Archbishop Desmond Tutu loves George Bush

Archbishop Desmond Tutu came to Minnesota this week as part of a youth weekend. The teenagers of Youthrive and PeaceJam were not even born during the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, or when Archbishop Tutu won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984. After apartheid ended, and after the election of Nelson Mandela as South Africa's first black president in 1994, Archbishop Tutu directed his country's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Archbishop Tutu opened Friday night's talk with a self-deprecating story about recognition.

"I was in San Francisco a few years ago," he said, "and a lady came up to me and was very friendly and effusive and she greeted me very warmly, 'Hello, Archbishop Mandela.' Sort of getting two for the price of one."

His topic on Friday night was "Making Friends Out of Enemies."

"One of the benefits of not being young is that you are permitted to repeat yourself," he said. "Most of the things that most of us say aren't exactly brand new." Perhaps not, but the Nobel laureate's message bears repeating.

He opened, as good preachers do, with a story.

Adam is in the garden. And there he was having a great time with the animals and gamboling all over the place, but God looked on and said. uh-uh. It's not good for that guy to be all by his lonesome.

And God said to Adam, "Well Adam –"

Adam said, "Yes?"

"How about choosing a mate for yourself from the animals?"

So God let animals pass in front of Adam in procession and God said, "What about this one?"

"Nope," said Adam.

"And what about this one?"

"No."

"And this one?"

"Not on your life!"

And God say okay, and put Adam to sleep. And as the story goes, out of Adam's rib, God created this delectable creature.

And when Adam awakes, he looks and says "Wow!" and "This is what the doctor ordered!"

It's a story that is meant to convey a very profound truth about you and me. That you and I are incomplete, that we can't, in fact, be human in isolation.

In solitary confinement, as it were.

I wouldn't know how to be human except by learning it from other human beings. I need you in order for me to be me. I need other human beings in order for me to be human. …

The totally self-sufficient human being is, in fact, subhuman.
…
One of the sayings in our country is … "A person is a person through other persons."

We are family.

I thought that, speaking to this friendly audience, Archbishop Tutu was preaching to the choir. When he reminded us that what we spend on defense systems could provide clean water and enough to eat for every person on earth, we agreed. But as he continued, the tough part of his message became clearer.

"We all belong to this incredible thing," he said, "God's family, in which there are no outsiders. Every one, every single one, is an insider."

He continued in a litany of inclusion:

"God will draw all, all, all, all in this extraordinary embrace

"Rich and poor – all. …

"Black and white and yellow and red, all, all, all, all. …

"Clever and not so clever, all. …

"Gay and lesbian and so called straight, all, all, all. …"

"George Bush. [pause] "Yes, all, all, all!"

(Remember--that's the Archbishop's message, not mine. I don't pretend to come anywhere near living his message, but I do think it's worth hearing.)

The short question-and-answer session confirmed the challenge implicit in the end of his litany. Archbishop Tutu preaches a call to really love our enemies—all of them. He challenges us to look for goodness in each enemy, and to treat them and speak of them with respect.

Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe?

" Zimbabwe used to be our showcase. President Mugabe was really a star. When he won his first election, many people feared there was going to be revenge against the colonists, the white Rhodesians as they then were. One of the most amazing things was that they didn't have that retribution. Ian Smith remained a member of parliament for donkeys' years. ….

"Something happened. Something snapped in him, I think. And we have seen this nightmare that has become Zimbabwe. And now …

"I still hope that his peers, the heads of state in Africa, could exert pressure on him to … step down with dignity."

The legacy of George Bush?

Again, the archbishop sidestepped an opportunity to denounce a person.

"I lunched with Mrs. Bush. She's quite something else. On Burma, she is fantastic. When I spoke with your secretary of state, on the issue of Burma, the United States is on the side of the angels. And so many people are going to remember Laura Bush and her concern about Burma and Aung San Su Kye. "

In this dark year, sliding simultaneously into depression and election, the archbishop's message offers a profound challenge. Without giving an inch on principles and politics, he still calls for a reconciliation and love.

"An enemy is a friend waiting to be made. An enemy is really a member of my family."

The great green energy debate

If all the heat generated by community debates over biomass, biofuels and green energy could be channeled into the grid, the Twin Cities could go petroleum-free any day now. Unfortunately, we have no way to harness that energy to light the streets or run the trains. Instead, vehement and sometimes vitriolic discussion sometimes narrows the focus of the debate to what's wrong with one source of energy, rather than a broad analysis of costs of various kinds of energy and conservation.

Any evaluation of fuels and energy production needs to include a multi-factor analysis. While there may be more, I believe every analysis must include at least four green factors:

• 1 – Source/production: Where does the fuel come from? How is it grown, mined, harvested, produced?

• 2 – Transportation/distribution: How, and how far, does the fuel travel from where it is produced to the place it is used to generate energy? How, and how far, does the energy travel to the consumer?

• 3 – Energy generation: What happens at the point of energy generation? What costs, financial and environmental, are associated with energy generation?

• 4 – Emissions/wastes/residues: What byproducts are left after energy generation? Where do these by-products go?

Source/production

Ethanol offers a local example of the need to consider source and production costs. Ethanol was touted as a green fuel, especially here in the Midwest where major grain companies (think Cargill, ADM) convinced many farmers that raising corn for ethanol would increase corn prices, neglecting to mention that most profits would still accrue to the grain traders.

Arguments in favor of ethanol generally focus on the end product, a less-polluting fuel. Looking at the source and production of ethanol raises different environmental questions. Intensive corn production depletes the soil and requires the use of petroleum-based and environmentally-destructive fertilizers and pesticides. Any environmental accounting for ethanol has to include the pollution of rivers, lakes and groundwater by fertilizer run-off and pesticide residues. Irrigation sucks groundwater reservoirs, and, in some areas, contributes to the emergence of sinkholes. Replacing smaller farms with miles-long cornfields cultivated and harvested by diesel-powered giants results in human costs to community and to local businesses.

Sounds grim – but then look at the production costs of coal, including strip-mined landscapes and dead miners. No fuel comes without cost. My point is not that ethanol is evil, but that accounting of environmental costs and benefits must not stop at the filling station nozzle or the refinery, but instead must reach back to the cornfield and community. In order to compare fuels, we need to look at all the costs and all the benefits.

Transportation/distribution

Transportation and distribution of petroleum, even domestically-produced petroleum, has clear costs. The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company boasts, that the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline "has successfully transported over 15 billion barrels of oil."

And then there were the unsuccessful transports, notably the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster, which spilled 11 million gallons of oil in Prince William Sound, and the 2006 pipeline leak, which spilled at least 250,000 gallons of oil on the Alaskan tundra. In between, according to the Christian Science Monitor, "about 500 oil spills have occurred in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields and along the 800-mile pipeline each year."

The environmental costs of transport have to include the destruction of wildlife habitat by the pipeline's construction and maintenance, the oil spills, and the diesel emissions from truck transport to gas stations and other consumers.

Few fuels come without some kind of transportation impact on the environment. The current system of electricity generation relies on massive production at centralized places and then delivery of electricity through transmission lines. Even discussion of wind energy focuses on large "wind farms" that would produce electricity to be shipped elsewhere. In contrast, decentralized production of electricity by home solar panel arrays, smaller-scale windmills or backyard bio-diesel operations offer alternatives that have different costs and benefits.

Energy generation

What does it take to turn fuel into energy? Burning comes immediately to mind, but nuclear power plants, wind farms and solar panels all produce energy without burning. Any ranking of fuels needs to include an analysis of the place and method of energy production. Environmental factors at the point of production may include the machinery used, the use of water for cooling or for co-generation of steam heat, and other factors that don't come immediately to my mind.

Garbage, aka refuse-derived fuel (RDF), raises particularly difficult questions. Before becoming fuel, garbage is processed into the "fluffy" RDF. That processing should be part of the cost analysis. Then RDF is burned, and its burning typically raises two other issue: it needs to be co-fired with some other fuel (such as coal) and it gunks up (technical term) the incinerator, raising maintenance costs. Granted, most environmental arguments against RDF focus on the emissions factor, but these production/generation factors are also part of the equation.

Emissions/wastes/residues

Carbon emissions, contributing to global warming, are part of everyone's consciousness in the green energy debate.

Toxic chemical emissions, such as mercury, also figure in the equation for some fuels. Micro-particulates emitted from smokestacks as a consequence of burning anything clearly contribute to health problems in the community. Scrubbers and filters can eliminate many harmful emissions, and need to be considered as part of any debate.

The residues of energy productions, from ash that gets landfilled to nuclear wastes that continue to pile up, present their own environmental issues.

And, in conclusion … Much more could be said, but this post is already too long. My point is—green energy issues are complicated. All of these factors need to be part of the discussion and part of the calculus for decision-making.

Winter soldiers and everyday patriots

[originally posted 3/18/08]

"This Marine ... watched the commander, who had given us the order to shoot anyone on the street, shoot two old ladies that were walking and carrying vegetables. He said that the commander had told him to shoot the woman, and when he refused, because they were carrying vegetables, the commander shot them." Winter Soldier testimony of Jason Wayne Lemieux, honorably discharged with the rank of sergeant in the Marine Corps after serving three deployments to Iraq, including the invasion, and four years and ten months in the U.S. Marine Corps.

Military veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan testified at Winter Soldier in mid-March, giving their eyewitness accounts of the war and of atrocities committed by U.S. troops. Winter Soldier 2008, organized by Iraq Veterans Against the War, was modeled after the historic 1971 Winter Soldier hearings held during the Vietnam War.

Tom Paine said in 1776: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

The Winter Soldiers have risked their lives to serve and protect their country in a war that they found did neither. Instead, the conduct of the war disgraced the ideals they held and the war created more enemies for their—and our—country. Now back at home, they displayed their patriotism by testifying in the Winter Soldier hearings.

March 19 is the fifth anniversary of the U.S. war in Iraq. Nearly 4,000 U.S. soldiers and more than 4,000 coalition soldiers have died. More than a hundred thousand Iraqis have lost their lives. More than four million have lost their homes, their jobs or their schools.

Last week, the president who sent soldiers into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan talked to some of the troops in Afghanistan via video. He said that he was “a little envious” of them and, “If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.” Bush continued, “It must be exciting for you … in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger."

Lemieux could tell him about the "fantastic experience."

"I don’t have anywhere near enough time to tell you every related experience that I had in Iraq, but in general, the rules of engagement changed frequently, contradicted themselves, and when they were restrictive, they were either loosely enforced, or escalations of force, as shootings of civilians were known, were not reported because Marines did not want to send their brothers in arms to prison, when all they were trying to do was protect themselves in a situation they had been forced into, where there was a constant ambiguous and deadly threat, and any citizen of the country that they were supposedly liberating could have been wearing an explosive vest.

"With no way to identify their attackers and no clear mission worth dying for, Marines viewed the rules of engagement as either a joke or a technicality to be worked around so that they could bring each other home alive. Not only are the misuse of rules of engagement in Iraq indicative of supreme strategic incompetence, they are also a moral disgrace. The people who have set them should be ashamed of ourselves, and they are just one of the many reasons why the troops should be withdrawn immediately from Iraq."

This week, people are mobilizing against the war, across the state, across the country, around the world. Some of the Minnesota observances and demonstrations are listed below.

Many people do not believe that demonstrating does any good. We could argue the question. But the least that we owe to the courageous Winter Soldiers is to listen to their words. You can hear them on Democracy Now. Here are the links:

March 14 Democracy Now
March 17 Democracy Now
March 18 Democracy Now

In the words of Thomas Paine: "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered."


Protest events in Twin Cities

March 19 Sick of It Day www.sickofitday.org or

March 19, noon - 4pm
MN State Capitol Rotunda
EYES WIDE OPEN Minnesota http://www.mppeace.org/march19/
Exhibit presents a memorial to those who have fallen and a witness to our belief that no war can justify its human cost. It includes a pair of boots for each MN soldier killed in Iraq, shoes representing Irawi civilian causalities, and a visual display showing the human costs of war to our communities.

March 19
Lake Street Bridge Vigil
Wednesday, March 19, 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. (Vigil) Lake Street/Marshall Avenue Bridge spanning the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and St. Paul. Join us on March 19, the anniversary of the start of the U.S. war on Iraq by attending the weekly Peace Vigil over the Mississippi River.

6:30 p.m. (Potluck and Program) Macalester Plymouth United Church. 1658 Lincoln Avenue, (one block south of Grand Avenue and just west of the Macalester College campus), St. Paul. Public Talk: Winter Soldiers of Today: Wes Davies and Brandon Day, Iraq Veterans Against the War and Sami Rasouli, Muslim Peacemaker Teams, just returned from Iraq, speak on the 5th Anniversary of the War and Occupation

Light one candle -- or one fluorescent bulb

[Originally posted 3/13/08]

by Mary Turck, 3/13/08 • Growing up, I heard my mother admonish us, time and time again, to light one candle rather than cursing the darkness. She meant that we ought to do something. Any effort to make the world better would accomplish more than giving up in despair.

Today, as we face climate change around the globe, air quality alerts at home in Minnesota, depletion of water resources, and all of the myriad environmental challenges, we need to remember those candles. We need to make changes in lifestyles, transportation, energy use and consumption in order to live more sustainably.

In today's TC Daily Planet, Brian Peterson explains one of the more complex approaches to change in Cap and trade: Why you should care, what you need to know.

Last week's Neighborhood Sustainability Conference at Augsburg offered voices of hope. MTN collected several voices from the conference at its Sustainability 08 page.

The Twin Cities have many programs, people and organizations working on issues of sustainability. One of the voices speaking about sustainability and hope in the Twin Cities is Jay Walljasper. His book, The Great Neighborhood Book: A Do-it-Yourself Guide to Placemaking, (reviewed here) tells stories of sustainable neighborhoods. He spoke at the conference last week – see and hear him here.

And then, if you want to light a symbolic candle, or a practical fluorescent light, take the Minnesota Energy Challenge, and join in being the change we all need to make together.

Suspicion, statistics and editing

[Originally posted 12/20/07]

Is coal or wood worse for the environment? Which fuel produces greater air pollution? Should wood, or any bio-mass, be considered an acceptable fuel? These questions are matters of hot debate in the Twin Cities today, and I wish I could say we have tracked down the answer. I can't say that, but I can describe the process of turning what looked like an easy answer into a series of unanswered questions.

Dan Gordon's District Energy: An empire built on wood is well-researched and sheds light on important energy and environmental issues. While digging for answers, Dan came up with interesting statistics from MPCA, which looked like proof for one side in the wood-burning vs. non-woodburning debate. The MPCA statistics pointed toward a conclusion that wood generates less of some greenhouse gases, but more particulate emissions (PM-10) than coal.

The MPCA statistics on District Energy showed that the total amount of particulate matter the plant’s smokestacks have released has more than doubled since 1990. The amount of ultra-fine particulates under 10 micrometers, which the EPA labels “inhalable coarse particles”, has also increased. In 1990, when District Energy was still burning coal, it produced about 14 tons of these particles. In 2005, the most recent year in which data for the plant is available, it released just over 176 tons.

I have a nasty, suspicious mind, which is a great asset in this job. When I read this paragraph in the original article, I immediately wondered whether the increase in PM-10 emissions actually was attributable to the switch from coal to wood, or whether other factors were in play.

Dan had already spent far more hours on the article than justified by the amount we pay free-lance writers. Moreover, the statistic affected just one paragraph in a lengthy article. I asked him if it would be okay if I tracked this statistic the rest of the way, and he agreed.

I checked the PCA website and verified the numbers, but that raised more questions. The PCA figures showed 176 tons of PM-10 emissions – ultra-fine particulates under 10 micrometers. But it showed TOTAL particulate emissions as 120 tons. How can the total be less than one of the components?

Since the PCA website raised more questions than it answered, I called District Energy. Four or five phone calls and e-mails focused on both the general question—Why are particulate emissions so much higher in 2005 than in 1990?—and detailed, specific questions about the numbers.

More information generated more questions, and fewer answers.

1) Back in 1990 (and probably continuing through 2001), regulators used a set of guidelines called AP 42, which list different kinds of combustion technologies and what industry-standard emissions rates were for each kind of technology. In other words, the amounts in the PCA tables for early years were arrived at by multiplication rather than measurement. Today's numbers are based on sampling (how often? what kind?) and on modeling from that sampling (how accurate?)

2) District Energy today produces MUCH more heat and energy than it did in 1990. How much more? Is the increase in emissions directly proportional to the increase in heat and energy?

3) Even though District Energy today burns wood to generate heat and electricity, it also burns coal. DE personnel say that most of the PM-10 emissions today are atrributable to the coal-burning, rather than the wood-burning operation. (Non-District Energy sources confirm this.) Skip the next quote if you want to avoid head-spinning numbers:

District Energy says:

For example in 2006, particulate emissions (PM-10) resulting from burning wood at the wood-fired combined heat and power facility in St. Paul comprised only 25 percent of the total PM-10 emitted at the facility (29 tons of total of 117 tons in 2006) and yet wood was 63 percent of the total fuel consumed at the facility (on a heat input basis). Coal is utilized to a limited extent (only 13% of the total fuel consumed at the facility in 2006 on a heat input basis) in separate boilers designed for coal and which supplement the primary fuel source, wood. The use of coal makes up the majority of the remaining PM-10.

Complicated? Oh, yes! And that's only the beginning. District Energy and independent sources agree in saying that the real determinant for PM-10 emissions is not the type of fuel used, but rather the type of emissions control system in place. Better emissions control = less PM-10 emissions. What emissions controls are out there? What is the state of the art?

Stay tuned – this is not the final word on the issue.

From grammar to accuracy

[Originally published 12/27/07]

'Do you put a disclaimer on your articles to identify the ones written by citizen journalists?' I'm sure the questioner didn't mean to sound insulting. She really believed that there is a huge gap between 'real' journalists and citizen journalists, and that 'real' journalists are much more trustworthy. Similar criticisms distinguish between bloggers and 'real news.' Many people are confused about where the lines are drawn, who to trust, and where the TC Daily Planet fits in all of this.

The Daily Planet gets news from a variety of sources. The overwhelming majority of our articles are written by citizen journalists, ranging from a volunteer producing a news story for KFAI to a free-lance writer who is paid for a story we have asked him/her to write. (We ONLY pay for assigned stories.) We have different standards for each of those sources.

First, we re-publish news from community media partners. We publish only original content from our media partners – not wire services, not syndicated material, and not press releases. We look for articles that have strong local interest or ties. We do not do fact-checking on these articles. That is the responsibility of the media partner that originally published the article.

Second, we publish articles from "our" bloggers and opinion columns or essays in our Voices section. Generally, these articles are the responsibility of their authors. We may do minor editing for grammar and style. We will not do major fact-checking. If something in a blog or Voices submission looks factually questionable, we might ask the author to clarify, or we might decide not to publish. We try to publish Voices articles that are interesting and well-written. While we prefer local content or local ties, there's a little more latitude in Voices for commentary on national or global issues. We do not publish press releases in Voices. [Opinion or commentary articles from our media partners also go in Voices.]

Third, we publish articles submitted by citizen journalists in the community. An example is the recent article on St. Paul's best-kept Christmas secret. Louise Ernewein submitted this article. I had never heard of her. I had heard of the Jackson Street Roundhouse, but did not know about the Christmas program. The article was interesting and well-written, the photos were great, and a few minutes of on-line checking verified the basic facts. Great! Louise told an interesting story with strong local interest, and she told it well. I want more stories like that! And I hope to meet Louise in the future and to get more stories from her. (Turns out she is a journalist from Britain, now married to a Minnesotan and living in the Twin Cities area.)

Finally, we assign articles to free-lance writers and interns. Some of these writers are paid, but nobody is getting paid enough. They are citizen journalists, who live in and write about our community. Their articles have to meet our highest standards for fairness, accuracy, and accountability.

Some stories are easier. An interview with a local figure or a story about a new theater opening may require the reporter's vigilance to spell names correctly and double-check dates, but they do not stir deep controversy. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time, but the Daily Planet and our citizen journalists do as well as—and sometimes better than—any professional media. (One recent example: as Joel Grostephan worked on our story on local observance of Eid ul-Adha, I heard the morning report from National Public Radio incorrectly identify this Eid as "marking the end of Ramadan." We got it right—they got it wrong. Happens to the best of us, but we try not to let it happen often.)

Other stories are tougher. They focus on issues that deeply divide communities or reveal facts that an institution or official would rather not see in print. Tough stories require a lot of work—research, writing, and sometimes lots of back-and-forth between editor and writer. That is just as true for citizen journalists as for professionals.

Keeping our reporting truthful and transparent is a big part of my job as editor, and a continuing challenge. I have to play devil's advocate, question assertions, ask for documentation, and make the final decisions on when something is ready for print. I have a nasty, suspicious mind, which is a great asset in this job.

Our biggest assets, though, are the commitment and hard work of our citizen journalists. Dan Gordon, for example, digs deep for facts. Many of his articles focus on hot-button issues. That means repeated rounds of questions and discussion, sending articles back and forth, checking for facts, re-checking his careful notes of interviews, double-checking public documents, and spending lots of his time, and mine, before an article goes to print. (Look for a new report from Dan in the first week of January.)

No, we do not put any disclaimers on articles written by our citizen journalists. The Twin Cities Daily Planet is designed as a tool for citizens who want to share information, create community, hold the powerful accountable and work together for the common good. We strive for high standards of fairness, accuracy, and accountability. If you share those values, you are welcome to sign on as a citizen journalist and contribute articles, photographs, audio or video reporting.

If you would like to know more about writing for the TC Daily Planet, come to our writers' group at Rondo Community Center and Library in St. Paul (University and Dale) on most Monday afternoons at 4 p.m The next meeting will be Monday, January 7, and it is open to anyone.

We are all MMinnesotans today

[Originally published 12/12/07]

Immigration raids around the country target workers in their workplaces. Their focus highlights the immigrant roots of U.S. unions and labor organizing. This week in Minnesota two events focus on immigrant workers in Minnesota: a December 13 gathering commemorating last year's raid in Worthington and an award to this year's successful Justice for Janitors campaign.

Remember the raids?

• Remember 230 workers seized, and all workers who "looked like" immigrants detained and locked down until they could prove their immigrant or citizen status.

• Remember the thirteen-year-old girl, left without parents when her mother was shipped to Mexico and her father disappeared) Days later, he was found in detention in Atlanta.

• Remember the twelve- and thirteen-year-old U.S. citizen children, the only safe members of their families, who had to look for missing relatives, shop for groceries, seek help.

• And remember the response of the union and of Minnesotans who supported the devastated families and community.

Remember them all on December 13, at an event commemorating the one-year anniversary of the Worthington meatpacking raid. The program will run from 7 to 9 p.m. at St. Joan of Arc Church, 46th St. and 3rd Ave., Minneapolis. The theme is "Remembering the Raids: Reclaiming Our Community."

The Minnesota community spotlighted a victory for workers at the Take Action Minnesota dinner December 8. Chants of "Sí se puede!" from Latino workers were joined by "Ha waan awoodnaa!" from Somali workers as Take Action Minnesota honored the successful Justice for Janitors campaign. The janitors, organized by SEIU Local 26, demanded more full-time work and better health care coverage. Their previous contract had such high prices for health care coverage that only 14 of 4200 workers were covered. Under the new contract, monthly insurance premiums dropped from $750 to $75.

In November, the union launched a new campaign to improve contracts for security guards and window cleaners. The goals of the campaign--affordable healthcare, income that can support families, and improved training and safety—were tragically highlighted this month December by the death of 52-year-old union leader Fidel Sanchez-Flores, who fell through a skylight at the IDS Center while he and other workers were clearing snow from the roof. The union has set up a fund to help the Sanchez-Flores family at:

The Family of Fidel Sanchez-Flores Memorial Fund
c/o Union Bank & Trust
312 Central Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55414

A crowd of union members stood at the front of the banquet hall to accept the Take Action Minnesota award. Immigrants and U.S.-born workers stood shoulder to shoulder, as they had throughout last year's successful campaign.

"We stood together," a union leader told the audience. "No matter when we got here, we all are Minnesotans today."