January 6th, 2021

"Trump won the presidency and the Dems are stealing the election" is a big, bold lie that spurred the insurrection and attempted coup last week, in which our capitol was overwhelmed and the work of our government paused by Trump supporters-turned-seditionists. That lie is a huge problem, and it was repeated in the votes of senators and representatives who immediately afterwards voted to discount the electoral votes representing the legal, certified votes of US citizens. They voted to disenfranchise Americans. It is still being repeated all over conservative "news networks" and by political leaders at many levels of government. However, because it is a big, bold lie, it is easy to identify. Despite this lie, votes were certified by party functionaries on both sides of the aisle. Despite this lie, courts overwhelmingly rejected claims of rampant voter or electoral fraud, because there was no evidence to back up the allegations. 

"This isn't who we are" was said about the insurrectionists, who did for white supremacists what the Civil War never managed and brought the confederate battle flag flying in the halls of our capitol. This is also a lie, and it is just as big, but it is much sneakier. It feels like optimism or patriotism or unity, but it is denial.  It pretends that we are a nation that has achieved equality and this event was an abberation, when the truth is that we are a nation that set equality as a goal and have yet to achieve it. Denying the ugly, racist history of the United States allows it to continue existing unacknowledged. Denying that part of who we are as a nation is about enslaved Black people and an unending series of ways to keep wealth and power in white hands, is a lie that we need to face and reckon with. 

As to the first lie, the winners of the elections last November will be installed soon where they haven't been already, despite the cries of the liars. A huge libel lawsuit is being leveraged against the lies of FOX news and others. Tech giants have stood up for their TOS and blocked users up to and including the president for inciting violence, and corporations are rumbling about ceasing to fund campaigns of congresspeople who voted to disenfranchise. This lie won't die easily so long as people keep repeating it, but steps are being taken. 

As to the second lie, we all need to learn about what faces racism wears today, and just as importantly learn what anti-racism looks like, and how to engage in it. The steps to address this lie may not seem as recognizable or clear. If you're not sure what they are, then take a first step and try to find out for yourself, or a next step from wherever you last left off. 

Rochester City Council Ward 2

This was not a difficult decision for me. I have been pleased with Mike Wojcik, the incumbent councilmember for my ward, and I will definitely vote for him in this election as I have previously. 

Mike is as dedicated a public servant as anyone I have come across in Rochester. He takes his role on the council as a more-than-full-time position. Mike consistently advocates for and models transparency in all government practices - to the point where he has made enemies of people who didn't want the level of transparency he has brought to our city government. He is deeply knowledgeable and experienced in many areas of local government and takes the time and effort to learn given an issue outside his area of expertise. 

Observing what Mark Bransford has made available on his site and in the recordings I've seen tells me that he has a clear focus on affordable housing. I absolutely applaud this goal, but it doesn't set him apart from his opponent, and he doesn't bring any special qualifications to the table with regard to housing/construction/permitting/real estate/development, so my feeling is to go with the guy who has 12 years experience on the council and knows how to get things accomplished in the city government.  

As of this writing on 9/28, less than 40 days out from the election, Bransford's website does not have any detail beyond a few bullet points on his other priorities of 'relationship building' and 'revive the economy'. Aside from the platform page on his website, Wojcik's active blog contains a public record of his thoughts on many issues and goes back years. 

On issues that matter to me more personally: 

Transit:

    Pre-COVID I rode the bus daily, I still do occasionally, and I fully intend to make use of it again as it feels safe from a public health perspective. Transit has been a central issue to Mike, a way to push Rochester into a progressive future with easy, safe, affordable, and equitable access to sustainable and eco-friendly city resources from electric buses to bike lanes. Transit doesn't make an appearance on Mark's platform, but he did mention in an interview that he seems ready to hold back on public transit plans for reasons that weren't clear - perhaps cost? Advantage Wojcik. 

Theatre and arts:

    Mike sat down and listened to the theatre community in 2017 when revelations about RCT leadership were made public. In early 2020 when another RCT executive director was in charge and driving the theatre off a cliff, he led a city audit of the organization and listened to the community again, going so far as to organize a public forum for the arts community to voice its thoughts about public spaces for the arts in Rochester. When COVID prompted RCT to undergo another leadership change, this time a positive change back to a place with active community engagement, he kept abreast of the situation and continues to seek information and listen actively when he finds it. 

    While Bransford mentions being involved in local theatre productions, a google search just shows me about one show at RCT from Jan-Feb 2020, the tail end of the second period when leadership had burned bridges with the theatre community at large. That's all I know - never heard of the guy in my theatre circles before, so clear advantage to Wojcik. 

Progressive policy:

    Mark sounds most of the time like a progressive candidate. Sometimes he'll word something in a way that makes me think he's hedging a little. That would be a reasonable tactical move, if he is trying to court folks who aren't progressive, because Wojcik very clearly is, so maybe he thinks to create some space for himself there. Mike has 12 years of city votes and endless other documented evidence of his desire and intent to work toward progressive policy goals. This looks like a lot of things: recently he pushed back on the school board's choice of location, because he noted that it would denude diversity of racial and socioeconomic student populations. He shows up at BLM protests and rallies against gun violence. He led pushback against an ordinance that would criminalize homeless staying in the skyways for warmth. Maybe all these things would be true of Mark if he'd been on the council for 12 years, but I don't know that. I know Wojcik values these things, so clear advantage to him. 

As a final thought, Mike Wojcik has gone from being a consistently outvoted progressive voice on the Rochester City Council to being in a place where he has a bit more support from his colleagues. I think this election could push our city council to be yet more progressive, which I believe will be very beneficial for Rochester as a whole. 

That's it. The End. Vote Wojcik. 

MN State Senate District 26

My ballot has two names for the district 26 MN state senate seat: Aleta Borrud, DFL, and Carla Nelson, Rep (incumbent). Come with me on a little journey through some state headlines from the last couple months that are important to the rationale for my vote. 

About a month ago, the MN state senate crossed my news feed in an upsetting way. In a surprise move during a special session, the GOP majority voted on party lines to remove Nancy Leppink, the Walz-appointed commissioner of the state Dept of Labor and Industry. There is a MinnPost story here. Basically, the state senate has authority to 'advise and consent' to commissioner appointments according to the state constitution, but in practice, the appointments are rarely contested or voted on at all, which leaves a door open for the senate to take a vote denying consent at any time, removing the appointed commissioner -- and that's what they did. 

The reason for the vote? To pressure Walz to end the state of emergency due to COVID-19. The state senate was shooting a hostage, and that isn't even my inflammatory analogy - it's a quote from the state house GOP leader, Kurt Daudt (its in the story linked above, seriously). 

The state senate did the same thing again in a special session on September 11th. After Walz extended the state of emergency (Minnesota's case load in September is as high as it has been all year), the GOP responded by removing the Commerce Commissioner Steve Kelley, reinforcing the act as a pattern of appointed commissioners being targeted in order to put political pressure on the governor. 

Isn't this really the fault of the state senate GOP leader, Paul Gazelka? While I personally think Gazelka is desperately trying to be a mini-McConnell and I despise it, Carla Nelson got to vote on both of these measures. Firing someone with no warning to make a political statement. 'Shooting hostages' to get what they want, which is apparently a state government that doesn't take the pandemic seriously even as all our neighbor states become national hotspots. 

Carla could have also voted against that practice, and shown a bit of respect for the public servants Leppink and Kelley whose departments are working on behalf of the people of Minnesota. 

Let's dive down one more level. Obviously, Gazelka didn't say he was shooting prisoners - he's picking commissioners that have done things the GOP doesn't like. In the example of Leppink, here's one of the complaints:

Leppink is enforcing Minnesota's 2019 law criminalizing wage theft. It was a widely bipartisan piece of legislation, but when Leppink started actually holding businesses responsible for paying employees the wages that they are owed, I guess she turned into a socialist boogeyman. 

She also negotiated a deal to make worker's comp smoother for medical workers who get COVID. She enforced rules about fire sprinklers in barns used for weddings. She's clearly a monster that needs to be stopped. 

Again, Carla Nelson voted for her removal (or technically, voted no on consent to her appointment), as a way to complain about and politically pressure the governor regarding emergency powers to enact public health measures for a pandemic response. 

I have rabbit-trailed. I'm sorry if you're actually trying to read this, but I'm also not sorry, because being an informed voter is important. 

And in the interest of not being entirely negative about Nelson, she put up an instagram post of her joining in what I truly think was a wonderful effort by local leaders to do something positive and constructive and artistic in the midst of pandemic times - I think public art is a fantastic tool to build community. She was also a teacher before going into politics, and I have a lot of respect for that. 

Overall, I'm not impressed with Nelson as a candidate more than I want her to feel political repercussions for the choices I outline above. While her positions are not as far from mine as many republicans, but those of her opponent Dr. Aleta Borrud are a much better fit. 

Borrud's platform reads pretty much like a list of my own priorities. Women's reproductive health and choice is part of her healthcare section. Equity across lines of race, sexuality, and income is a theme throughout the issues. She indicates bolder steps toward environmental sustainability than her opponent. 

Importantly to me, Borrud's statements directly addresses racism and police violence issues. Neither is given space on Nelson's website. George Floyd's murder has highlighted that these are huge problems in Minnesota - we have embarrassing racial disparities in income, wealth, education, and those problems don't go away if they are not being actively worked. 

Nelson has had her seat for long enough. I will definitely be voting for Aleta Borrud, and against the actions of the MN state senate GOP that Nelson supported. 

Rochester is split between state senate district 25 and 26. I am in 26 in SW Rochester - here is a map of where they sit, for reference. You can find your own ballot if you haven't at this site. 

Condemnation

Congressman Hagedorn,


I am writing to express my thoughts as one of your constituents, and I'll strive to maintain civility while expressing those thoughts, because maintaining a civil discourse even in disagreement is how effective communication works.

Two days ago you voted against condemnation of racist language from President Trump, and I'd like to know why.

The vote did not contain any actionable policy or any legislation, so you couldn't have voted against it on the grounds that it was supporting policy with which you disagree.

Perhaps you thought the language Trump used wasn't racist. If so, I ask simply why other lawmakers, who are not people of color, are not told to return to where they come from, to "go home?" Trump feels free to engage in name-calling and lies of all sorts against many lawmakers, but only to people of color did he reserve the instruction to "go home." This language is embedded in the racist idea that white Americans are an "us" and people of color are a "them." Such language divides people and encourages fear and hatred. It is deeply unamerican and deserves condemnation.

Maybe you felt you had to vote with your party, or had to vote against a democratic party motion simply because they are the opposition. If that were the case, I ask if there is a line beyond which you will stop this behavior and use your vote to represent american ideals and values rather than party politics?

The appearance of your vote is that you support or agree with the president's racist comments, and that stirs up significant anger in me, because you are supposed to represent me in our government. I don't want my representation to take the form of support for racism, even if it is in the form of a lack of condemnation.


Sincerely,

Tommy Rinkoski

What can a vote do?

A friend on facebook reposted a statement that struck me as both important and flawed.

From @DanaVivianWhite, it states " Vote, yes. But there is no amount of voting that the liberals or the left can do to quiet the intensifying rage and radical action of white nationalism. This will not be resolved by voting Trump and other conservatives out. I feel like no one is saying that plainly."

The overall point is absolutely true, that even if a majority of Americans vote conservatives out of power, the hatred boiling in our country doesn't disappear. That is a horrible truth, but the author is right to point it out. It is vital to acknowledge that we have a hate problem in our country. It is worse than useless to lie to ourselves that this problem only showed up because of our garbage president. The hatred and fear has been with us as a nation, but it tended to live further below the surface before Trump became president. His blatant, loud, and constant stream of racism, misogyny, and intolerance has massively impacted the way people carry their hatred. His prominent hatred, and the lack of consequences he has faced for his hatred, emboldens and enables people to express their own hate and fears; to act out on their own worst impulses. Making a bad situation worse, the republican congress has apparently made the decision not to try and correct the situation, but to milk it for every possible political benefit. The GOP generally, and particularly party leadership, have made the decision to be complicit in Trump's influence rather than oppose it.

This is all tightly interconnected, but still somewhat separate from, the encouraging of division and polarization in general. That is a problem with its own very significant set of consequences.

All that said, here is where I think the original post is flawed: the country voted our way into the current situation, and while we certainly cannot vote away the fear and hatred that underlie a mass shooting at a church, mosque, or synagogue, there is something very important we can do with our vote. We can vote for better people. People who won't model misogyny or racism to their constituents. We can literally empower women, people of color,  LGBTQ folks, or people with a variety of religious backgrounds. We can give these people control in our federal, state, and local governments. We can at the very least elect someone who is ready to oppose the hatred of our executive, and the complicit actions of the current GOP leadership.

It is a much longer, more difficult game than the idea that a big blue wave election will suddenly end white nationalism in our country. That's an attractive idea - I wish that could happen.

The road away from the rage and empowered hate groups, though, does require a show by the country that we are not going to stand for it. It is a step - removing Trump and his dumpster fire of an administration is another step - toward addressing our nation's hate problem.

So while voting will not solve the problem directly - my vote won't take away someone's racism - I think that sending a clear message with our votes is a necessary step to moving forward toward a future where we as a nation first admit there is a problem, and second commit to addressing it. We can't go back to a place without racism or hatred, because it has been here since before our nation was founded, but we can try to go forward to a place where we speak openly about the problem and do something about it.

Shootings and arguments and priorities

It is fantastic and depressing that high school students are taking up the mantle of the fight for rational gun control. Fantastic because their energy is impressive and inspiring, their fearlessness in the wake of trauma is amazing, and it is all delivered with truly age-defying confidence and poise. Depressing because the battle they are fighting still must be fought, despite the dozens of horrific school shootings, mass shootings, the thousands of gun deaths that should have spurred our leadership and our country to take responsible measures years ago.

So many memes fly by, so many comments, ideas, thoughts, and perspectives, that it gets a bit overwhelming. I watched a video of a man destroy his own AR-15 because he wanted to be rid of it and make sure it would never be responsible for a human death. It was poignant, and that man was making a bold choice that I admire him for. However, it also provokes a sort of despair, because as admirable as his choice was, to destroy his own weapon with no rule or law compelling him to do so, the problem cannot be solved that way. We cannot rely as a society on people to always be responsible in that way.

The arguments against rational gun control are stale and, frankly, stupid. It is fact that the NRA, driven in large part by gun manufacturers, gives huge donations to the people making our laws, and it is beyond obvious that the funding buys them the votes they need to maintain weapon sales.

"We should arm teachers"
I can hardly even ... this is just stupid. The solution is to put more guns into our schools? NO! There have been several impassioned messages flying around about this, from trained marksmen saying that its a horrible idea to teachers saying its a horrible idea. I don't want my children going to a school where there are guns in the building. That makes the situation LESS SAFE. How many accidental gun deaths occur in homes without guns compared to homes that own guns? Where there are guns, there is the chance of an accident, and gun accidents can be lethal because they are weapons designed to kill and wound. I'm not even touching the 'too expensive' side of this argument, because its not worth it. This is the WORST solution. Firemen do not put out a burning building with fire. We do not treat a bacterial infection with more bacteria. More guns is not the answer unless you are trying to sell guns (or are brainwashed by those trying to sell guns).

"Guns are not the problem, _______ is the problem."
Other countries with rational gun control laws also have _________, and they do not have the mass shootings that we have in the USA. Guns are the problem. We may have to do something about ________ IN ADDITION TO gun control. Next argument.

"Schools need better security. Armed guards, fences, metal detectors, etc."
This is only slightly less stupid than arming teachers. There was an armed guard on hand at last week's school shooting. Our schools do not need to be made into military institutions, we just need sensible gun control. Aside from that, mass shootings have happened at concerts and theatres and churches, and if we follow this logic our country will turn into a war zone of walls and fences around every space where people need to go. No.

"2nd amendment rights"
So, I actually do hear this argument and I have to have a little bit of respect for it. Personally, I choose not to own or carry a gun, but I understand that our nation has the right to bear arms baked in. However, there are really important things that I feel are important to keep in mind when arguing about the 2nd amendment:
 - 'well regulated militia' is often left out when people talk about the right to bear arms. It helps lead to think that our forefathers were not foreseeing a society where the right to carry weapons meant giving up bodily safety and accepting the reality of mass murder as 'the price of freedom'
 - historical context: its a tired argument, but a valid one, that the weapons that existed in the late 1700s are radically different than modern guns. Shooting 300 rounds with a musket would take over 2 hours even if you were really good at it. An AR-15 can do that in minutes - less than an average emergency response time.
 - The Constitution is a living document. While changing it should not be undertaken lightly, amendments are made and interpretations are updated over time. Clinging to the wording of any document at the expense of human lives is a dangerous proposition.
 - The fringe variant of needing to be ready to fight against a tyrannical government is ignorant and ridiculous. If the US government intended to kill you, no gun will save you. No militia would stand up if the attention of the US military is turned on it.
Ultimately, the deeper response to the arguments about the right to bear arms is that we have to weigh the value and extent of the right to bear arms against the value of our lives and the lives of our children. Personally, I feel that the lives of my children should have priority over your right to own a military-grade weapon.

I suppose that's a good place to end this rambling stream of consciousness. That just about sums it up.

The lives of our children are more important than our right to own military-grade weapons.

Gray Wolf State Management Act of 2017

I don't actually want my blog to constantly be about political and legal issues, but this really got me going today.

My wife posted an article with the title:

'Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming have decided to eradicate wolves'

When I was a kid, wolves were my favorite. I got big non-fiction books from the library about ecology and wildlife before I could even read them, because they were about wolves. I ran around the house pretending to be a wolf so much that my mother was never without a supply of denim patches for my knees. I had to learn more. Especially because the piece that was linked seemed a little biased and maybe I was missing something.

I found this, which also reads a little alarmist but linked me to the actual bills that have been introduced introduced to the US House and Senate. I was disappointed to see MN legislators as co-authors on both bills; Reps Tom Emmer and Richard Nolan, and Sen Amy Klobuchar. I'll put their contact information below.

I found this article from the Center for Biological Diversity which gives a helpful summary of some of the legal battles over wolf management since protections began in the 1960s. Basically, as wolf populations have rebounded (which they have certainly done with protections in place), some have decided that the wolves no longer need protection. I'm guessing this is based on loud complaints from ranchers and farmers in the few areas where wolves can predate livestock, but also by conservatives looking to cut budgets and regulation, and probably also by underlying psychological hangups people might have about wolves. In any case, the fact is that wolves used to live over basically the entire United States, and the fact that there exist small areas with healthy wolf populations does NOT mean we should stop mandating scientifically-directed management. The key thing is that scientists who know wildlife management from an ecological perspective need to make conservation decisions, not lawmakers.

In this sentence, I refuse the temptation to go off on a tangent about badass park rangers in the last couple days.

However, it gets so much cooler - I learned about trophic cascades (Wikipedia), where re-introduction of a predator (the top trophic level) has rippling effects down through the rest of the ecosystem. This link from Yellowstone Park has a fantastic video about what happened there after wolves were re-introduced. WATCH IT! The amount of change they saw in the ecosystem of the park was amazing. I took ecology classes in college, and even spent a semester in a biodiversity and conservation program, and I would not have imagined the extent to which the ecosystem benefited from the re-introduction of wolves.

I can't believe you're still with me. Stop reading this and call to tell your reps and senators that these bills are irresponsible and need to be eliminated. The bottom line is that ecological and conservation science needs to drive wildlife management decisions.

The MN cosponsors are here, but the bills have been introduced, so contact your reps and senators where-ever you live!

Rep Tom Emmer - (202) 225-2331
Rep Richard Nolan - (202) 225-6211
Sen Amy Klobuchar - (202) 224-3244