Beginning on September 23rd, when early voting begins, Minnesota will be choosing an overseer of Minnesota’s free and fair elections, the Minnesota Secretary of State. 

Stop yawning, because this issue has become a big deal.

This is an era in which Trumpist Republicans now scream “fraud” any time they have fewer certified votes than their opponent. Because of that, the choice of Secretary of State has suddenly become one of the most important choices on your ballot. 

Republicans have nominated someone named Kim Crockett to run against DFL incumbent Steve Simon. Having effectively and efficiently managed the election system with the highest turnout in the nation, Simon has earned reelection.

Meanwhile, Trumpist Crockett, the former head of an ultra-conservative policy think tank, champions anti-democratic views.

• Denying Certified Results. Crockett is an election denier who rejects the findings about the 2020 presidential election, which were checked and re-checked and re-re-checked by dozens of non-partisan election officials, auditors, and judges. Her partisan attitudes about non-partisan vote counting and auditing in 2020 telegraph the partisan manner in which she would oversee vote counting and auditing in the future. It seems clear that she would reject foundational democratic values in favor of partisanship, and that could effectively disenfranchise many Minnesota voters.
  

• Dismantling Proven System. Despite the fact that Minnesota has the best voter turnout in the nation, Crockett insists that Minnesota’s current must be destroyed and rebuilt to her liking.  She wants to make voting more difficult, not easier, such as by pushing to restrict mail voting, erecting participation barriers, and shrinking early voting periods. Unconscionable.

• Promoting Bigotry and Elitism. Crockett even questions whether Americans with disabilities and non-English speakers should be permitted to vote:
  
  “So, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that indeed you can help an unlimited number of people vote if they are disabled or can’t read or speak English, which raises the question, should they be voting? We can talk about that another time.”
  
  No, how about we talk about that now?

So, please do your research on this race, and don’t stop voting after the top few choices at the top of the ballot.  This Secretary of State vote matters a lot more than it might seem at first blush.

by Noel Holston

Disingenuous or not, Donald Trump continues to maintain that he couldn’t have lost his re-election bid. After all, his rallies were so big and his supporters love him so much. The supporters agree because, well, the rallies were so big and they love him so much.

Nonsense. Anybody who applies simple common sense to this question will understand how he could — and did — lose.

Start with the 2016 Presidential election. Trump did win that one. No question. Hillary Clinton got more popular votes — 65,844,954 (48.2%) to Trump’s 62,979,879 (46.1%) — but Trump won more states and triumphed in the Electoral College.

In 2020, the election went the other way, with Biden getting 81,282,916 popular votes to Trump’s 74,223,369 and flipping enough “battleground” states to win the Electoral College. That’s a margin of just over seven million votes, which is pretty freakin’ emphatic and impossible to fake.

To which Trump and his flock still say, “No way, not possible.”

But it was more than possible. It was entirely predictable.

Think about it. Trump lost at the ballot box in 2016 by almost three million votes to a former First Lady who is despised, vilified and mocked by right-wing Americans and isn’t exactly beloved by members of her own party (including me).

So why should it be shocking that a far less polarizing, avuncular Democrat could beat him in 2020? Especially after Trump had had four years to outrage Democrats, disgust traditional Republicans and sour independents with his endless, inescapable displays of pettiness, deceit, egomania, meanness and willful ignorance. Millions may love him, but millions more were sick of the sight and sound of him.

True, some of these very characteristics endeared him to his faithful — or were possible for them to ignore given his Supreme Court appointees. He got more than 11 million more votes in 2020 than he got on 2016.

But Biden’s getting 15 million more votes than Clinton did and seven million more than Trump, far from impossible, was inevitable — a tribute to Trump’s unparalleled ability to annoy, sicken and motivate the liberals and moderates he thought he was “owning.”

It’s time for MAGAs from Trump on down to cool it with the absurd claims of theft and get on with tapping Greg Abbott or Ron DeSantis or Archery Terror-Alert Greed to continue their plans to transform the USA into Gilead or Oceania or Hungary. There was no steal. Trump gave the election away.

And here’s the kicker. He has probably given away 2024 as well. If he had just submitted to an orderly transfer of power like 44 Presidents before him and kept his mouth shut, he’d be in a better position to retake the Oval Office in two years. But he couldn’t help himself, and he still can’t. As it stands now, he may be wearing a jumpsuit that matches his face.

Trump does have many enemies, but none worse than himself.

Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He regularly shares his insights and wit at Wry Wing Politics. He’s also a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (2000-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune  (1986-2000).  He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” by Skyhorse.

Yesterday the Strib ran a feature piece all about … tipping. Why? Because tipping, i.e. the time-tested, normally fuss-less procedure of leaving the waitress/bartender/whoever a couple bucks has gotten absurdly complicated. And I know, because only a couple days before the story appeared, The Lovely Mrs and I ran up against exactly what the piece was getting at … to the point I had to have, mmm, a little chat with the manager.

(Okay, I didn’t have to but I did, because I’m one of those guys.)

The setting was Young Joni in funky Nordeast, a favorite joint of ours, although it had been a year, since our previous anniversary date night, that we had been in. If you’re not familiar with it, the chow is excellent. I’m a sucker for anything laid on top of creme fraiche and Young Joni has found a dozen ways to work creme fraiche into everything from sweet potatoes (Korean, to be precise) and pizzas (designer variety.)

The place has been around for a few years now and it’s still popular, meaning that the only way you drop in and expect to eat within an hour is by cozying up to the bar. And even that often requires a wait.

Like everything else, we noticed that menu prices had jumped a good 20-25% since our last visit. (I blame Joe Biden.) But, you know, what the hell, it’s our anniversary and not that big of a deal. But … 

… down at the bottom of the menu was the fine-print verbiage you see in the photo above.

“A 21% surcharge is added to each order and controlled by the restaurant to support better wages for our entire team. It is not distributed as a gratuity for service, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 177.23, subdivision 9.”

Hmmmm. We wanted drinks and dinner, but first we were going have to call our attorney? (“Dear, do we have an attorney?”)  … to decipher … a restaurant menu?

“Controlled by the restaurant”, “to support better wages”, “for our entire team”, “… not distributed as a gratuity”, “pursuant to … .” WTF?

Having what I would charitably describe as a D+ legal mind, what all that translated to, on first reading was, “We’re automatically adding 21% to everything you see on the menu above … and then, because it’s not a gratuity, you can decide for yourself to leave an actual, you know, tip, amounting to 15-20% depending on how pleased you were with your waitress. Or, in other words doofus, add 36-40% to that Rickey you ordered and whatever entrees come afterward.”

This 21% business isn’t new, but neither is it anywhere close to universal. You see it some places, while others ignore it, despite being officially “persuant … “. (The Strib story said they were looking at it because it’s a growing, um, annoyance.)

Not wanting to flip the switch and go full Lewis Black before dinner, I took a chill pill and enjoyed my dining experience …  and … waited … coiled and ready to strike.

As I say, the chow is good at Young Joni. I had something called a “La Parisienne” pizza (with creme fraiche) and the aforementioned Rickey. (In truth, the pizza was very good, but the $15-plus 36-40% Rickey was basically just Club Soda with ice; tasteless and lacking even a hint of booze, as best I could tell.) The LM had a couple glasses of wine and a more basic pizza. All good.

Anyway … with dinner over and the check in front of me … it was time to go to war.

I waved the manager down, and asked as politely as an enraged fire ant could, what exactly this 21% business mumbo jumbo actually means, and why it is not “distributed as a gratuity?”

Being a pro, the young manager went into an obviously well-practiced spiel about how the 21% helps pay the dishwashers and various other scullery types (not her words) who don’t get the big money waitresses and bartenders get.

[Begin paraphrasing of ensuing dialogue].

Me:  Uh, huh. Right. But then we’re dropping the usual tip on our waitress, right? So … 36-40%?

Her: Oh, no. The 21% is the gratuity, just, you know, automated to guarantee income for the support staff. 

So … there’s no expectation that we tip the waitress?

You can if you choose, but it isn’t necessary.

(To myself)“Necessary”. Hmmm.

Me: Well, if I weren’t the tedious dork I’m proud of being, and I was just nice, sweet Grandma Millie in with her girlfriends to celebrate her 85th birthday, I’m kinda thinking I’d believe it was, you know, “necessary” to drop another 15-20% on my waitress. And if Millie had knocked back four Rickeys she’d be looking at a pretty serious tab. Wouldn’t it be … clearer … if after the “guaranteeing income for the support staff” business the menu fine print said, “The 21% is your tip. Nothing more is expected from you, our treasured guest.”

Well, I guess maybe it could be clearer, yes.

Ok, thank you. Everything was great. (I lied. The Rickey was tasteless.)

The Strib story brushes past the most obvious rejoinder to this “persuant” state Statute 21% sur-charge yadda yadda.

Namely, if you, the restaurant owner,  want to insure adequate wages for your staff … pay them more, and raise your prices. If that means the La Parisienne pizza jumps another 20-25% in price, so be it. When we can that damn Biden and get Ron DeSantis in the White House all prices everywhere will reset to medieval levels anyway and everything will be great again.

In other words, the Minnesota restaurant industry would be smart to dump the legalistic, mumbo jumbo menu fine print and concede their costs, rather than preying on the confusion of a (guessing here) fat percentage of their clientele who won’t be a dick like me and ask, but will instead pay 36-40% on top of their bill.

And speaking of dicks, here’s my 21%, put some booze in the damn Rickey. 

If The New York Times had called me and asked if I wanted Joe Biden to run again for President, I’d have said “no.”

Then again, if they asked me if was upset about his policies, or blamed him for “the country heading in wrong direction” or the price of gas, I’d also have said, “no.” And if they asked who I’d vote for if Biden ran against The Orange God King in 2024, I’d have said something along the lines of, “I’d vote for Beelzebub himself before Trump, only because the cloven-hoof guy smarter, less embarrassing and more honest.”

Columns and podcasts are clogging with pundits arguing that Joe Biden is simply too old to run again … unless he runs against Trump. And I’m on board with that. Unlike Fox and whatever passes for a deep thinking at Breitbart, the Gateway Pundit and InfoWars, I don’t see Biden as senile or “out of it.” Far from it. He’s clearly more rational and in control of a wider and deeper set of facts than the former casino bankrupter.

But no, Biden needs to begin the process of the hand-off. By the summer of 2023 at the latest.

Among the central personal qualities essential to success in our 2022 political world are personal energy and a sustained, crowd-pleasing ferocity in the face of shameless stupidity and bad faith. And those are virtues born in a younger generation than a pre-Boomer.

Whenever anyone asks about Trump 2024, I say I doubt he’s serious about another campaign, because he knows he’d lose even worse than 2020, but that the grift is just too sweet and easy to rule it out until the very last moment. Hell, if he can raise/steal $250 million from his delusional rubes for a legal defense that never existed, there’s got to be another quarter billion to rake in before declaring “everything’s rigged” and bailing out an hour before the New Hampshire primary.

But where do the Democrats go for a candidate with the chops to destroy a truly villainous slime like Florida governor Ron DeSantis?

A couple days ago Politico (aka “Tiger Beat on the Potomac”, thank you, Charlie Pierce), suggested Jon Stewart was the (kind of) guy Democrats need in a world where venomous pricks like DeSantis are regarded as anointed saviors of our white Christian nationhood. And given the performance of a smart, quick-witted, disciplined ex-comedian leading Ukraine in its fight against Trump supporter Vladimir Putin, I can follow their thinking. But the next guy/gal has to want the job, and Stewart doesn’t.

Part of the argument for a Jon Stewart candidacy, or an Oprah candidacy or any fill-in-the-blank-personality candidacy is that the low-information “persuadable” voters who can tip North Carolina, Florida, Arizona and Pennsylvania safely into a Democrat’s hands feel a child-like relationship with famous faces they see on TV. (Trump would never have gotten where he did if simpletons didn’t actually believe he was the business genius they saw on “The Apprentice.”) It’s a sad reality of human nature/modern life, but try convincing me or anyone it isn’t … a fact.

Which leads us to people like California governor, Gavin Newsom, a Hollywood-savvy glamor-puss who lately has been enjoying sticking it to … Ron DeSantis … with mocking comparisons of California v. Florida quality of life, including nuances like privacy and women’s right to choose. Newsom — tall, with ridiculously good hair and a gravelly, manly voice — is like something out of Central Casting and easily ridiculed for looking it. But as I and others weighing his chances have to concede, he pulls it off … and he likes the fight.

Glamor-aside, I’ve always been a fan of Pete Buttigieg. He was my pick in 2020 and with moments like this — on Fox no less — he’s shown time after time that he has the focus and composure for the relentless brawl with misinformation-spewing stooges. But Pete, clearly the smartest candidate in either party in 2020, doesn’t deliver the ineffable “matinee idol” ju-ju that someone like Newsom does.

Either way, Joe Biden will be much too old were he reelected in ’24. The modern world needs someone deeply, and when it comes to negotiating absolutely critical issues like climate change, I do mean “deeply” versed in the technologies and rhetorical warfare of this era.

I await the Times’ next call.

Note: This blog is supposed to be commentary about public issues, not personal reflections about the authors’ lives. I’m making an exception in this case, though maybe the struggle I discuss may feel familiar to others.

Valued friends and mentors sometimes tell me not to post about politics on social media.  Keep it to personal updates and humor, they counsel. The reasons they give for foregoing politics generally fall into three categories – it’s bad for your career, divisive, and futile.

My Defense

When deciding how to engage on social media everyone has their own unique circumstances to navigate. But for what it’s worth, this is my answer to those criticisms.

Criticism #1:  Speaking Out Is Bad for Your Career

I realize that speaking out politically on social media has hurt many a career, and therefore isn’t for everyone.  But in my case, I’m late in my career, so there isn’t much left to wreck.  Also, I’m my own boss, so my boss likes my politics. Moreover, a quick glance at my resume makes my political views pretty clear, so my viewpoints shouldn’t shock anyone.

Even so, if I was more guarded with my political views, it is true that conservative clients would probably be more likely to look past my past work for progressive officials and causes.  They could chalk it up to youthful naivete and ignorance, and assume I had outgrown my liberalism.

But I’m not convinced being unapologetically progressive on social media has led to a net loss of business.  While it probably has lost me business, it also probably has gained me business.  Given the nature of my clientele, I suspect I’ve gained a bit more than I’ve lost.  Just as consumer brands like Nike, Tommy Hilfiger, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Lyft, and Airbnb that have taken progressive stances don’t seem to have experienced a net loss of business, it’s possible something similar can happen to sole proprietors and individual employees like me.

But if I’ve guessed wrong about about that, if speaking out has hurt me more than helped, I’ll accept the financial consequences. At the risk of sounding self-righteous, I’d rather die financially poorer than morally poorer. 

Criticism #2: Speaking Out Is Divisive

This country is really dangerously divided, and I hate to think I might be making it even more so due to my social media blatherings. 

But the things that are most dividing America — bigotry, poor-bashing, greed, political corruption, unnecessary wars, etc. – undoubtedly will get much worse if we all shrug them off and effectively treat them as normal and acceptable. Indifference to divisiveness begets even more divisiveness.

I do try, with mixed results, to avoid using a tone that is needlessly divisive.  For instance, I try to avoid ad hominem attacks, and other types cathartic snottyness. I also mix in personal posts — have you seen enough of my new grandson yet? — and self-effacing humor to partially disarm people who say I’m taking myself too seriously.

But as much as I’d love to stay mute about public affairs issues, I don’t. The most divisive thing anyone can do is remain silent in the face of the toxic conservative policies and rhetoric that are tearing America apart.

Criticism #3: Speaking Out Is Futile

This is the criticism that gives me the most pause.  I’ll admit, speaking out on social media frequently feels totally ineffectual.  With most political exchanges on social media, minds are not changed, which often leaves me feeling exhausted and discouraged.

At the same time, social media has increasingly become a huge source of news for voters. Increasingly, people don’t subscribe to news publications, and don’t seek them out much. Increasingly, they get their news from what is shared on social media. I hate to leave this powerful news platform to conservatives, so I share things the some friends wouldn’t otherwise have seen.

Speaking out on social media has worked for conservatives, so why wouldn’t it work for progressives? For many years I’ve seen conservatives who are vocal on social media channels making significant messaging gains, in these three ways.

• Conversion. First, conservatives’ social media posts do change the occasional minds of swing voters, or voters who swing back and forth between parties in their voting patterns. Though I’m pretty sure changing minds is roughly as rare for conservatives as it is for liberals, it does happen.  I have friends who have become more conservative over the years in part because of the relentless conservative messaging they encounter on social media.  Just because conversation is relatively rare, doesn’t mean it never happens and can’t impact the kinds of close elections that are so commonplace these days.
  
• Retention.  Second, conservative posts help keep other conservatives conservative. That is, “preaching to the choir” ensures that conservatives are not tempted to listen to the liberal devils in their lives.  It gives them ammunition for bar stool discussions.  For any political movement, retention of supporters over time is not a given. Preventing erosion of support requires sustained repetition and reinforcement of messaging, and social media posting does that.
  
• Activation. Probably most importantly, conservative social media posters keep conservatives informed, entertained, and engaged, which sometimes helps move conservatives from being passive supporters into becoming activists and voters.  That evolution helps conservatives win close elections.

If conversion, retention, and activation are happening at the hands of conservative social media posters, I see no reason why liberal social media posters can’t make the same gains.

In fact, social media outreach arguably is more badly needed on the left, since progressives don’t have the equivalent of Fox News and conservative talk radio hosts persuading and re-persuading millions of conservatives on a daily basis. 

Why Bother?

To be sure, conversion, retention, and activation don’t happen without lots of relentless effort, and the weakening and loss of friendships. There are two quotes that frequently bounce around in my head when I’m pondering whether my incessant blathering is worth it.

One is from an author named Jim Watkins:

“A river cuts through rock not because of its power but because of its persistence.”  

Maybe that sounds trite, but when it comes to persuasion, it’s true. That metaphor helps this exhausted progressive social media gasbag stay patient, motivated, and persistent.

The other quote I can’t stop thinking about is from another Nicole Schulman, an author and daughter of a Nazi Holocaust-era Jew:

“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than “politics.” They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.”

I’m ashamed to say, I’m pretty hard-wired to be “the best Nazi” that Schulman’s mom saw. I’m a conflict averse guy. I’m insecure enough to instinctively want to please everyone. So wading into the much-hated “politics on Facebook” isn’t instinctive or comfortable for me. 

Still, I can’t stand the thought of remaining silent as conservatives dominate social media channels unrebutted, and fascism grows unabated.  With the stakes that high, annoying my friends with political posts on Facebook feels like a democratic duty that’s well worth the trade-off. 

Republican gubernatorial nominee Scott Jensen just revealed why he is seeking the state’s highest office.

To help Minnesotans access more affordable health care by giving them a public option? Nope. To invest in building a world class education system? No way. To deliver guaranteed family and medical leave to struggling families?  He opposes that too.

Instead, Jensen is positively passionate about retaliating against the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice!

What did the Board, which exists to ensure the public is protected from unsafe and ineffective medical practices, do to Jensen?  According to Jensen, the Board is investigating him for encouraging the use of ivermectin.  In February 2022, Web MD explained the latest research on ivermectin.

Ivermectin, the controversial anti-parasitic drug, does not help treat mild to moderate COVID-19, another new study has found.

“The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19,” researchers said in the study published last week in JAMA Internal Medicine.

There have been reports of people becoming hospitalized after taking ivermectin, and the FDA has even warned against its use.

The authors of the new study acknowledge the controversy: “Although some early clinical studies suggested the potential efficacy of ivermectin in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, these studies had methodologic weaknesses.”

Even worse, Jensen also had been encouraging the public to endanger their neighbors by defying mask mandates during lethal COVID spikes.  The Hill reports on what the world’s top public health experts have learned about such mandates:

The BMJ, a global health care publisher, released a massive review Thursday that analyzed 72 studies from around the world to evaluate how non-pharmaceutical health measures reduced cases of COVID-19. Researchers found measures like hand-washing, wearing masks and physical distancing significantly reduced incidences of COVID-19. 

Researchers found that wearing a mask could reduce COVID-19 incidence by 53 percent. 

One experiment across 200 countries showed 45.7 percent fewer COVID-19 related deaths in countries where mask wearing was mandatory, according to the study. In the U.S., one study reported a 29 percent reduction in COVID-19 transmission in states where mask wearing was required. 

That’s a lot of research that Dr. J is ignoring in order to pander to the extreme anti-science right wing of his party. I don’t throw the term “quack” around lightly. But if someone talks like a quack and acts like a quack, then they might just be a quack. 

Here’s hoping the Board isn’t spooked by this political bullying, and does the job Minnesota patients depend on it to do.

If the Jensen experiment works, the retaliation model could become a rich vein of recruiting new Republican office-seekers. 

Tax cheats can be recruited to run to retaliate against the Minnesota Department of Revenue.

Polluters can be recruited to run retaliate against the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Enemies of democracy can be recruited to run to retaliate against the Minnesota Secretary of State’s office.

Abusive cops can be recruited to run to retaliate against the Minnesota Attorney General’s office.

Criminals can be recruited to run to retaliate against the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

More quacks, tax cheats, democracy enemies, polluters, abusers, and criminals in public office!  What could possibly go wrong?