the week before Rubio's grand tour. The most popular cable guests of
the six -- Bachmann, King, and Gohmert -- haven't been invited on cable
to talk immigration in the last three months, according to Lexis Nexis.
They complain the GOP isn't listening to them either.
In 2007, Costa explains, Republican immigration opponents "dominated
the headlines" and "scared off many Republicans who might otherwise have
supported it." Now, "the anti-legalization warriors wonder why their
party suddenly seems to be ignoring their concerns." But once the bill
comes out, he writes, "they think they, not Rubio, will be the
Republicans who shape the debate, especially on talk radio and within
the conservative movement." But that hasn't happened so far! According
to Lexis Nexis -- which, granted, doesn't have every single word uttered
on cable news -- Bachmann, King, and Gohmert haven't been able to get
much time on Fox to sell their view. They're all far more popular on
MSNBC as bad guys than on Fox as good guys.
Check out the tally sheet at the Atlantic Wire. In the National Review article, A Gang of Six Plots a Revolt Costa writes:
King and his crew are not driving the negotiations, and they
increasingly feel like outsiders within their own party. “The meetings
of the Gang of Eight and the secret meetings in the House of
Representatives — the people who have been standing up for the
Constitution and the rule of law haven’t been invited to those
meetings,” King tells the assembled group of reporters. The other
huddlers — Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Lou Barletta (Pa.), Mo Brooks
(Ala.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), and Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) — nod and
grimace. “We’ve got all the rich guys and the elitists talking to each
other,” Rohrabacher says. “Unfortunately us regular folks don’t have
that kind of coordination.”
Brooks has long been in opposition to allowing leniency to those who
skirted the law to live in the United States. In 2011, Brooks said at a
town hall meeting that the U.S. should "do anything short of shooting them" to keep illegal aliens out of the country.
Tonight,
Brooks pointed to the financial burden illegal aliens are putting on
the economy. He said the U.S. Treasury was writing checks for about $4
billion per year in child tax credits to illegal aliens who are
submitting fraudulent tax forms. He also said that estimates in
Washington indicate illegal aliens are contributing $20 million per year
to the tax system while consuming $100 million per year in taxes.
He acknowledged, however, that his views on immigration are "in the minority" in Washington. Immigration reform, including the amnesty program, has been a rare issue receiving bipartisan support.
Brooks' expertise: caucus memberships
It's curious that Bachmann would invite a member of the Gang of Six to meet with Minnesotans on immigration reform, since that might chill the discussion. Brooks was the author of the died-in-committee "Jobs for Americans Act of 2011."
The caucuses favor closed borders, withholding all federal funding to
cities that do not strictly enforce federal immigration status laws,
and other measures generally characterized as anti-immigrant by those
seeking comprehensive immigration reform.
Research on immigrants and job creation
While Brooks' central assertion--that undocumented workers rob Americans of jobs--is a staple of anti-immigrant talking points, the record is mixed. The New York Times Magazine asked in 2012 Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?, noting:
. . .Labor economists have concluded that
undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a
high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to
7.4 percent.
The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. Giovanni
Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has written a
series of influential papers comparing the labor markets in states with
high immigration levels to those with low ones. . . . In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled
workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s
productivity grew. From 1990 to 2007, undocumented workers increased
legal workers’ pay in complementary jobs by up to 10 percent.
As Congress considers immigration reform, experts across the political spectrum say American jobs are safe.
That
immigrants take the jobs of American-born citizens is “something that
virtually no learned person believes in,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration
expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said at a Thursday panel.
“It’s sort of a silly thing.”
Most economists don’t find immigrants driving down wages or jobs, the Brookings Institution's
Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney wrote in May. In fact, “on average,
immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans,”
they write. Foreign-born workers don’t affect the employment rate
positively or negatively, according to a 2011 analysis
from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. And a study
released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress suggests
that granting legal status to undocumented workers might even create
jobs.
The CAP study,
led by the visiting head of the Washington College economics
department, sought to predict what would happen under immigration
reform. The researchers considered a handful of scenarios. In each, it
was presumed that the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants would
be immediately granted legal status. They then looked at the effect of
those undocumented immigrants not being granted citizenship at all over a
decade, getting it immediately, or getting it in five years.
Legal
status alone would lead to the creation of 121,000 extra jobs annually
over the next 10 years, they found. Getting citizenship within five
years would increase that to 159,000 jobs per year. And receiving both
legal status and citizenship this year would create an extra 203,000
jobs annually.
Photo: Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks, Michele Bachmann's go-to guy for meetings with Minnesota Latinos advocating comprehensive immigration reform.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
I spent some time yesterday watching the Minnesota Ways & Means committee debate the proposed minimum wage changes. While there are many things about the debate that caused a spike in my blood pressure, I am really concerned about those who think farm workers do not deserve the same rights as other workers in our state’s economy.
For some reason paying farm workers overtime after 40 hours is sacrilegious. Rep Sarah Anderson (R-Plymouth) tweeted, “When Minneapolis runs the #mnleg, they think farming is a 40 hour per week kind of job.”
Don Davis in his April 29th Capitol Chatter column quotes DFL Rep. Jeanne Poppe, “Ag workers are not necessarily like factory workers where they can clock in and clock out.” No, it is not necessarily a 40 hour per week job. Yes, you have to often “make hay when the sun shines”.
But then, a lot of jobs are like that. It is the beginning of the construction season and you will see workers taking advantage of the daylight and good weather to get as much done as possible.
Electrical workers recently worked seven days a week restoring power in SW Minnesota after the recent ice storms.
I wonder what the difference is between a worker putting in 70 hours a week on the farm and one putting in 70 hours a week paving a road. Both will be tired at the end of the week but the farm worker will get the shaft. Some legislators need to quit fantasizing about the “family farm” and realize that it is a business that should be held to the same standard for workers’ rights as other businesses. Get a clue people. It’s not your Grandpa’s farm.
A couple years ago I posted the lyrics to the song Eight Hours, by I.G. Blanchard, in a note to Facebook. I think it is relevant again today.
Eight Hours
We mean to make things over,
We are tired of toil for naught
With but bare enough to live upon
And ne'er an hour for thought.
We want to feel the sunshine
And we want to smell the flow'rs
We are sure that God has willed it
And we mean to have eight hours;
We're summoning our forces
From the shipyard, shop and mill
Back during the Republican Revolution in the 1990s, the drive to cut wages by weakening overtime took the form of then Senator John Ashcroft's "Family Friendly Workplace Act," but the principle was the same: allow private business to offer workers the supposedly voluntary option of working long hours, then taking time off rather than overtime. Nevermind that loophole that might allow management to schedule an employee for 60 hours one week, 20 hours the next, without receiving either comp time or overtime.
That was the 1990s version of family-friendly, because moms especially want time off and don't care so much about their paychecks, or so the "family friendly" narrative goes.
Say what
you will, but anti-worker politicians are good at giving deceptive names
to things. “Right to work” takes away your rights at work. “Paycheck
protection” puts your wages at risk. And who could forget Paul Ryan’s
plan to “strengthen Medicare” which ends Medicare as we know it.
House Republicans are pushing the “Workplace Families Flexibility Act of 2013,”
which they claim would allow busy working parents to spend more time
with their kids. That’s bogus. The bill replaces the 40-hour work week
with a “comp time” accrual system that would allow employers greater control over their hourly employee’s schedule.
What’s worse? The bill ends ”time-and-a-half” overtime pay for hourly
and non-exempt workers as we know it, giving renewed incentive for
businesses to work their employees as long as they want with near
impunity.
In other words, the bill does the opposite of what House Republicans say it will. . . .
Check out the deets in the post. Here in Minnesota's Seventh District, we'll be seeing web ads urging Blue Dog Democrat Collin Peterson to enlist in the Republican War on Women's paychecks. (Peterson's already in with the attack on reproductive rights and raising the minimum wage).
The National Republican Congressional Committee is demanding vulnerable House Democrats "support more freedom for working moms" in new web ads, a sign the committee is trying to improve the party's standing with female voters.
The ads call on Democrats to back the GOP-drafted "Working Families Flexibility Act," which would allow employers to give comp time for overtime hours rather than pay employees for them. The bill will likely be voted on in the House next week...
But a spokester for the D-Trip flipped the narrative:
Democrats fired back, pointing out that most House Republicans voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Violence Against Women Act.
"House Republicans wish women voters would forget their past and ignore their agenda, but women voters are too smart for that," said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner. "This Republican Congress has been the most extreme, anti-woman legislature in American history with an agenda to deny women equal pay, quality health care services and even domestic violence protections. If Republicans think their problem is the style of their marketing campaign — not the substance they're selling — they've missed the message of the 2012 elections.
Bluestem hopes that Peterson can stuff his latent Republican tendencies back in the closet with his boots and resist the urge to cut working moms' paychecks.
Photo: Blue Dog Seventh District Congressman Collin Peterson.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
In a recent radio interview broadcast by KDIO, Ortonville mayor Steve Berkner inveighed against "intimidation tactics" that had supposedly by used by "special interest" opponents of the Strata Mining Corporation's plan to open a granite quarry in a cow pasture that contains some of Big Stone County's namesake granite outcroppings.
Those tactics? "Busing in" people, carrying signs, chanting, swearing, pounding on tables, grandstanding. For this, Berkner cautions that the city attorney and Ortonville police have been ordered to prevent "intimidation" at the next hearing about Stata, on May 7. Berkner encouraged citizens to submit written remarks, since apparently speaking in public at hearings can be confrontational.
Now, Bluestem attended a number of the zoning and county board hearings on the matter last year, and doesn't remember seeing anyone being "bused in." As for the signs, those carrying them in February 2012 did sing on their way from the Land Stewardship Project's office in Clinton to a zoning meeting about a block and a half away, but set them outside before entering the hearing.
Law enforcement officials were present at that meeting and others, but that's not unusual for large public meetings. Berkner was accusing outside "special interests" (apparently Land Stewardship Project, which maintains a local foods program in Western Minnesota and Clean Up the River Environment, an Upper Minnesota River Valley watershed restoration group based in Montevideo, MN) of using "intimidation tactics," although he doesn't name names.
Since the singing sign carriers and those speaking at the meetings all seemed rather decorous, Bluestem contacted Big Stone County Sheriff John Haukos to see if his department had received complaints or reports of bad behavior. After reviewing his records, Haukos returned our call. No complaints or reports had been filed, although the presence of deputies at meetings were duly recorded.
Indeed, Sheriff Haukos, who had attended many of the meetings, thought that they could be models of public discussion of an issue. He had not observed swearing, pounding of fists, or any such behavior that could be charactized as "intimidation," although he did watch one confrontational exchange after a zoning meeting in Clinton between a citizen and a county commissioner. He determined that the exchange wasn't going to escalate and moved on.
Since Bluestem was there, we too observed that verbal jousting between Dakota scholar Waziyata Win, who lives in the Yellow Medicine Dakota community near Granite Falls and Big Stone County Commissioner Brent Olson. In light of Minnesota history, Bluestem hesitates to call her or the two other Dakota scholars from Marshall and South Dakota who spoke at another meeting "outsiders," however outspoken Waz might be.
Clinton resident Rebecca Terk dropped by both the Ortonville Police department and Big Stone Sheriff's office with the same question. She was told that no complaints or reports of intimidation had been made to either office during the 2012 hearing process.
It's curious that the mayor is inclined to declare opposition to a project by a North Dakota corporation to somehow be a product of "outside special interests," when signs objecting to the annexation of the pasture--since the local township where it had been situated originally enacted a moratorium on the development after residents objected--still grace lawns in his fair community. (To circumvent the township moratorium, the landowner divided his property among relatives, who petitioned to become part of the City of Ortonville; an MPR report here includes remarks by Berkner. An OAH judge ruled that only one parcel could be annexed.).
Also curious in the interview: the host's declaration that if one side doesn't want to speak about a controversy, it's best not to cover an issue at all. Bluestem was under the impression that journalistic convention held that one reported that folks were given an opportunity to present their side, but declined comment.
Indeed, the edited remarks below are characterized by a barely contained hostility toward those who might object to Strata's designs--while insisting that the public has the right to make "respectful" comments. His bar for "respectful" appears to be quite high--with no singing or signs allowed. Indeed, if only people could just write their comments down. That would be so much nicer. Want to speak up in Ortonville? Better meet Mayor Berkner's guidelines for form, presentation and content.
And if Strata Corporation decides to never comment to the press, why the nice respectful radio lady simply wouldn't have to report on anything that happens at all.
Here's the selected audio about the idea of order in Ortonville, drawn from a longer 20-minute interview.. Short fades mark the edits and photo is of Berkner, then a city council member, at a public information hearing held in Ortonville by the Ortonville Township board of supervisors.
Photo: Signs wait outside a Big Stone County planning and zoning board hearing in Clinton, Minnesota in February 2012. Ortonville Mayor Steve Berkner has labeled these signs an "intimidation tactic." Bluestem doesn't find the message "Outcrops Mean Tourism $" to be all that scary, but perhaps the mayor has a much different comfort zone than Bluestem and local law enforcement. (Photo by Rebecca Terk) Below: an anti-annexation sign in an Ortonville lawn last fall.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
While the Minnesota legislature considers the creation of standards for silica sand mining and a Senate committee guts provisions for the protection of trout streams, members of the Catholic Worker movement have taken much more radical direct action to address their concerns about industrial sand mining in the driftless area.
Dan Wilson was one of about 20 people arrested Monday for misdemeanor trespassing after blocking trucks loaded with silica sand from getting to a Mississippi River loading dock in Winona. But he believes the wrong group was taken into custody.
As far as the Winona man is concerned, police should have arrested those who own the facility for trespassing on the city with their sand, which can cause medial and economic problems.
"We are not the ones trespassing on the industry, they are trespassing on us," he said after he was booked and released. About 20 others were arrested at another site in the city. . .
Protesters have written letters to the editor, talked with local officials and did other things but to no avail, Wilson said. "We decided we needed to start making sacrifices," he said. . . .
Eileen Hanson, a member of the Winona Catholic Worker community, said the weekend seminar attracted about 100 people from several Midwest states. Those arrested at the CD Corp. site and another 20 or so at a sand-processing plant on the outskirts of Winona, were both local and from other states, she said.
"We're saying no to this dangerous and destructive industry," she said."This was just one more way of saying, 'Hey we have really strong concerns about this.'" . . .
Their concerns aren't completely groundless. Read on.
Trout fishery protections stripped from Fish and Game bill
On April 24, in an unconnected action back at the state capitol, the Senate Finance - Environment, Economic Development and Agriculture Division stripped out the provisions in SF 786 that would have helped preserve Southeastern Minnesota's trout streams.
The testimony begins around 1:15 here. Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Landwehr offered compelled testimony in support of the provisions, as did John Lenczewski from Trout Unlimited.
Before the roll call vote, committee chair David Tomassoni (DFL-Chisholm) said that these provisions were not
appropriate for a Game and Fish bill--and that there are trout on the Iron
Range and his area might be next for trout protection.
Tom Saxhaug (DFL-Grand Rapids) agreed but Bev Scalze (DFL-Little Canada), who sits on the policy committee,
rightly brought up that as a finance committee they should not be
undoing major policy provisions.
Here are the roll call votes that gutted the pro-fishery provisions. The first vote is to remove section 50 of the bill
requiring setbacks from trout streams, the second vote is on section 51 limiting groundwater usage and prohibiting mining within 25 foot of the
water table.
Tomassoni YES YES
Dibble NO NO
Dziedzic NO NO
Hawj NO NO
Ingebrigtsen PASS YES
Osmek YES YES
Ruud YES YES
Saxhaug YES YES
Scalze NO NO
Schmit NO NO
Sparks YES NO
Weber YES YES
Westrom YES YES
Listen to the testimony and discussion. It's enough to make Baby Jesus cry.
Photos: protesters in Winona (top, via Winona Daily News); brown trout in Southeastern Minnesota (bottom).
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The Blaze/ Associated Press is reporting that the founders of American Unity PAC, a national group of prominent GOP donors determined to change Republican minds about the freedom to marry, has formed a lobbying organization.
American Unity PAC was formed last year to lend financial support to Republicans who bucked the party's longstanding opposition to gay marriage. Its founders are launching a new lobbying organization, American Unity Fund, and already have spent more than $250,000 in Minnesota, where the Legislature could vote on the issue as early as next week.
The group has spent $500,000 on lobbying since last month, including
efforts in Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia and Utah.
Billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer
launched American Unity PAC. The lobbying effort is the next phase as
the push for gay marriage spreads to more states, spokesman Jeff
Cook-McCormac told The Associated Press.
In Minnesota, the group has targeted its spending:
In Minnesota, the money has gone
to state groups that are lobbying Republican lawmakers and for polling
on gay marriage in a handful of suburban districts held by Republicans.
So far, only one Minnesota Republican lawmaker has committed to voting
to legalize gay marriage: Sen. Branden Petersen, of Andover.
"I think there will be some more.
There are legislators out there that are struggling with this," said
Carl Kuhl, a former political aide to former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman and
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Kuhl's public affairs firm
is contracted by Minnesotans United, the lead lobby group for gay
marriage in Minnesota and main recipient of American Unity's Minnesota spending. . . .
Though only one current GOP
officeholder in Minnesota is on record supporting gay marriage, a
handful of prominent Republicans have spoken out in favor of it. They
include former state auditor Pat Anderson and Brian McClung, who was
spokesman for former Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Prominent Republican donors including former politician Wheelock Whitney and businesswoman Marilyn Carlson Nelson have also lent support and donated money.
Since it first formed to campaign against last fall's gay marriage
ban and then shifted to pushing for its legalization at the Capitol,
Minnesotans United has been building Republican alliances, hiring
multiple lobbyists with Republican ties. . . .
Will national Republican money--and influential Minnesota Republicans--have an effect on swaying more conservative legislators?
. . . My friends, family and neighbors have all come a long way in their
recognition that lesbians and gay men like me have the same values,
hopes and aspirations as all other Minnesotans. We are your neighbors,
your co-workers and friends, your brothers and sisters, and we believe
in families just as you do. These are values shared across Minnesota
from the metro to the rural areas of Greater Minnesota.
Marriage
is a commitment, an aspiration, a bundle of hopes and disappointments.
Marriage is full of lessons that amplify our personal, social and
spiritual growth and fulfillment. There isn’t a need for a separate set
of rules. Gays and lesbians don't need a special status. Minnesotans
simply need to let committed same-sex couples share the same rules, same
responsibilities, and same respect that everyone else enjoys. . . .
Under 800 people live in Lake Park, a small town in Becker County that elected Wittnebel mayor.
It's telling that those who wish to block the freedom to marry often seek to use the issue as a line in the sand, whether along party lines or geographical boundaries. It's a politics that relies on divisions. Those supporting marriage equality, on the other hand, are seeking to unite the state across the those boundaries.
Divisive politics? It's worth noting that one side's all for that.
Postcard: It's one state, people.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
At first, few saw promise in Dan Patch, although the colt grew up to become Minnesota's best known racehorse. The legendary pacer's chances odds were nonetheless better that than of the chances of creating commuter rail to Northfield on the Dan Patch line, now used for freight.
Senator Kevin Dahle (DFL-Northfield) hopes to change that luck.
Buried deep in the Senate transportation bill at the Minnesota Legislature is a dead horse.
The Dan Patch rail line, named for the famous early 20th Century
harness racer, carries freight between the Twin Cities and Northfield.
Until 1942, it also carried passengers.
Some commuters would like to see service
restored. But the idea of running a passenger rail line through the
several Minnesota suburbs proved so controversial that more than a
decade ago lawmakers passed a special law to bar state and regional
transportation officials from discussing it.
This year, lawmakers are considering whether to lift the Dan Patch moratorium. . . .
Ron Ehrhardt (DFL-Edina) opposes the line, since he believes it will disturb the peace of suburban back yards near the line, the paper reports.
Dahle and other supporters are not discouraged:
"We shouldn't settle policy by gags," said Nakasian, who helped found
the Northfield Grass Roots Transit Initiative. "We should look at all
options and see where taxpayers' money is best spent....I just don't
think putting a prohibition that holds the rest of us hostage is quite
fair, or the way to do it."
Northfield's representatives in the legislature also want their city back on the transit map.
State Sen. Kevin Dahle, DFL-Northfield has been working to undo the Dan Patch moratorium since he first won election in 2008.
"It was one of the first things I had taken up,"
Dahle said. "We did get it out of the House and Senate once, but it was
vetoed by Governor Pawlenty."
This year, Dahle managed to push a "watered down"
version through the Senate that would allow the Met Council to study
the corridor again. But the bill didn't receive a hearing in the House,
where Erhardt chairs the Transportation Policy Committee. A conference
committee will decide whether the Dan Patch moratorium stays or goes.
As for the Met Council, it supports the effort to allow open discussion of the project.
"The Council supports lifting the prohibition
because it is an impediment to regional planning," spokeswoman Bonnie
Kollodge wrote in an email. "That's not a statement about the corridor
itself, but rather a statement in support of being able to plan transit
for the region without restrictions on specific corridors. The Council
will obviously act according to the law."
Given the two colleges in Northfield who might well hop the train--and number of metro commuters in the area--Bluestem thinks that Dahle is right. The discussion should begin again.
Photo: Postcard photo of a car on the Dan Patch Electric Line, which was an electric commuter rail line in the Savage, Minnesota area. via Wikipedia.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
When Tessa Hoffman Schweitzer received a mail piece from Minnesota for Marriage targeting Matt Schmit, her state senator, the divorced mother turned to social media to object to the notion that the freedom to marry would harm children.
She urged friends in the district to call Schmit and ask him to vote
yes, happy to have Schmit's number readily at hand, courtesy of the
anti-freedom group.
Schweitzer grew up in the Oronoco area and now lives in St. Charles.
Supporting the freedom to marry is a family tradition for Schweitzer; her father, James Hoffman, also believes all loving couples should be able to wed the ones they love.
What caused the Lourdes High School graduate who was "[r]aised a church-attending Catholic Democrat" to support the freedom to marry?
"Honestly, at first, I was like, "Why can't they be satisfied with civil unions?" Nope--not good enough. Separate is not equal! It's a matter of principle," Schweitzer said.
"It is a civil rights issue,"she added. "Sexual orientation is no different than race. The biological sciences, medical sciences, psychiatric and neurological fields all back me up on this. To those that work in those fields, homosexuality is not seen as a pathology. Civil laws must be based on science not religion or 'morality' if we are to have true separation of church and state and respect for all belief systems."
Yet rural values are important for Schweitzer--those based on acceptance and pulling together.
"Despite individual differences, pettiness, and gossip, people are there for each other when it counts," she believes. "I know my neighbors and the children play with each other in the alley. Out-state Minnesota is not as homogenous as one might believe, and there are many characters than populate the rural areas that I may not agree with but admire. It takes all kinds!"
Schweitzer feels that last year's amendment forced her to clarify her own values, making her almost an accidential ally, but her commitment to marriage equality has grown strong.
If she could sit down over coffee with an opponent, she'd ask, "Hopefully I'd do a little listening first. Some of my points however--I would start with Rep. Steve Simon's quote: 'How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?' And then ask them how they think gays being allowed to marry would impact them."
Schweitzer looks to her father for guidance on values; during the debate over the amendment to restrict marriage freedom, he wondered in a letter to the editor published in the Winona Daily News and the Rochester Bulletin: "I cannot conceive how any marriage between same-sex people in any way affects my 50-year marriage or marriage in general."
A 79-year -old parent and grandparent, a veteran of the US Army who holds a masters degree in mathematics education, James Hoffman has been a
resident of Minnesota for approximately 50 of those years. He now lives in Chatfield.
"Two of my
children and three of my grandchildren live in Minnesota," Hoffman notes. "Minnesota has
always been . . . known as a progressive state that placed a
high value on equality and education."
"In all of my life I have met a number of gay people but what I have
yet to meet is a gay person who chose that as a 'life style,' " he notes, adding, "Also it's too early to determine the ultimate sexual orientation of my grandchildren. Punishing people
for a condition over which they have little or no control is cruel and
unusual!"
"It's the fair and decent thing to do," Hoffman said of the Dibble and Clark bills.
Photos: Tessa Hoffman Schweitzer and her son (above); her parents (below).
This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families.
The chief refrain repeated by the sorrowful violins of the lobbyists for Minnesota's sand mining industry and its allies is that if the state legislator puts additional safeguards in place for our water and communities, the industry will fail to thrive in Minnesota as it has in Wisconsin.
We'll miss out on the new energy revolution.
A story broadcast Monday by Wisconsin Public Radio about a Preferred Sands mine in Trempealeau County near Blair suggests that there may be worse fates than starting the revolution without us--or dead trout.
.. . Last May, however, a heavy rainstorm liquefied one of the site's
waste piles, sending it crashing through an Amish home. DNR Enforcement
Specialist Deb Dix says their suggestions were ignored.
“With
this particular instance it was apparent that there were no best
management practices around this sand pile to attempt to hold it back if
rain was to occur.”
Dix
says the DNR referred Preferred Sands to the Department of Justice for
prosecution. Even then, she says the company continued to allow runoff
to leave the property. Trempealeau County conservationist Kevin Lien
says frac sand companies can afford to ignore the rules.
“So,
we’ve learned that citations are pretty much ineffective for this
industry. This industry has very deep pockets and a wealth of
resources.”
The DNR’s Deb Dix says more than a year later, Preferred Sands still hasn’t fixed the leaking sediment.
“At
this point in time we’re again having some runoff issues due to open
areas [and] unvegetated open soils, where the soils are being carried
offsite from the frequent rains and the snowmelt.”
Preferred
Sands didn't agree to an interview for this story. They emailed a
statement saying they've resolved some of the issues, but remaining
problems are exacerbated by the spring thaw.
Here's what people who visit Preferred Sands of Minnesota's web page read (and it's easy to understand why the less-than-curious members of the Minnesota Legislature might think that everything is totally copaceptic in this industry). Pay no attention Trempealeau County--and for pete's sake, don't worry about Southeast Minnesota's water or trout:
Maintain & Sustain.
Preferred Sands of Minnesota is dedicated to maintaining and sustaining, and when it comes to that, we’ll let our employees do the speaking for us:
“...Sand saved my farm. Excavating the sand deposits on my farm has allowed me to keep my land and home. I’ve been able to buy back the dairy cows I once had to sell off, who again graze on the hills that have been restored because of environmentally sound mine reclamation projects. When you choose to support the local sand industry, you are supporting the economic future of Western Wisconsin.” — Sam LaGesse
With locations in Woodbury, MN, and Bloomer, WI, Preferred Sands of Minnesota provides the much sought-after Jordan and Northern white frac sand.
Our Woodbury and Bloomer facilities have in excess of 40 million tons of high quality Northern White silica sand, and have the capacity to produce approximately 500,000 tons annually of our natural sand.
Our white sand deposits are strategically located near major forms of rail transportation: Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific. Preferred Sands of Minnesota is unit train accessible and has convenient barge access along the Mississippi River, providing service to the Southern Mississippi and into Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Improving Best Practices
Preferred Sands of Minnesota is teamed up with the town of Cooks Valley and the town of Auburn to fund local recycling programs and we are actively involved in a 5-year Chippewa County, WI DNR ground water modeling program implemented to track any potential environmental impacts and gather data to advance best practices for mining and production.
The Wisconsin Chapter of Trout Unlimited
has not made any official statements on frac sand mining but has worked
behind the scenes. Duke Welter, who represents Trout Unlimited in
Wisconsin and the Midwest, says they are participating in a Chippewa
County study on sand mining's effects on groundwater and trout stream
levels.
He says they have also suggested a state run study of the industry’s environmental impacts.
“So
far I haven’t heard [a] positive response from most of the legislators
that I’ve talked to because they think that existing tools are just
fine, or they think it’s not important enough to try and put that effort
together.”
Welter says Trout Unlimited will
continue to advocate for scientific study of frac sand mining to better
inform policy and regulations.
No wonder Preferred Sands of Minnesota's webpage is talking about Chippewa County and not that other place. (In Wisconsin, Senator Vinehout is an exception with regard to the sand mining industry).
Is this the model pro-mining Minnesota legislators are touting? Really? For more information on language making its way in the Minnesota legislature that would protect water and trout streams in Minnesota's driftless region, please see our post from earlier this week, Frac sand mining: trout stream protection language to face test in key senate committee.
Photo: Sandslide in Trempealeau County. Credit: Wisconsin DNR (top); Preferred Sands of Minnesota's webpage. There's a lot more text there than for the new operation in Blair, where run-off continues to be an issue.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
. . . Timothy Zinniel, president of Sleepy Eye-based Zinniel Electric, said
his company started selling and installing solar panels in 2007 and now
makes 50 percent of its annual sales from solar power.
“If (municipal power providers) and power companies could offer
electricity from a local standpoint, they’d be creating more jobs
locally. Our largest export is our dollars. Let’s keep them here,” he
said.
Zinniel estimates he’d hire at least five more people if the solar standard passes.
That doesn’t include the jobs created by Minnesota’s two solar panel manufacturers, tenKsolar and Silicon Energy.
When Zinniel is working with a customer, he offers them both American-
and foreign-made panels. The Chinese ones are sometimes cheaper, but
Zinniel said many of his customers are willing to pay a bit more to buy
American. . . .
Zinniel supports a measure that would require Minnesota's utilities togenerate 4 percent of their
electricity from solar power by 2025 and to get 40 percent of their power from renewable sources by
2030.
Although Xcel Energy and other utilities oppose the bill, a representative for Xcel conceded that the development of Minnesota's wind industry hasn't led to higher rates for the out-of-state utility's customers in Minnesota. Linehan reports:
That said, McCarten said Xcel’s wind energy spending hasn’t led to any
price increases for customers. In other words, if the company had bought
natural gas instead of wind, customers would be paying roughly the same
amount.
[J. Drake] Hamilton, the renewable energy advocate, said people who support the
higher renewable energy standard should contact their legislators.
Bluestem suspects that as Minnesota's solar industry matures, costs will come down. Could the utilities' own commitments and contracts for fossil-fuel generated power be as much factor for the resistance to the development of solar as concern for the hypothetical costs for consumers?
Manufacturing jobs creating high-quality Minnesota-made products, as well as jobs based in Greater Minnesota small businesses, sounds pretty electifying to Bluestem. Governor Mark Dayton supports the development of Minnesota's renewable energy portfolio.
Photo: Solar panels, via Zinniel Electric.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The Associated Press is reporting that Moorhead-area state senator Kent Eken (DFL-Twin Valley) will vote for the Dibble bill to extend the freedom to marry for all loving couples.
Eken's decision is a significant development for two reasons. First, Eken was one of four senate democrats who voted in March for a parliamentary maneuver intended to stall the marriage reform. Minnesota Public Radio's Tim Pugmire reported in Senate Republicans try to block same-sex marriage bill:
The day after legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota
cleared two committees, Senate Republicans tried to derail the measure
with some parliamentary maneuvering.
They failed to stop the bill's
progress but tried to use it to put some pressure on some rural
Democrats.
Republicans have previously said
that rural Democrats will have a tough time voting for the bill, when a
majority of their constituents oppose same-sex marriage.
DFL Senators Kent Eken of Twin
Valley, Lyle Koenen of Clara City, Leroy Stumpf of Plummer and Dan
Sparks of Austin joined Republicans in opposition to the adoption.
Another DFLer, Sen. Rod Skoe of Clearbrook, did not take the bait. Skoe
said he disagreed with Hann's characterization of what the vote meant.
Second, the move suggests that Minnesota for Marriage's strategy to demonize the effort to extend the freedom to marry as an epic "metro" versus "rural" battle isn't working.
Vicki Jensen says she has been honest with her constituents from the
start. The freshman senator from Owatonna is the first Democrat to
represent the area in several decades, and her Senate District 24 voted
56 percent in favor of the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
last fall. But Jensen plans to vote in favor of a bill to legalize gay
marriage this session.
“I was clear with my constituents on the campaign trail, and I’ve
been clear with them throughout the session. This is the most important
vote I will take all year,” Jensen said. “I have to vote with what I
think is right.” . . .
Has M4M gotten a single additional commitment from a rural DFLer to vote no since launching its tour? Not that we've heard. Perhaps Minnesota Republicans United for Freedom could offer to pay for visits to key suburban districts held by Republicans.
That might help create the margin for clear passage of the marriage equality bills.
Photo: Senator Kent Eken will say yes to marriage equality.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Our friends at Clean Up the River Environment asked people from the Upper Minnesota River Valley and West Central Minnesota to travel to the state capitol for an Earth Day rally for clean energy. A group of enthusiastic MPIRG students road in from U of M Morris; hundreds of passionate high school students turned out to join them.
In addition to those rallying in the rotunda, over 300 citizens showed up to lobby for solar and other clean energy on a day graced by another spring snowstorm and difficult driving in greater Minnesota.
Renewable energy advocates on Monday afternoon rallied in the state
Capitol rotunda in support of energy policy legislation that seeks to
boost solar energy in Minnesota. Gov. Mark Dayton and House Speaker Paul Thissen
were among the officials who rallied a couple hundred activists to
support bills in the House and Senate that would call for utilities to
generate 4 percent of their electricity from solar energy by 2030. The
bills sponsored by Rep. Melissa Hortman, DFL-Brooklyn Park, and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, had committee hearings on Monday with neither being voted on.
Dayton said the nation’s energy policy “has been to hang on to the
status quo for a long as possible.” He said he hopes Minnesota someday
runs on 100 percent renewable fuels. . . .
. . .“We need your help,” Hortman said. “Because as you know, the energy
lobbyists are here. The folks who like coal are here. The folks who like
natural gas are here. …You need to make sure you let your senator and
your representative know: Minnesota is ready for solar.”
The legislation is controversial, however, and was laid over on
Monday night in the Senate Environment, Economic Development and Energy
Finance Division in order to find a compromise in the next couple days.
Here's a video of several high points in the rally: Paul Bunyan puts in an appearance, as do labor environmentalist Javier Morillo-Alicea, polar explorer Will Steger and Governor Dayton.
Bluestem will swap out the Youtube with a higher quality video when we return to our fast prairie connection.
Photo: A few of the University of Minnesota Morris students who braved slippery roads to rally for clean energy.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The Land Stewardship Project has sent out an action alert about the next step facing language in Senate File 796 protecting southeast Minnesota trout streams from frac sand mining and processing. LSP has been working with Trout Unlimited to carry the water for the prized game fish in southeastern Minnesota.
The bill may be heard in the Senate Environment Finance Committeeas early as Wednesday, April 24.
SF 796 is the Omnibus Game and Fish Policy Bill and Sen. Schmit is
the author. The provisions in the bill say that in southeast Minnesota:
• No frac sand mining is allowed within a mile of any spring, groundwater seepage area, fen, designated trout stream, class 2a water or any tributary of class 2a water or designate trout stream.
• The DNR cannot issue groundwater appropriation permits for frac sand-related activity, including frac sand processing.
• Mining frac sand within 25 feet of the water table is prohibited.
The bill applies these provisions in an area defined by the DNR as
the Paleozoic Plateau (222) Ecological Section. This area generally
encompasses Minnesota's five southeast counties. A detailed map is on
the DNR’s website HERE.
These provisions protecting trout streams would help dramatically in
limiting the harm frac sand mining can do in southeast Minnesota and
would go into effect immediately. As reported in a Rochester Post-Bulletin
article, Gov. Mark Dayton has weighed in against supporting a
moratorium at this time. Without a moratorium, we need standards in
place NOW before any more frac sand mines or processing facilities are
established in southeast Minnesota. The provisions in Senate File 796
are a good step in that direction.
LSP and Trout Unlimited provide recommended action steps. Check them out here and act.
Photo: A trout caught in a Southeastern Minnesota trout stream.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
Bluestem had some errands to do in Montevideo Saturday and so joined about 75 other people at the Minnesota For Marriage (M4M) road show rally in the parking lot of St. Joseph's Catholic Church.
Judging from media reports last weekend, yesterday's spiels from the in-state talent that M4M had packed on the wrappered RV were pretty much the standard arguments the group makes.
Morse was flown in from San Diego, California's second largest city and the eighth largest in the United States, to tell citizens in Chippewa County, Minnesota (population 12,135) that we should so not let our fellow Minnesotans living in the metro areas push us around (since she used the plural, Bluestem assumes she also meant the fleshpots of Cook, St. Louis, Blue Earth, Nicollet, Olmsted, Rice, and Winona Counties as well as the scary Twin Cities where most of the state's residents live).
Along the way, Morse tried relating to her audience by making references to hunting and livestocking farming, while weaving in an anti-divorce, anti-choice, and anti-equality message that predicted the end of marriage entirely if we let cuteboys have it. Her central assertion? Reciting Maggie Gallagher's claim that the "chief public purpose of marriage" was the production and regulation of offspring, Morse also insisted that the only argument that supporters of the freedom to marry made was that folks like her are bigots who are mean to cute boys in love.
And that's where the hunting earphones came in. Morse suggested that anti-freedom advocates silence the voices of their opponents by putting on metaphorical electronic ear protection to filter out those who don't agree with them:
. . .I was told that there might be a few hunters in an area like this and so I brought my ear protectors. I'm not a hunter myself. Do you guys have these sort of ear protectors? They're very snazzy. You can turn they on and they block out the noise, they block out a big loud noise like when you shoot your gun, it blocks out--you guys know what I'm talking about here?
Good, good, good. People in San Diego have no idea what I'm talking about. But I can hear you because I've turned up the volume on my little headset here. You can hear what you want, but you block out the noise.
Now why would I wear earprotectors to a marriage rally? Because there's a lot of noise in the marriage debate. You know what I'm talking about? Everytime somebody says, "You're a bigot," that's just noise. That is just noise. That is designed to keep you--when somebody says that, what happens? You go Ohh! . . .you suddenly immediately recoil, just like the shotgun going off in your ear.
So you have to do something to stop the noise, so you can think. And the people on the other side are very deliberate and intentional from keeping the subject away from the subject. Instead of the subject being, "What is marriage and why do we need it?," the subject is, "What's wrong with you guys that you're so mean to us and that you're on the wrong side of history?" That's what they want to talk about.
Did we mention she isn't from Minnesota? Bluestem also suspects that Morse never attended the Ozarks Famous Writers School, or she'd never have pulled out a howler of an analogy like that one.
It's fascinating how much folks like Morse talk about the word "bigot." Early on in the drive to defeat the amendment to restrict the freedom to marry, Bluestem's friend (and Thug in Pastels blogger) Javier Morillo-Alicea, a Minnesotans United for All Families board member, explained how the use of the word wasn't particularly helpful or descriptive, since while many people might be uncomfortable with the notion of marriage equality, that discomfort does not a bigot make.
In interviews before and after
Tuesday's results were known, key participants focused on these factors:
• Allies: From its beginning,
Minnesotans United for All Families sought to build a diverse,
nonpartisan coalition. It avoided confrontation and steered clear of
blunt words like "bigotry" and "discrimination."
• Faith: Although the side pushing
the marriage amendment enjoyed substantial support from Catholic and
evangelical churches, opponents of the amendment actively recruited help
from other faith communities. Several organizers put it this way: "We
refused to cede the religious ground."
• Money: Minnesotans United raised
more than $12 million for the drive to defeat the amendment. The
campaign dwarfed its opposition, both in the dollars raised and in the
number of donors named.
• Time: Opponents of the marriage
amendment had a full year and a half to organize and mobilize their
supporters. In fact, they had longer than that, because the effort to
ban same-sex marriage had made no secret of its existence ahead of time.
That's what Morse wants to filter out, and it illustrates why Morse's faux-folksie analogy about electronic ear protection misses the mark. Bluestem's editor loves shooting, and so knows that the voices of those around you aren't the shotgun blasts the ear protection gear filter out. It's your own gun firing that's likely to deafen you.
Indeed, Morse seems only able to hear her own thoughts and not the discussion in Minnesota.
Could Morse be a bigot? Bluestem would argue that her bigotry or lack thereof is immaterial to the debate. Fairness, respect and equal treatment are
positive public virtues, and the case for the freedom to marry is made
on this positive basis. It's not a repayment for insult and injury, like a tort claim, or a rebuke to Morse's personal cruelties, but rather an acknowledgement of full citizenship and fairness toward all citizens to acknowledge the claims of gay men and lesbians to marry the people they love.
As for the "essential public purpose of marriage," Morse can pretend that the conversation hasn't happened, as did Maggie Gallagher, with whom the phrase is most frequently associated online. But as The American Prospect's E.J. Graff wrote in What's the "Chief Purpose" of Marriage?:
. . . same-sex couples are following, not leading, the variety of changes in marriage's public meaning that were made by capitalism between 1850 and 1970—the time span between Anthony Comstock's anti-obscenity crusade and the paired Supreme Court decisions of Griswold and Eisenstadt. In addition, I would not agree that
the most important of these changes in marriage law and public
philosophy is snipping the link between sex and babies; that's just one
of them. Some of the other changes include formal gender equality, which
was won by the mid-1970s; and divorce with remarriage, which implies
that marriage is for love rather than being a lifetime sex-and-labor
contract, and therefore unbreakable. You believe that adding same-sex
couples to marriage is what really snips the link between sex and babies. I don't.
Later in the video below, Morse condemns divorce and reproductive choice, while going so far as to claim the freedom to marry will eliminate the institution entirely. It's one big plot or something.
Morse also tried to get folksy with a coy, nearly sniggering suggestion about rural and metro people having different understandings about where babies come from:
Every known society has something like marriage that attaches mothers and fathers to their children and one another. Now as soon as you see that that is the public purpose, the essential public purpose of marriage, then you can see right away that a same sex couple is different from an opposite sex couple with respect to that purpose. Can everybody see that?
It's basic biology. And I'm sure out here in a farm community, you all know how this works with the men and the women [she moves her hands back and forth while the audience guffaws] that stuff. Back in the metro area....ehhhhh, maybe not so clear on that, but out here, you all know how this works.
Bluestem suspects that Morse hasn't been to a modern livestock farm anytime recently to make that assertion--since sows and cows are artificially inseminated--or that she knows much about "the metro" either. Perhaps Rod Hamilton could give her a tour of a boar stud farm and farrowing unit if she wants to bring this up; as Harpers contributor Nathaniel Johnson wrote, it's a Swine of the Times in rural America.
Morse code: no stranger to controversy
One friend suggested that it might be a sign of M4M's desperation that it flew Morse in. Her most recent turn in the headlines was an almost Kluwesque turn, when the Chicago Bears and former linebacker Brian Urlacher ran from a Morse fundraising effort. The Chicago Tribune reported in the early April 2013 article, Urlacher, Bears reject link to group opposing same-sex-marriage:
The Bears and former linebacker Brian Urlacher denied any involvement
Wednesday with the Ruth Institute -- an affiliate of the National
Organization For Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage -- after an online promotion for the institute stated a clear involvement of the team. . . .
In an advertisement for its June gala at an upcoming conference, the
California-based group stated, "For now, you should know that we have
two fabulous raffle items from the Chicago Bears Organization (and a huge THANK YOU to the Bears for supporting our message)."
Below the statement are images of an autographed Urlacher jersey and an
autographed black-and-white photo of deceased Hall of Fame running back
Walter Payton.
"I sign a lot of stuff for charity and I don't
always know where it goes," Urlacher told the Tribune. "If I would have
known it was for this cause, I wouldn't have done it."
Payton's
older brother Eddie Payton said he did not know of any memorabilia
regarding his brother used to support an anti-gay marriage group.
"This is the first I've heard of it," said Payton, a former NFL
kick returner. "Walter treated everybody equal. … Only Walter could
speak for himself, but it's a touchy subject. It should be a
non-subject."
The Bears issued a statement, saying "The two items
featured in The Ruth Institute gala invitation were personal donations
to (President) Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse. Neither was a club donation,
nor do they represent the team's view on any social issues. Any remarks
stating otherwise are false."
Reached by phone Wednesday
afternoon, Morse initially declined comment. But her website later
dropped all references to the Bears at the team's request, and Morse
issued a statement: "The Ruth Institute is not working with the Chicago
Bears organization or any of its players past or present to promote our
upcoming auction. The memorabilia we are auctioning off was acquired by
me personally, not through the team or players. We understand that the
Chicago Bears organization takes no position on social issues, and we
regret any confusion we may have caused on this point." . . .
Photo: Morse in Montevideo, tweeted by M4M. After watching the event, I wrote Andrew Falk, my state representative and asked him to vote "yes" on the Clark bill to legalize the freedom to marry for all loving adult couples. Video: Shot by Sally Jo Sorensen. Please credit Bluestem Prairie.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
While winter's pale blue eyes linger on here in Chippewa County, signs of spring are making a tentative entrance: a wren taking shelter in the garage during an ice storm, Tundra Swans wondering if this might be the place, a puzzled Yellow-Rumped Warbler perplexed by the snow, and this cycle's announcement by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) that Blue Dog Representative Collin Peterson is high on its list of targets.
In its first targeted campaign of the season, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, aired televised attack ads this month against Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn. — more than 18 months before voters go to the polls.
The ads attempted to tie Peterson to President Obama and his health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, both unpopular in his sprawling rural district. “Instead of voting to balance the budget, he voted to spend $1.8 trillion on Obamacare,” a narrator said in the ad.
Peterson did not vote for the Affordable Care Act, but voted against its repeal. He also voted against the House Republican budget, which brings federal spending in line with revenues over 10 years.
Peterson laughed off the attack. “They don’t have anybody else to go after,” he said. “It’s kind of ridiculous, but whatever.” . . .
. . .The NRCC spent $2,000 on the early ad campaign against Peterson, which is a paltry sum, said John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “It’s just not that much money.”
We're hoping that former state senator and ethically-challenged tweep Kvetchin' Gretchen Hoffman runs. Not because this would help the Republican Party's odds, but because Bluestem could revive our Tales of Hoffman series. She's rich, she's crabby, and she's from North Dakota. What's not for the RNC to love?
And then there's the press release, which is crystal clear about Peterson's offenses to humanity:
After chiding Peterson for expecting “Minnesota seniors to foot the bill for his unbalanced, irresponsible priorities,” the statement from communications director Andrea Bozek read: “Peterson owes Utah families an explanation for his poor record, and his support of wildly expensive law that hurts jobs and Utah’s seniors.”
That should provoke outrage from Biscay to Climax.
Photo: Utah, the extreme western part of Minnesota's Seventh District.
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, served as a New Media training and strategy consultant for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party from October 2009 through mid-April 2010. She now serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors.
Recent Comments