A trickle or a surge?

If all goes as planned, I'll be interviewing St. John's University Communications professor Dr. Richard Ice in an hour or so about the rhetoric and stagecraft Bush employs in his speech tonight. For prep, I'm wondering about the sudden appearance of this word "surge" to describe the president's planned deployment of 21,500 additional troops in Iraq? The term, obviously, has an active, almost optimistic (and, may I point out, temporary) ring to it--like waves crashing on an unsuspecting (wimpy, third-world) beach--and it doesn't carry the connotations its Vietnamy synonym, "escalation," does.

The Columbia Journalism Review says "surge" is "President Bush's word, a descriptor that at the very least belongs within quotations. So far, so good. It seems that a history of being burned by insufficient skepticism of the Bush administration and its policies has taught journalists and editors to put nearly everything in quotes."

Yes, but will the press stop using the term, sans quotes, should Bush's master plan involve a protracted or gradual addition of troops--an "escalation," if you will--instead of a massive and overwhelming spike in military resources?

Media Monitor: January 10

Today's post from Minnesota Monitor:

Model T Journalism: The best--and saddest--quote from City Pages' coverage of the Avista purchase of the Star Tribune comes from reporter Mike Kaszuba:

A lot of us here, a core group, are too young to be eligible for Social Security and too old to be considered young. We need to squeeze out another 10 years to stay in this industry. And you sit back and say, wow, I wonder if there is another 10 years left in this industry? We are the Watergate babies, from back when it was cool and sexy to be a journalist. We were naive, goofy idealists in a way. Now it is about dollars and cents. The thing I got into it for, I'm not sure it's even among the top five reasons this place runs anymore. Your best day is publishing a story that you'd really like to have your name on top of, for all the right reasons. And you look around and wonder how many people who are around here anymore share that need to put out a paper that matters. Then you see what McClatchy paid for us and what they sold it for and you think, my god, I am sitting in a Model-T here.

Surge prep: Even though a large majority of readers in an unscientific Star Tribune online poll say they won't watch George W. Bush's speech tonight, Eric Black offers an excellent primer on what to look for in the speech, while the Pioneer Press has front-page coverage (same placement as Black's print piece) on what state officials hope to hear tonight.

Speaking of Eric Black: Why doesn't his boss, Doug Tice, just get his own blog already? Some of the Strib's blogs haven't been updated in months--SeeSaw hasn't been updated since October, and two others don't yet have 2007 posts--yet Tice has already been a featured guest poster at Black's The Big Question three times this year, January 4, 6, and 9.

Is MySpace a free-speech zone? In 2004, media mogul and Fox owner Rupert Murdoch petitioned the Federal Communications Commission complaining that proposed rules on media consolidation violated the free speech rights of companies. In a funny turn of events, the Murdoch-owned MySpace is refusing to run ads on its site for Common Cause's anti-media consolidation campaign. See--and host on your blog--the offending ad.

Gory propaganda comic in Iraq

IraqSlogger posts an image from a comic book celebrating "heroes" of the Iraqi army. Few details at this point, but it's apparently geared towards children.

Dear William Safire,

Word question: why do we say "deceased" instead of just "ceased" (as in "he ceased to exist") as a descriptor for the dead?

(Earlier question: If there are "disgruntled" employees, why aren't there "gruntled" ones?)

Say __________ again.

As a guy who not so long ago tried earnestly to coin the clunky neologism "museoblogosphere," this shirt is meant for me. (Suggested versions: "Say 'WTF?' again" and "Say 'MSM' again." Or, hell, "Say 'surge' again.") From Fimoculous.

Thomas Broome's Textual Interiors

Thomas Broome's wonderful pen-and-ink drawings of interiors made from text have formal appeal for me--fine lines, faint edges when you squint, and a doodle-like accessibility that reminds me of drawings in high school notebooks--but conceptually I like it too, especially his Ikea edition (bottom). When products with Swedish names become ubiquitous around the world--Flarke!--his rendering almost serves as a critique, but not quite.

What I'd like to see: a room created purely from brand names, countries of origin, or working conditions (UNIONMADEUNIONMADE chairs and CHILDLABORCHILDLABOR shoes).

[via]

First US attack in Somali since "Black Hawk Down"

US helicopter gunships havelaunched an air attack on sites said to be al-Qaida strongholds in Somalia, CBS News is reporting. Via AmericaBlog

Making public space "a little better"

Not sure if this is culture-jamming or an ad campaign, but this billboard shot by Giant Robot's Eric Nakamura shows a billboard hidden behind a grass-printed construction barrier. The board, aptly, reads "a little better."

In the "much better" category is this guerrilla gardening project by Netherlands-based interventionist Helmut Smits. He strategically plants trees so when they grow up they obstruct views of advertisements. (Via Guerrilla Innovation.)

Bloggies Nominations: Now through 1/10

Now through 10 pm PST on January 10, anyone can nominate their favorite blogs for the 2007 Weblog Awards. I still find the categories to be limiting--no "best art blog," "best literature blog," "best green blog," etc.?--but it's fun to participate and nominate blogs that might not otherwise get much attention. Click here to make a nomination.

Media Monitor: January 5

• Hubbard's hardship: KSTP owner Rob Hubbard's dispute with the Department of Natural Resources is heating up: he wants to tear down an 800 s.f. cabin in Lakeland to build a 16,000 s.f. mansion with pristine views of the federally protected St. Croix River, in violation of DNR rules enforcing a 40-foot setback for such projects. Lakeland's City Council approved a variance so the 5-bedroom mansion and 4-car garage could be built, but the DNR says there's no "hardship" to warrant it; that is, the terrain and size of the lot present no physical obstacle for Hubbard conforming with the rules. "I'm not making any threats," Hubbard told the Pioneer Press, "but I've lived on the river my entire life. I intend to raise my family there. I don't think the Department of Natural Resources should have the ability to tell me that I can't rebuild a structure that is there." Hubbard is appealing the decision.

• Coleman stands by Kiffmeyer quote: In my interview published Tuesday, former Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer said a reporter "cobbled together" sections of her speech at a 2004 event "to say something I didn’t say." The journalist was the Star Tribune's Nick Coleman, who wrote on the event in a March 31, 2006, column:

When I attended a prayer breakfast in 2004, Minnesota's Living Flag, Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, told the faithful that the "five most destructive words" she knows are " Separation of church and state."

When emailed about Kiffmeyer's accusation that he misquoted her, Coleman stood by the quote's accuracy, stating, "She uttered that infamous phrase at a National Day of Prayer breakfast in Plymouth in 2004. I was there. I have written about it or alluded to it several times. Amy Klobuchar, who also was there, can attest to the accuracy of it." Sen. Klobuchar, presumably otherwise occupied, hasn't yet responded to an email asking for confirmation.

• Sell, sell, sell: Via the Securities and Exchange Commission, here's the official purchase agreement for the Star Tribune; Snowboard Acquisition is a corporation formed by Avista Capital Partners.

Guild members may take the Strib's money and run

The abrupt sale of the Minneapolis Star Tribune to Avista Capital Partners the day after Christmas left many of the paper's employees wondering how soon they'd be shown the door.
But a little-known clause in the paper's contract with union journalists suggests that its employees might have good reason to look for the door--possibly in droves.

Article VIII of the Star Tribune's contract with the Minnesota Newspaper Guild and Typograhical Union ensures all employees represented by the union the right to exercise a buyout should the paper be sold to an outside buyer. Within five days of a sale, employees must express their interest in a buyout; in return, they'll receive two weeks of pay for every year worked, with a 40 week maximum. The purchase by Avista is said to be completed in "early 2007." While the Guild represents employees at the St. Paul Pioneer Press as well, the stipulation is specific to Star Tribune's Guild members.

Pat Doyle, Guild officer and veteran Star Tribune capitol reporter, says the benefit of this stipulation is that it allows employees "to trigger their own buyouts" rather than force them to accept terms established by management.

The provision in the Guild's contract was invoked in 1998 when the Cowles family sold the paper to the McClatchy group for $1.2 billion (more than double Avista's $530 million bid), but through a special agreement, only 12 employees received "buyouts." The agreement only applied only to the Cowles' sale of the paper to McClatchy; the Guild did not waive any rights to enforce this provision in the future.

"The Guild's position on this issue is even firmer and stronger than it was in '98," Doyle said. "It's in the contract. It's pretty clear-cut, and it's never been removed or shot down in any way."

But Eric Black, a Star Tribune writer for nearly 30 years, is more cautious. He says the buyout option is "enough money to get your attention," but adds a qualifier: "if it turns out to be an offer that's on the table, I'm sure quite a few people will take advantage of it."

"It's in the contract, and it's clear to me what's intended," he said. "Being cautious about such things and having been through the deal in '98, I don't foreclose the possibility that either the old owners or the new owners will come up with some kind of interpretation that would either try to get out of that offer or limit it in some way."

While Doyle wouldn't offer an estimate on how many staffers might be interested in buyouts, he said that after a Guild representative informed members about it on Tuesday, "It seemed to be of great interest to a lot of people."

A staff list circulating at the paper shows that at least 76 employees have 25 years or more experience, including some of its best-known writers: food columnist Al Sicherman (who celebrates his 39th anniversary in 2007), film critic Jeff Strickler (36 years), political reporter Conrad Defiebre (34 years), Jon Bream (32 years), columnist Lori Sturdevant (31 years), metro columnist Doug Grow (28 years), theater critic Graydon Royce (27 years), and National Press Award-winning cartoonist Steve Sack (26 years).

The Star Tribune's management representative was unavailable for comment.

Found on Flickr

The ever-photogenic lift bridge in Duluth, Minnesota, looks particulary majestic in this shot over the Lake Superior fog.

Ellison to be sworn in on Jefferson's Quran

From Robin at Minnesota Monitor:

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

The Noose or the Suit?

Newsdesigner, sure to be one of my frequently trafficked sites of '07, has an interesting comparison of front-page coverage of Saddam Hussein's exeution in the US and around the world. Needless to say, American papers seem to focus on the personality of Saddam (he's often shown in his gray suit and white shirt without a tie), while elsewhere cover stories showed the noose going around his neck.

The Walker's Ten Top Tens

Over at the day job, I finally posted the Walker's Ten Top Tens, a series of year-end best-of lists compiled by Walker Art Center staff and guests. Highlights include Rex Sorgatz, a former Minneapolitan who runs the site Fimoculous, revealing a sighting of Garrison Keillor at a strip club; photographer Alec Soth's wide-ranging list of music, images, and films; a list of the "best art blogs" by Modern Art Notes' Tyler Green, and an excellent set of DVDs rereleased in 2006 (many already in my Netflix queue). You'll have to click to see the good stuff, but in the meantime, here's my meager offering:

A Relatively Random List of Things Recalled
• Best use of visionary art in a marketing piece: Art Directors Club Call for Entry, with art by Norbert Kox
There's not much competition in this category, but I'm glad the honor goes to an old friend. Green Bay's Norb Kox (above) has a remarkable bio: born the day the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, he served in the military, became an Outlaw biker, and eventually found Jesus and spent nine years in the woods near Siren, WI, developing a personal spirituality that arose from intense study of scriptures. While a clever payoff for ADC's "Final Call for Entries" concept, his "apocalyptic visual parables" have so much more detail and depth.

• Best Walker exhibition on tour: House of Oracles: A Huang Yong Ping Retrospective
Huang Yong Ping (below) makes contemporary art that doesn't seem temporary. His sculptures feel more like artifacts than art at times, like relics unearthed in a dig. I found his art to be profoundly moving, occasionally creepy (the bats!), often funny, and deeply arresting. Tour schedule here.

• Best museum publication: Studio
While I'm partial to our own Walker magazine, the Studio Museum's quarterly has qualities (and a budget!) I wish we could emulate. It's packed with interviews, the voices of artists and curators, photo spreads, and features of interest to its Harlem neighbors. I especially liked a 2005 photo-essay on Frank Gaskin's series of murals on security gates along 125th Avenue.

• Favorite Walker acquisition: Dr. Lakra's flash art
Actually acquired in 2005, I learned of our acquisition of seven works on paper by Mexican artist Dr. Lakra from Tyler Green's blog. Amid our excellent collection of Minimalist works, our wonderful cache of Beuys multiples, and every one of Matthew Barney's Cremaster films, it's great to see the earthy, carnivalesque work of this Mexico City-based artist.

• Top ten to remember: We lost many great creators in '06. Let's not forget them: artist Nam June Paik, reggae/ska legend Desmond Dekker, Egyptian novelist/Nobel prizewinner Mahfouz Naguib, filmmaker Robert Altman, Bill Stumpf, designer of the Aeron and Ergon (below) chairs, installation artist Jason Rhoades.

• Favorite single artwork: Thomas Hirschhorn's Cavemanman
When I met Hirschhorn during the installation of our show Heart of Darkness, I had the gall to tell him I didn't get his work, especially the huge Swiss Army knife made of cardboard, tape, aluminum foil, and cellophane he showed here in 1998. But walking through the shiny and claustrophobic tunnels of Cavemanman, I was moved by the over-the-top-ness of it and the germaneness of it to current events. Discussing the project with him only underscored my change of, ahem, heart.

• Favorite bumpersticker: "Think About Honking If You (Heart) Conceptual Art"

• Favorite Walker photo: Flagging Patriotism
Cameron Wittig's staged image of a flag feebly fluttering next to a plastic fan beautifully illustrated the kind of trumped-up patriotism artists Bill T. Jones and Sekou Sundiata discussed in a March essay for Walker.

• Favorite midwestern photographer(s): Since Alec Soth gets props elsewhere, I'll make this one a tossup between Chicago's Brian Ulrich, whose documentation of consumers in thrift shops and megastores (above) teeter between religious devotion and blunt critique, and Minneapolis' Paul Shambroom, who offers clinical and compelling portraits of Homeland Security-era America.

• Under-reported story of the year: Darfur
If we all agree there's genocide going on in Sudan, why isn't more being done?

• Bonus: Blogs You Should be Reading 2006
Thanks for all the (credited and uncredited) webfinds: Greg.org, In Search of the Miraculous, The Daily Irrelevant, NEWSgrist, Fashion Incubator, TalkLeft, Design Observer, and reBlog.

The Job-like Job of Mary Kiffmeyer

Hearing her tell it, Mary Kiffmeyer's eight years as Minnesota Secretary of State sounds a bit like the biblical story of Job. Hounded by "unrelenting attacks" by Democrats, linked by association to the questionable tactics of fellow Republican Secretaries of State in Florida and Ohio, and challenged with technological concerns like Y2K compliance, she oversaw a tenure she characterizes as “arguably the most successful in our state’s history."

Kiffmeyer's critics, of course, disagree, saying that she brought criticism upon herself, unlike the biblical struggler Job. Their litany of complaints include: her attempts to throw up voting barriers for native Americans, students, and the elderly; that infamous email in which she warned polling officials to keep watch for potential "homicide bombers" whose telltale identifiers included a "shaved heads (for purification purposes)"; and public endorsement as a "nonpartisan" officeholder of controversial proposals like a same-sex marriage ban. Two years ago, Hennepin County Commissioner Mike Opat famously said, "In less than six years, she has distinguished herself as probably the least competent person to hold this important office in Minnesota history."

Given such complaints, it's no surprise she'll be enlisting Capitol Security to do a walk-through of her office to “protect my record and my reputation” against “any potential false claim” before leaving today. Or, less convincingly, that she made the unprecedented move of asking partisan blogger (and Mark Kennedy payrollee) Michael Brodkorb, of Minnesota Democrats Exposed, to be her witness to the transition.

Nor should it be surprising that she asked her communications officer to monitor our late November interview in her St. Paul office. Our discussion ranged from her work putting the Secretary's office online to the way people of faith, like herself, are caricatured as "boogiemen" in our culture, and how the phrase attributed to her--that "separation of church and state" are "the most destructive" words today--was really a journalist's unethical fabrication.

As a bookend to my recent interview with Mark Ritchie, here's what she had to say. For clarity and brevity, this interview has been edited. Given Secretary Kiffmeyer's past accusations of journalistic impropriety, the full, unedited transcript of our interview, which was recorded, will be made available here soon.

Paul Schmelzer: Let’s start with the softball question: what was your greatest success?

Mary Kiffmeyer: I think the voter turnout during my time. We were tops in the country all four major elections. That was not the case; we were beginning to drift down—second and third… I think the other thing is the technology. When I took office, it was COBOL language mainframe. When I took office, it was antiquated, it was not Y2K compliant, and we were the only state agency that was in the critical red zone on Y2K compliance... COBOL language mainframe is the riskiest for Y2K. So I was really glad I came in with a technology background and had to convince governor Ventura, a new Republican-controlled majority, and the DFLers--I had three major parties to convince that I needed almost a million dollars to get the work done in 11 months….

PS: On to November 7: were you surprised by the results?

MK: Yes and no. You have to realize that I kind of saw when my opponent was endorsed by three national organizations, raising money for him and raising money in general---and I think they had raised specific money for each of the five states they had targeted for those candidates, and they were universally all Democrats... So I was targeted by three national 527s. One of them was the Secretary of State Project.

So, I think: yes and no. I think other people are more surprised. And then there was the extremely negative campaign that was based in a large part on fear, because obviously we have paper ballots. Obviously we have optical scan. We don’t have any of those electronic things, so fear-mongering [was] going on in regards to stirring people up as if there was a question or tying into Ohio or into Florida. We don’t have any chads. We don’t have any punchcards. We don’t have any of those kinds of things that were issues in those two states, but nonetheless linking it was an unfair characterization.

PS: And that was the 527s that did that?

MK: And my opponent as well. When we had the debates, he’d bring them up over and over and over again... And when you pour the amount of TV that was poured in against me in a negative way in the last four or five days, plus target mail of the same thing and then radio—hundreds of thousands of dollars were poured in in a negative way against me. And their aim was to get at the undecideds…

The other thing was, the word went out that it was to be a straight party-line vote for the Democrats. None of this liking somebody and then voting for them. I had lots and lots of Democrats who did vote for me and were going to vote for me, because they really liked what I’d done. I think it’s easy for people to forget what it was like before I came to office, because after eight years, [people felt] “Oh, hasn’t it always been this way?” No. No it hasn’t. I remember all the Ventura people wanting election information, election records, and election stuff, and it didn’t exist. There wasn’t a website to put it up on. There was none of that stuff.

PS: Recently you said Joan Growe left you “absolutely nothing” when you transitioned into the job. Is this the kind of stuff you’re talking about?

MK: Oh no. You see this office as it is right now? There used to be beautiful historical piece of furniture here, that was here in the office for a long time: that was gone. There was this desk. And there were two chairs—those two chairs—they were horribly soiled, and it took me two years, to save up enough money and get them recovered... I would say let’s get that thing recovered. And the ends were all down to bare wood. Not being a good steward of that. So those two chairs and this desk... Otherwise there was nothing else.

PS: It sounds like you also didn’t get the moral support you wanted. You felt like they were uncooperative when you transitioned?

MK: Joan Growe gave me one hour. She sat at this side of the desk. She had one piece of paper in front of her. I sat over there with somebody else. Although we made numerous requests for organizational charts and that kind of stuff, we weren’t given anything. …She had one piece of paper in front of her, and I asked her for it when I left, and she wouldn’t give it to me…

PS: You recently said you’d involve the Capitol Security in overseeing Mark Ritchie’s transition. Are you expecting there to be complaints against you by the Secretary-elect?

MK: He complained all about me... In his acceptance speech, and even in things after that, he continues to take pokes. You know, you don’t need to do that anymore. It’s called graciousness. I appreciate the fact—I think that word was even used in regards to the transition article that was written. It’s because of how I do things and who I am.

PS: What about regrets? The National Day of Prayer thing, where you said probably the five most destructive words in America today are separation of church and state—

MK: Are you quoting from something written down there?

PS: I’m summarizing. But I can’t find the original passage uninterrupted—

MK: That’s because it never was.

PS: What’d you actually say?

MK: That was a cobbled together. When you think of journalism and writing, whenever you see something together with separate little quotes, it tells you right away: is that what I really said? What [the journalist] did was he took these five words and these words and these words and put them together to say something I didn’t say. What I routinely do when I talk to people is say, "The five words are not in the Constitution." ...What’s destructive is when you tell people they’re there and they’re not. And you tell them they’re there and they’re not with an intention to keep them away from being involved. That’s destructive. To say those five words aren’t in the Constitution with an intention to use that falsehood to say, “No, no, no, you guys can’t. You faith people--you have a faith, unless you’re something other than Christian--you people, because there’s a separation of Church and State, you have to stay out.” That’s destructive because, I feel anytime you try to keep anyone out from being involved in their government, but to misquote or to lie about what’s in the Constitution?

PS: Do you think the framers of the constitution intended for there to be that sort of firewall between the influence of religion on public policy?

MK: The quote from Thomas Jefferson, the firewall that was created was from the government intruding on religion. That was a quote taken out of his letter to the Baptist Society that said, don’t worry, the government won’t intrude on your religion, because there’s this wall of separation. It was a separation and a wall to keep the government from messing with religion. Obviously, how do you keep people of faith from never having an opinion from government? What segment of society are you going to say shouldn’t? Because I would say, other than the atheists—which, by the way, that’s a religious group, too—

PS: It is?

MK: Atheism is a belief that there is no god. So really, between atheists and Christians and all these others… how many people are left then to have an influence on government if it’s to go the other way? So the wall of separation was intended to say, “you can have freedom to flourish in your religion, OK, and the government won’t mess with your religion.”

You have the freedom. But there’s no such thing as an unlimited freedom. In other words you can’t cry "Fire!" in a theater. That’s the most common example... Slander is another one; there’s laws against free speech so you can’t slander. Except, by the way, for politicians. You can slander politicians with impunity. So you can slander us.

I think that the biggest thing for me was [...] about the 501c3 [the legal code that gives churches and nonprofit organizations tax-exempt status]. The ability to not be taxed is what gives you more restrictions on what you can do in your church, but you chose it because you applied for a 501c3. So, if you’re not a 501c3, and you pay your taxes, you revert back to only being under the constitution, which doesn’t take away your—you can endorse, you can do all kinds of things. The only thing that restricts you is the 501c3. That’s the kind of conversation which is based on giving the truth to people who’ve been lied to. So when they’ve been lied to, told this is in the constitution and it isn’t, and lied to in giving a sense that this is why, when in fact it’s the 501c3 that restrains you more than the constitution doesn’t at all.

PS: You’re a person of faith, and it hasn’t prevented you from having this job for eight years. Do you feel like your faith is evident? Would anyone coming in seeing you do your job notice that your faith is what guided you in it?

MK: I would say, not from the sense of the typical thing. Which is: you notice when you walk in, this is the way my office always is. Because I believe it’s an official office. Now inside my little personal bathroom right there, I can hang all the scripture versus I want?

PS (In jest): And are there a lot in there? It’s wallpapered? (Laughing)

MK: There isn’t anything in there. I’ll show it to you. Hey listen: the Star Tribune went into my basement in my first few months after I was elected. They did a story. You could tell, I could see they were kind of looking. It was insulting in a way. "I give you the courtesy of having you to my home, at least you could do the courtesy of not"—but I thought, for sure they’ve heard of these things… I took them down to the basement and showed them everything there as well.

People of faith and people not of faith have said, "How is your faith impacted here? How do you do that?" Often they have this garish notion. I think they really have this boogieman—whatever--type thing. And there’s always those out there, of course, but that’s not where 99.9% usually are. But anyways, in regards to: I said, with God, there is no respect of persons; whether you be male or female, Greek or Jew, slave or free, all are equal in God’s eyes. Many, many years ago, as I was reading those scripture verses--and I am a literalist. Francis Shaker wrote a book, How Then Shall we Live. How then shall we live? For me, if God is no respect of persons, I’m not either. So when you come to the counter [at the Secretary of State's office], no matter who asks an election question, they all get the same answer. They may not like it, but they will all get the same answer.… I spoke recently about what Martin Luther King means to me, and the one thing delightful in the African American community: you can quote scripture verses all you want and [there's] absolutely no [problem]. They’re like, “Amen, sister,” and they’re like right with you. But as I share that, that is why God is no respect or person… There was a gal who came up and her first words to me were, “I’m a Democrat.” And she started crying, and said, “After hearing you talk, I can sense that the honor and integrity that is in your heart, and sharing that is so strong within you.” And she started crying and saying, “I feel so much better.” I almost started crying because I was feeling so bad for her.

PS [Joking]: Because she’s a Democrat, right?

MK: No. That she would feel so terrorized that way. What are people saying out there? What are people doing? For political purposes they are terrorizing these people and fearing them to death. That isn’t the reality. I think there’s political gain to create this fear situation for people. And the hard thing is a lot of people out there maybe don’t have recourse. As the opportunity that I had to talk with her and share with her… it radically changed her perceptions.

PS: Who’s terrorizing her? It sounds like perhaps you’re mischaracterizing the religious left though. My experience as a liberal Catholic is not that anyone is saying you can’t believe what you believe---

MK: Did I say anything about the religious left? I don’t see the correlation there.

PS: You were saying she didn’t feel free enough to express herself on her side?

MK: Who? I don’t recall saying that.

PS: Ok, maybe I misunderstood. Why did you feel bad for her? Because someone was politicizing—

MK: It had nothing to do with faith. What it had to do with the integrity of the electoral system.

PS: Uh, ok. As I’m running out of time here, I’m wondering if you could talk about the future and tell me if you’ll run for Mark Olson’s seat should he resign.

MK: I don’t know. It’s not an open seat right now.

PS: So you can’t say if you have an inkling or want to serve your district that way?

MK: You know, I’m one of those people that I love whatever I do, and I usually respond to a need. Is there a need? And when there’s a need, I love doing it. My mother, when I grew up, there was a lot of work. And I remember my mom saying, “You’ve got to learn to enjoy your work, because there’s more work in life than fun, and if you don’t learn to enjoy your work you’re going to be a miserable person.”

PS: I know everyone who interviews you probably mentions the same stories: the terror alert posters, the “five words,” maybe the lawsuit about tribal ID cards. But I don’t need to go into all that stuff. Suffice it to say, you’ve been kind of a lightning rod for criticism and dislike from a certain sector. Why do you think that is?

MK: Know what my mother said? "Consider the source."

PS: Who’s the source?

MK: Generally, the Democrats. Mary Lahammer [of Twin Cities Public Television] in March of 1999 said, “And once again, since the day she’s been elected, the Secretary of State has been attacked by the Democrats.” Three months after I got elected it was, “And, once again….” It’s been going on since the day I got elected. Just unrelenting attacks and just going after me all the time.

PS: So it’s definitely on their part and not about how you’ve administered the office?

MK: Well, take a look at it sometimes. Look at the quotes and clips. The other thing that was amazing to me is, when I traveled in 1998, I visited with all 87 county auditors...They complained about the computer system... I gave them this special toll-free number, and I did stuff and went to things and found that it is ever-unending. I can’t seem to get ahead… You meet this and it’s more. You meet this, and it’s more. It’s unending.

Raw transcript: Mary Kiffmeyer

Verbatim transcript, from digital recording, of a November 2006 interview with Minnesota's outgoing Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer. See corresponding story here and here.

PS: Let’s start with the softball question: what was your greatest success?

MK: I think the voter turnout during my time. We were tops in the country all four major elections. That was not the case; we were beginning to drift down—second and third… I think the other thing is the technology. When I took office, it was COBOL language mainframe. When I took office, it was antiquated. When I took office, it was not Y2K compliant. And we were the only state agency that was in the critical red zone on Y2K compliance and had the most riskiest--COBOL language mainframe is the riskiest for Y2K. So I was really glad I came in with a technology background and had to convince governor Ventura, a new Republican-controlled majority, and the DFLers--I had three major parties to convince that I needed almost a million dollars to get the work done in 11 months. When you think of it, convincing three major parties that a brand-new Secretary of State needs almost a million dollars to make the office Y2K compliant, that’s huge…. These were things that, through an awful lot of hard work, including the first year, digging ourselves out of a hole because of the Y2K—

PS: You inherited a hole? How did that relate to Y2K?

MK: Well, I had to go get a million dollars just to do Y2K, which should’ve been done before I came, or well on its way or certainly taken care of. The fact that it wasn’t meant I had to fill that hole—and take care of that, thank you very much, in the first year—to have to do that.

PS: On to November 7: were you surprised by the results?

MK: Yes and no. You have to realize that I kind of saw when my opponent was endorsed by three national organizations, raising money for him and raising money in general---and I think they had raised specific money for each of the five states they had targeted for those candidates, and they were universally all Democrats. They were all Democrats, they were raising money for them nationally, targeted nationally. So I was targeted by three national 527s.

PS: And which were they?

MK: One of them was the Secretary of State Project. I don’t remember the other two… So, I think: yes and no. I think other people are more surprised. And then when I was the extremely negative campaign that was based in a large part on fear, because obviously we have paper ballots, obviously we have optical scan. We don’t have any of those electronic things, so kind of a fear-mongering going on in regards to stirring people up as if there was a question or tying into Ohio or into Florida. We don’t have any chads, we don’t have any punchcards, we don’t have any of those kinds of things that were issues in those two states, but nonetheless linking it was an unfair characterization.

PS: And that was the 527s that did that?

MK: And my opponent as well. When we had the debates, he’d bring them up over and over and over again. So they were well repeated by him, and then they just took off on the same message. And so, when you pour the amount of TV that was poured in against me in a negative way in the last four or five days, plus target mail of the same thing and then radio—in the last week or so, hundreds of hundreds of thousands of dollars were poured in in a negative way against me. And their aim was to get at the undecideds… And the other thing was, the word went out that it was to be a straight party-line vote for the Democrats, none of this liking somebody and then voting for them. I had lots and lots of Democrats who did vote for me and were going to vote for me, because they really liked what I’d done. I think it’s easy for people to forget what it was like before I came to office, because after eight years, that feeling of “Oh, hasn’t it always been this way?” No. No it wasn’t. I remember all the Ventura people wanting election information, election records, and election stuff, and it didn’t exist. There wasn’t a website to put it up on. There was none of that stuff.

PS: Recently you said Joan Growe left you “absolutely nothing” when you transitioned into the job. Is this the kind of stuff you’re talking about?

MK: Oh no. You see this office as it is right now? There used to be beautiful historical piece of furniture here, that was here in the office for a long time: that was gone. There was this desk. And there were two chairs—those two chairs—they were horribly soiled, and it took me two years, I saved up enough money and got them recovered. After all it’s the Secretary of States office, I wouldn’t have one of my employees---I would say let’s get that thing recovered. And the ends were all down to bare wood. Not being a good steward of that. So those two chairs and this desk. This desk had been, it’s a historic piece of furniture. Somewhere along the line, they had added some sort of file cabinet that wasn’t part of the original. So I had the Historical Society come over, and they analyzed this piece of furniture and gave me recommendations. They refinished it and refurbished and cleaned it and took care of a lot of things. Otherwise there was nothing else.

PS: It sounds like you also didn’t get the moral support you wanted. You felt like they were uncooperative when you transitioned?

MK: Joan Growe gave me one hour. She sat at this side of the desk. She had one piece of paper in front of her. I sat over there with somebody else. She gave me one hour of her time. Although we made numerous requests for organizational charts and that kind of stuff, we weren’t given anything. She had one piece of paper in front of her, and I asked her for it when I left, and she wouldn’t give it to me.

But when I took office I had no letterhead. When I took office I had to use Joan Growe’s stationery. I feel that is wrong because I think when you’re sworn into office, that day is the day you take it through. I’m seeing to it that all the stamps and all the seals and all the letterhead, that do the official business, that my whole office will be ready, Tuesday afternoon, to put the new name and all the letterhead will already be just carried over—quantity to be carried over—and then after that they can do what they want.

PS: You recently told the press you’d involve the Capitol Security in overseeing Mark Ritchie’s transition. Are you expecting there to be complaints against you by the Secretary Elect?

MK: He complained all about me. I ran the same kind of tight ship all along, but during the campaign he’d say things over and over again, but you don’t change because, well, now here you are. In his acceptance speech, and even in things after that, he continues to take pokes. You know, you don’t need to do that anymore. It’s called graciousness. I appreciate the fact—I think that word was even used in regards to the transition article that was written. It’s because of how I do things and who I am.

PS: What about regrets? The National Day of Prayer thing, where you said probably the five most destructive words in America today are separation of church and state—

MK: Are you quoting from something written down there?

PS: I’m summarizing what I have written down that I noted from somewhere else. But I can’t find the original passage uninterrupted—

MK: That’s because it never was.

PS: What’d you actually say?

MK: That was a cobbled together--- That is the most—When you think of journalism and writing, whenever you see something together with separate little quotes, it tells you right away: is that what I really said? What he did was he took these five words and these words and these words and put them together to say something I didn’t say. What I routinely do when I talk to people is say, the five words are not in the Constitution. When I read the article, the language that is actually there. So people just know the truth. What’s destructive is when you tell people they’re there and they’re not. And you tell them they’re there and they’re not with an intention to keep them away from being involved. That’s destructive. To say those five words aren’t in the Constitution with an intention to use that falsehood to say, “No, no, no, you guys can’t. You faith people--you have a faith, unless you’re something other than Christian--you people, because there’s a separation of Church and State, you have to stay out.” That’s destructive because, I feel anytime you try to keep anyone out from being involved in their government, but to misquote or to lie about what’s in the Constitution? That is usually how, when giving I’m giving a talk—so, there is no such thing, at all.

PS: Do you think the framers of the constitution intended for there to be that sort of firewall between the influence of religion on public policy?

MK: The quote from Thomas Jefferson, the firewall that was created was from the government intruding on religion. That is the quote from Thomas Jefferson, about that separation of church and state, that wall of separation, was a quote taken out of his letter to the Baptist Society that said, don’t worry, the government won’t intrude on your religion, because there’s this wall of separation. It was a separation and a wall to keep the government from messing with religion. Obviously, how do you keep people of faith from never having an opinion from government? What segment of society are you going to say shouldn’t? Because I would say, other than the atheists—which, by the way, that’s a religious group, too—

PS: It is?

MK: Atheism is a belief that there is no god. So really, between atheists and Christians and all these others… how many people are left then to have an influence on government if it’s to go the other way? So the wall of separation was intended to say, “you can have freedom to flourish in your religion, OK, and the government won’t mess with your religion.” You have the freedom. But there’s no such thing as an unlimited freedom. In other words you can’t cry fire in a theater. That’s the most common example; in other words, to holler fire when there is no fire, and you do things like that, you can—slander is another one, when there’s laws against free speech so you can’t slander. Except, by the way, for politicians. You can slander politicians with impunity… So you can slander us… I think that the biggest thing for me was, when I talk about those things, I talk about them more, and then I talk about the 501c3 and you take the ability to not be taxed is what gives you more restrictions on what you can do in your church, but you chose it because you applied for a 501c3. So, if you’re not a 501c3, and you pay your taxes, you revert back to only being under the constitution, which doesn’t take away your—you can endorse, you can do all kinds of things. The only thing that restricts you is the 501c3. That’s the kind of conversation which is based on giving the truth to people who’ve been lied to. So when they’ve been lied to, told this is in the constitution and it isn’t, and lied to in giving a sense that this is why, when in fact it’s the 501c3 that restrains you more than the constitution doesn’t at all.

PS: You’re a person of faith, and it hasn’t prevented you from having this job for eight years. Do you feel like your faith is evident? Would anyone coming in seeing you do your job notice that your faith is what guided you in it?

MK: I would say, not from the sense of the typical thing. Which is: you notice when you walk in, this is the way my office always is. Because I believe it’s an official office. Now inside my little personal bathroom right there, I can hang all the scripture versus I want?

PS: And are there a lot in there? It’s wallpapered? (Laughing)

MIK: There isn’t anything in there. I’ll show it to you. Hey listen: the Star Tribune went into my basement in my first few months after I was elected, they did a story. You could tell, I could see they were kind of looking. It was insulting in a way. I give you the courtesy of having you to my home, at least you could do the courtesy of not—but I thought, for sure they’ve heard of these things… I took them down to the basement and showed them everything there as well.

People of faith and people not of faith have said, How is your faith impacted here? How do you do that? Often they have this garish notion. I think they really have this boogieman—whatever--type thing. And there’s always those out there, of course, but that’s not where 99.9% usually are. But anyways, in regards to: I said, God is no respect of persons, whether you be male or female, Greek or Jew, slave or free, all are equal in God’s eyes. Many, many years ago, as I was reading those scripture verses---and I am a literalist, so when I read something like that, in my own personal—before I was Secretary of State—studying this, saying---Francis Shaker wrote a book, How Then Shall we Live. How then shall we live? So for me, if God is no respect or persons, I’m not either. So when you come to the counter, no matter who asks an election question, they all get the same answer. They may not like it, but they will all get the same answer. The problem is, some don’t like it. And the problem is, when you don’t like the law, it’s not the fault of the person who upheld the law, because that’s my oath of office… When I spoke about what Martin Luther King means to me, and the one thing delightful in the African American community, you can quote scripture verses all you want and absolutely no—They’re like, “Amen, sister,” and they’re like right with you. But as I share that, that is why God is no respect or person… There was a gal who came up and her first words to me were, “I’m a democrat.” And she started crying, and said, “After hearing you talk, I can sense that the honor and integrity that is in your heart, and sharing that is so strong within you.” And she started crying and saying, “I feel so much better.” I almost started crying because I was feeling so bad for her.

PS [Joking]: Because she’s a Democrat, right?

MK: No. That she would feel so terrorized that way. What are people saying out there? What are people doing? For political purposes they are terrorizing these people and fearing them to death. That isn’t the reality. I think there’s political gain to create this fear situation for people. And the hard thing is a lot of people out there maybe don’t have recourse. As the opportunity that I had to talk with her and share with her… it radically changed her perceptions.

PS: Who’s terrorizing her? It sounds like perhaps you’re mischaracterizing the religious left though. My experience as a liberal Catholic is not that anyone is saying you can’t believe what you believe---

MK: Did I say anything about the religious left? I don’t see the correlation there.

PS: You were saying she didn’t feel free enough to express herself on her side?

MK: Who? I don’t recall saying that.

PS: Ok, maybe I misunderstood. Why did you feel bad for her? Because someone was politicizing—

MK: It had nothing to do with faith. What it had to do with the integrity of the electoral system.

PS: Uh, ok. As I’m running out of time here. I’m wondering if you could talk about the future and tell me if you’ll run for Mark Olson’s seat should he resign.

MK: I don’t know. It’s not an open seat right now.

PS: So you can’t say if you have an inkling or want to serve your district that way?

MK: You know, I’m one of those people that I love whatever I do, and I usually respond to a need. Is there a need? And when there’s a need, I love doing it. My mother, when I grew up, there was a lot of work. And I remember my mom saying, “You’ve got to learn to enjoy your work, because there’s more work in life than fun, and if you don’t learn to enjoy your work you’re going to be a miserable person.”[brief section not transcribed]

PS: I know everyone who comes in and interviews you probably mentions the same stories: the terror alert posters, the “five words,” maybe the lawsuit about tribal ID cards. But I don’t need to go into all that stuff. Suffice it to say, you’ve been kind of a lightning rod for criticism and dislike from a certain sector. Why do you think that is?

MK: Know what my mother said? Consider the source.

PS: Who’s the source?

MK: Generally the Democrats. Mary Lahamer in March of 1999 said, “And once again, since the day she’s been elected the secretary of state has been attacked by the Democrats.” Three months after I got elected it was, “And, once again….” It’s been going on since the day I got elected. Just unrelenting attacks and just going after me all the time.

PS: So it’s definitely on their part and not about how you’ve administered the office?

MK: Well take a look at it sometimes, if you look at the quotes and clips. The other thing that was amazing to me is, when I traveled in 1998, I visited with all 87 county auditors, personally with 86 of them (one of them, I got to office at 4:30 and the office was closed, but I was there! And I couldn’t get back to it because it was a far-flung county, but I called them up and had an individual chat with them. And they complained about the computer system. Kind of this thing, like: I came in with such---I gave them this special toll-free number and I did stuff and went to things and found that it is ever-unending. I can’t seem to get ahead of… You meet this and it’s more. You meet this, and it’s more. It’s unending.

American Portrait 2006

As we all should be painfully aware by now, December was the bloodiest month for US soldiers--and civilians--in Iraq since 2004, as the total number of Americans killed surpassed 3,000 yesterday. Minneapolis photographer Alec Soth just submitted his best-0f-2006 list to go into a new-year's post at the Walker blogs tomorrow, and his pick for single best photo of the year was a moving one (above). Photographer Todd Heisler's view of 2nd Lt. James J. Cathey's casket being loaded into a plane in Reno, Nevada shows passengers of the commercial jet peering down through tiny windows. The shot was part of a series that won Heisler a Pulitzer, and as Alec puts it, it's "perhaps the best portrait of America in 2006 -- the year we finally looked out the window (and in the mirror)."

Here's to a more peaceful 2007.

2006: The Interviews

A quick look back at interviews posted here or at the Walker blogs:

• Stephanie Kinunnen, cofounder of NEED magazine

• Mark Ritchie, founder of the voter registration project November 2, founding president of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and, as of tomorrow, Minnesota's Secretary of State

• Thomas Hirschorn, artist

• Doryun Chong, Walker Art Center curator, on the work of Rirkrit Tiravanija

• James Howard Kunstler, environmentalist and author (The Long Emergency)

• Alec Soth, photographer

• Aiden Enns, publisher of Geez magazine ("Holy mischief in an age of fast faith") and founder of BuyNothingChristmas.org

• Cameron Sinclair, founder of Architecture for Humanity and editor of Design Like You Give a Damn

• Kinji Akagawa, sculptor

• Philippe Vergne and Chrissie Iles, co-curators of the 2007 Whitney Biennial, on "America"

From the archives:

Robert Storr, dean of Yale's art school and curator of the 2007 Venice Biennale
Rirkrit Tiravanija, Thomas Hirschhorn, Hou Hanru, and others, excerpt on the question "Can art change the world?"
Philippe Vergne, Walker chief curator and co-curator of the 2006 Whitney Biennial, with artist Todd Norsten
Jennifer Allora and Guillermo Calzadilla, artists
Kalle Lasn, publisher of Adbusters
Siva Vaidhyanathan, author, communications professor
Robin Rimbaud a.k.a. Scanner, musician/artist
Craig Baldwin, filmmaker/activist

Brand-name trash

While not all that original--Adbusters ran some images a few years back of trash bags covered with the Louis Vuitton logo--I like the sentiment. Rene Gagnon created this "top dollar garbage" stencil as "a statement about the value we put on things because there is a pattern associated with it, coach, gucci, doony and bourke..." It also suggests, from a dumpster-diver's perspective, that there's gold in them thar bins, as fickle consumers toss items they grow bored with or figure it's easier to buy something new rather than fix the damaged old one you've already got. Below, a different artist's logo-covered dumpster from early 2006, via Stencil Revolution.