Rep. Keith Ellison is known for his impassioned speeches, especially when it comes to religion. At last summer’s General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association in Minneapolis, his fiery speech about Christianity touched on themes of unity and love. But today he testified not with bravado but through tears at New York Republican Rep. Peter King’s controversial Homeland Security Committee hearings on Muslim-American “radicalization.” Ellison, Congress’ first Muslim member, broke down while telling the story of 23-year-old Muslim American paramedic Mohammad Salman Hamdani, who died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Ellison started out his lengthy testimony by stating that he disagrees with “the premise of this hearing,” before getting to his main point: “Ascribing the evil acts of a few individuals to an entire community is wrong; it is ineffective; and it risks making our country less secure.”

Repeating a familiar refrain, he later stated:

Solutions to the scourge of domestic terrorism often emerge from individuals within the Muslim community—a point I address later in my testimony. However, demanding a “community response” (as the title of this hearing suggests) asserts that the entire community bears responsibility for the violent acts of individuals. Targeting the Muslim American community for the actions of a few is unjust. Actually all of us—all communities—are responsible for combating violent extremism. Singling out one community focuses our analysis in the wrong direction.

In concluding, Ellison spoke of Hamdani, who loved the Star Wars movies, sang in Handel’s “Messiah” and “wanted to be seen as an All-American kid.”

“Muslims stood with the rest of America united in grief, in their resolve to protect America. Along with Americans of all faiths, Muslim Americans rushed in to save and rescue victims of Al-Quaeda’s terrorism,” he said, leading to his tearful recollection of the 9/11 first responder Hamdani.

“Some people spread false rumors that speculated that he was in league with the attackers because he was Muslim,” Ellison said. “But it was only when his remains were identified that these lies were exposed. Mohammad Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans. His life should not be identified as just a member of an ethnic group or just a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow Americans.”

The hearings have been “pilloried as an exercise in attention-grabbing ethnic-baiting and scapegoating and as an essentially unfair government-sanctioned exercise in Islamophobia,” as John Tomasic writes at the Colorado Independent. King, who is chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, defended the hearings today.

“To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness and an abdication of what I believe to be the main responsibility of this committee — to protect America from a terrorist attack,” he said. “Despite what passes for conventional wisdom in certain circles, there is nothing radical or un-American in holding these hearings.”

Watch it:

Update: Minneapolis DFLers have offered their take on the hearings and Ellison’s words. “It’s simply wrong to single out the Muslim community,” said Rep. Phyllis Kahn in a statement. “Terrorism knows no single race, creed, or religion and alienating an entire population is not only incredibly intolerant and unjust, it undermines our goals of preventing terrorism here and abroad.”

“The Muslim community doesn’t deserve this treatment,” said Rep. Jim Davnie. “As Representative Ellison pointed out, they have helped foil several terror plots since 9/11. The Minneapolis Muslim community has developed a solid, trusting relationship with law enforcement, and hearings like these jeopardize that relationship.”

“I’m proud to stand with my US Representative and stand with our Muslim community,” said Rep. Karen Clark. “These are our friends, neighbors, colleagues and fellow citizens who deserve our respect, not suspicion and witch hunts.”

A bipartisan slate of 30 legislators — from liberal Minneapolis Rep. Phyllis Kahn to conservative Rep. Mark Buesgens of Jordan — are proposing legislation to allow Minnesota farmers to grow industrial hemp. The Industrial Hemp Development Act would legalize hemp plants while maintaining strong restrictions on marijuana possession. The bill even includes the collection of fees from farmers as revenue to run the program; during time of budget deficits, it won’t cost the state anything.

“The legislature finds that the development and use of industrial hemp can improve the state’s economy and agricultural vitality and the production of industrial hemp can be regulated so as not to interfere with the strict regulation of controlled substances in this state,” the bill states.

Currently, the United States imports the bulk of its hemp from China and Canada, and it’s used in the production of paper, rope, food, oils, biodegradable plastic and low-carbon concrete. According to Ray Hansen of the Iowa State University’s Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, the retail value of hemp products imported to the United States in 2007 was $350 million.

Eight states have approved hemp farming: North Dakota, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, West Virginia and Vermont. However, the Drug Enforcement Agency has so far refused to weigh in on whether hemp farmers would be prosecuted for growing the plant, which is the same species as marijuana but lacks the chemical composition to intoxicate users.

In North Dakota, farmer and Republican state Rep. David Monson has filed suit against the federal government for not clarifying the rules about hemp production. His state has been granting hemp production licenses for several years and many farmers have been reluctant to grow the crop for fear of imprisonment.

Here’s video of Monson’s press conference regarding the lawsuit:

The proposed bill would set up a similar application and inspection system in Minnesota to ensure that the hemp grown in the state cannot also be used to get high.

Interested farmers must pass a criminal background check, and their seeds must have documentation certifying that they don’t contain the active substances in marijuana. Farmers also have to submit information about sales of harvested hemp to the commissioner of agriculture.

The commissioner can inspect field and test plants to ensure they aren’t marijuana. And fees from hemp growing applications will pay for the program.

A similar bill passed the House agriculture committee in 2009, but died before reaching Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s desk.

The bill was introduced by DFL Reps. Phyllis Kahn of Minneapolis, Andrew Falk of Murdock, Tina Liebling of Rochester, Michael Paymar of St. Paul, Kent Eken of Twin Valley, Lyle Koenen of Clara City, Ryan Winkler of Golden Valley, Erin Murphy of St. Paul, Karen Clark of Minneapolis, Carlos Mariani of St. Paul, Mindy Greiling of Roseville, Rick Hansen of South St. Paul, Tom Rukavina of Virginia, Bobby Joe Champion of Minneapolis, Leon Lillie of North St. Paul, Jim Davnie of Minneapolis, Marion Greene of Minneapolis, Jeff Hayden of Minneapolis, Kate Knuth of New Brighton, Dianne Loeffler of Minneapolis, Frank Hornstein of Minneapolis, Bill Hilty of Finlayson, Sheldon Johnson of St. Paul, and Alice Hausman of St. Paul.

Republicans who introduced the bill are Paul Torkelson of Nelson Township, Rod Hamilton of Mountain Lake, Greg Davids of Preston, Bob Gunther of Fairmont, Jim Abeler of Anoka, and Mark Buesgens of Jordan

A bill introduced in the Minnesota Legislature on Thursday would make it legal for farmers to grow medical marijuana and sell it to dispensaries in states where marijuana can be legally used for medicinal purposes. The Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act would direct the state government to develop a strict licensing plan for the potential grower and cites a positive economic benefit for the state’s agricultural sector.

Currently, sixteen states have legalized medical marijuana including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.

The bill (HF662) would allow Minnesota farmers to grow and export medical marijuana to those states. From the bill:

The legislature finds that the production and export of medical marijuana can contribute to the state’s economy and agricultural vitality and can be regulated so as not to interfere with the strict regulation of controlled substances in this state. The purpose of the Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act is to strengthen the state economy and its agricultural sectors by authorizing the development of a regulated medical marijuana production and export industry while maintaining strict control of marijuana.

And:

(1) the person will produce, process, and possess marijuana only for export and in full compliance with this chapter and any corresponding rules promulgated by the commissioner; and (2) any consumption or unauthorized possession of marijuana will be prosecuted to the fullest extent provided by law.

The bill’s authors are DFL Reps. Phyllis Kahn of Minneapolis, Tom Rukavina of Virginia, Frank Hornstein of Minneapolis, Tom Huntley of Duluth, Karen Clark of Minneapolis, Jeff Hayden of Minneapollis, and Leon Lillie of North St. Paul.

Nothing brings together Republicans and DFLers at the Minnesota Capitol like bong water. A new bipartisan bill would exclude a specific amount of water from a bong, or water pipe, from the weight of drugs calculated when someone is charged with possession. Former Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a similar bill last year after legislators overwhelmingly passed the measure in response to a high profile Minnesota Supreme Court case.

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that because Minnesota’s drug laws are vague, bong water could be added when measuring the weight of drugs in an accused person’s possession. The threshold for considering bong water is 25 grams, or just under one ounce.

Under the proposed bill, sponsored by three Republicans and three Democrats, law enforcement could not consider less than 4 ounces or close to 100 grams.

The bill reads, “the weight of fluid used in a water pipe may not be considered in measuring the weight of a mixture except in cases where the mixture contains four or more fluid ounces of fluid.”

The bill is sponsored by Reps. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis; Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder; Steve Smith, R-Mound; Debra Hilstrom, DFL-Brooklyn Center; Michael Paymar, DFL-St. Paul; Greg Davids, R-Preston.

Sean Niemic's Facebook profile photo

Between mid-May and the end of June, Minnesota Democrats holding three constitutional offices found themselves deluged with dozens of data requests from the Minnesota Republican Party and fellow travelers. As State Auditor Rebecca Otto shot down the information requests as “smears” designed to debilitate her office in an election year, her Republican opponent Pat Anderson fired back with a question: “What is so bad that you do not want voters to see it?”

Amid this pre-election posturing, Sean Niemic, a University of Minnesota student who filed more than a dozen of the requests, waded in to the political maelstrom. He sent out his own press release and wrote letters to media across the state denying partisan motives and accusing Otto of “stone-walling” the  student newspaper he edited, the Minnesota Republic, which he described as an “investigative news-gathering” operation.

Despite framing his kerfuffle with Otto in the rhetoric of journalism, Niemic has been intimately involved in conservative partisan politics. He’s managed a Republican campaign for the state House of Representatives and served as an officer for a student group supporting the Republican opponent of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, with whom he filed nine information requests. His sporadically published newspaper  has collected tens of thousands of dollars in University of Minnesota student fees that Niemic plans to use to pay the costs for these data requests that Otto described as partisan “fishing expeditions.”

In the wake of blogger Andrew Breitbart’s deceptively edited videos, some observers say the legacy media needs to be more skeptical of a group the New Republic recently dubbed “conservative pseudo-journalists,” who are adept at whipping issues to a froth in the name of journalism while scoring political points. The debate surrounding these information requests aren’t about whether the requesters  should receive the information — political partisans still legally have the same rights to obtain public data as anyone else — but about whether the final product is presented to the public as fair, accurate journalism when it’s really just partisan spin.

Data requests from conservatives come in early summer

The Minnesota Data Practice Act allows citizens access to public information that’s collected by government, typically for a fee that covers the department’s cost of gathering the information. In June and July, the Republican Party, Minnesota Majority, the Minnesota Freedom Council and Sean Niemic filed data requests at the offices of the Minnesota Secretary of State, State Auditor and Attorney General — all of whom are members of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and involved in heated campaigns with Republicans. The Republican Party of Minnesota denied there was any concerted effort.

There were political undertones to the data requests from the start. Niemic’s requests were broad and time-consuming to compile, specifically asking for intra-office correspondence that contained a number of keywords like “DFL,” “fundraiser” or “campaign.”  Otto reacted to the requests from Niemic and conservative groups by sending out a press release that asked whether “Republican politics is going too far?” Niemic’s response raised the bar, calling the office’s attempts to estimate the cost and time necessary for his requests an “act of intimidation,” and asking why Otto doesn’t want to be “open and transparent.”

Jane Kirtley, Professor of Media Ethics and Law at the University of Minnesota, said the overly broad wording in Niemic’s requests isn’t typically the best way to get information from government entities, although the document custodians in government would ideally work with the requester to help them find the data they specifically want, rather than just giving them a cost estimate they probably can’t afford.

Both the Secretary of State and State Auditor’s offices confirmed they’re working to come up with estimates, although both said it will take considerable time to work out the details of each request and would cost hundreds of work hours to fulfill. Niemic said responses to his requests are trickling in, and that he’ll decide whether to accept them based on final cost.

Back Cover of Minnesota Republic, Volume 2, Issue 6

Behind journalistic defenses, partisan leanings

In the wake of Andrew Breitbart’s deceptively edited video postings about USDA official Shirley Sherrod and ACORN, government officials are increasingly wary of information requesters who have an “agenda that goes beyond informing the public,” said Kirtley.

In his letters and press release, Niemic paints the Minnesota Republic as a “news-gathering operation” that seeks to hold public officials accountable, as is the “responsibility of the public and of the press.” Although Niemic freely admits he’s been involved in conservative movement for years, his letters and press release slamming Otto and Ritchie gloss over the fact that  he’s also engaged in more partisan activity.

Niemic served as the campaign manager for Republican Ole Hovde’s bid to replace state Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, in 2008 and said he’ll be helping Hovde again this time around, although he probably won’t serve as campaign manager. Niemic was also listed as an officer for Students for Dan Severson for Secretary of State at the University of Minnesota until just a few weeks ago, which would mean Niemic likely held the position, at least on paper, when he dropped nine information requests on Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s office. (Niemic said his roommate, Quinn O’Reilly, listed him as an officer in the Severson organization without his knowledge, but his roommate said he received Niemic’s permission to list him as an officer).

Explicit partisan involvement flies in the face of 50 years of American journalism, Kirtley said, where the idea was that the media is there for the public good and not to promote one cause or another. “Oftentimes, it’s difficult for members of the general public to tell the difference between doing journalism the old-fashioned way — however flawed that might have been — someone who is gathering news or information for the benefit of the public, from someone who’s pursuing a political agenda,” Kirtley said. “Once you’re truly tied to a political movement or political party, the fact of the matter is you’re not independent anymore.”

Niemic insists he’ll treat the data he receives fairly: “What I’m doing is not uncommon in newspapers, part of being a public official is you have to be responsive to journalists and the public,” he said. “I’m not going to make any judgments, I’m not going to write my headline before [I receive] the data I requested.”

But he hasn’t been writing many headlines lately. The group that publishes the Minnesota Republic received $20,000 from University student fees in the 2009-2010 academic year to fund nine issues, although it was only actually published twice, according to its online records. (Niemic said he doesn’t recall how many issues were published and can’t confirm the number because he doesn’t have access to the archives). Despite this lack of follow-through and consistent yearly criticism about the organization’s financial accountability from the university’s student fees committee, the committee this year, which Niemic briefly headed before being deposed by the administration, awarded the organization a budget of $49,300 for the 2010-2011 academic year. It’s mostly this public money, along with an expected $2,000 in reported ad revenue, that will pay the costs of Niemic’s information requests.

Unreliable media sources

There’s no question that Niemic is legally entitled to public information, just as any citizen, journalist or political operative would be, Kirtley said, although both parties appear to be at fault for how these data requests exploded into politics. The question is whether everyone with the ability to request or publish information is a journalist. The mark of partisans like Breitbart, Kirtley said, is that they often forego the media’s traditional job of providing accurate context and background , instead focusing on scoring political points.

That’s a value Niemic also neglects in his defense of Breitbart’s video, which is widely acknowledged to misleadingly portray USDA official Sherrod as a racist. “It was an accurate representation of the clips [Breitbart] was given. If the full video had carried that headline, then it would have been misrepresentation,” Niemic said. “If there’s anybody to blame for why she lost her job, I think fingers should be pointed where the buck stops, not at a journalist who was posting a video.”

The idea of presenting news that is “fair and balanced” is a principle to which people who call themselves journalists should still aspire, Kirtley said, especially as the legacy media withers and demand for quick stories increases.

“There’s nothing wrong with pursuing a political agenda — it’s what they gather, what they produce and what their goals are that are very different from traditional news organizations,” she said. “I’d like to think there’s going to come a point when the public is going to realize that some of these sources are not reliable sources for unbiased information.”

Pawlenty vetoed the bill, authored by Kahn, which would have altered state statute so that people couldn’t be prosecuted for possession of bong water the same as they would for actual controlled substances. Pawlenty defended his veto saying law enforcement supported the use of bong water in prosecution. Kahn says that line of reasoning “doesn’t hold water.”

Here’s the Daily Show segment where host John Stewart mocked the Pawlenty’s veto of the bill:

“Jon Stewart gets it and I am sure most reasonable Minnesotans get it,” Kahn said in a statement on Friday. “We shouldn’t be penalizing the unkempt housewife who left something out on the counter top with a felony offense reserved for dangerous drug dealers.”

She continued, “We worked hand in hand with law enforcement and the criminal justice system to craft a bill that they supported and we succeeded. It was a common sense bill aimed at reducing unnecessary costs on our court systems. I still haven’t heard a logical reason for the veto.”

Kahn said she’ll be looking to pass the same bill in the next legislative session.

Photo: Wikipedia

A bipartisan bill introduced in the Minnesota House on Monday could give the state’s agricultural sector a boost in the form of a new cash crop: medical marijuana. Gov. Tim Pawlenty last year vetoed an effort to legalize medical cannibis, but this measure has a different aim — to give farmers the OK to grow pot for export to states where its medicinal use is legal.

The Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act is sponsored by DFL Reps. Phyllis Kahn, Tom Rukavina, Al Juhnke, Tom Huntley and Frank Hornstein, joined by Republican Rep. Jim Abeler.

The Minnesota Independent’s requests for comment from the bill’s sponsors weren’t returned on Wednesday, but the bill spells out its aim:

The purpose of the Medical Marijuana Production and Export Act is to strengthen the state economy and its agricultural sectors by authorizing the development of a regulated medical marijuana production and export industry while maintaining strict control of marijuana.

Currently 14 states allow for the use of medical marijuana, although none are neighbors to Minnesota: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

A gay couple is married in Iowa. Photo: Bobster855, Flickr

It’s unlikely same-sex marriage will become law in Minnesota this year — Gov. Tim Pawlenty will undoubtedly veto it and skittish DFLers may vote against it in an election year — but the bill’s chief author in the Senate says it could get a hearing and possibly make it out of committee.

For three years, Sen. John Marty has been the chief sponsor of the Marriage and Family Protection Act, a bill that would equalize marriage laws to include same-sex couples. The bill was drafted by Doug Benson, a citizen who wants to marry his partner of more than twenty years. On his own time and his own dime, Benson has lobbied to get the support of 28 legislators.

What the bill needs most is a hearing and a committee vote. The bill’s chief sponsor in the House, Rep. Phyllis Kahn, told the Minnesota Independent a hearing is possible, but getting it out of committee isn’t likely.

But on the Senate side, the chances are better.

“I agree that it is unlikely that the bill is going to pass this year, but think we would have the votes to pass it out of committee in the Senate if we get a hearing,” Marty told the Minnesota Independent.

“I’d like to have a hearing and a vote — assuming we have the votes–  to begin moving the bill through the process,” he said. “Attitudes are rapidly changing, and by having a thoughtful discussion in committee, I think we can assist in that effort.”

Benson is much more optimistic about the bill’s chances.

“No one will actually know how the bill will do until a vote is taken… I think our attitude should always be, ‘This bill CAN pass,’ because that’s the truth.”

He added that Republicans continue to push for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, even though such a measure has no chance of passing a DFL-dominated Legislature.  On the other side of the issue, “that’s the kind of dedication we need” in the marriage equality movement, he said.

“We can sustain a negative vote and come back, but we cannot sustain a failure to act,” he said. “We are drowning in inertia at the Capitol over this and the thousands of gay and lesbian families across the state, including my own, are suffering because of it.”

To Sen. Marty Benson added, “I know you agree that we can’t afford to waste another session waiting for someone else to make the first move. The pendulum is swinging and time is slipping away from us.”

As the legislative session starts and the campaign season kick into high gear, every DFL candidate for governor has come out in support of marriage equality. Whether that support will translate into votes in committees and pressure from leadership to move the bill forward remains to be seen.

Photo: Lavverue, Flickr

The Marriage and Family Protection Act is still alive in the Minnesota Legislature, but Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, the bill’s chief author in the House, says it’s unlikely it’ll make it far this session. But with same-sex marriage legal in Iowa and domestic partnerships protected in Wisconsin, pressure is building in the DFL controlled Legislature to deliver some relationship rights for the key LGBT constituency.

Having been submitted last session — the first part of a biennium — the same bill will be continued during this session, Kahn said.

A committee hearing is seen by some, including Sen. John Marty, the state Senate’s sponsor, as a way begin thoughtful debate on the issue.

“We are looking at having a hearing,” Kahn said, but she says whether that happens rests with LGBT-rights groups. “That will depend on what the advocates want.”

Doug Benson of Marriage Equality Minnesota, the group behind the bill, says he’s lobbying to get the bill passed in the Legislature. OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy group, says it will take 3 to 5 years to get such a bill passed. With Gov. Tim Pawlenty openly hostile to any expansion in relationship rights for same-sex couples, the groups are hopeful that a new governor in 2011 would be more receptive to the idea.

Would the bill pass the House or the Senate this session?

It’s unlikely in both cases. And Kahn said even passing it out of a committee would be difficult, if not impossible.

“We do not believe we have the votes to pass it out of committee, and we’re not sure what value a negative vote would have,” she told the Minnesota Independent.

Elsewhere in Minnesota news this morning ….

HENNEPIN COUNTY: They told us it would come to this. The county’s medical center will stop seeing uninsured patients who don’t live in the county: fallout from  Gov. Pawlenty’s line-item veto of funding for indigent care. [Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal]

STATEWIDE: Cities face “horror show” from state budget cuts. Metro area city officials meet today to try to figure out how to avoid the slasher. [League of Minnesota Cities]

MOORHEAD: “Downward spiral” from underfunded schools feared. New residents drawn to new schools will simply leave.  [Minnesota Public Radio]

ST. PAUL: Gentrification coming down the track. Along the planned Central Corridor light rail line, property tax hikes can kill a neighborhood sure as bulldozers.  [Twin Cities Daily Planet]

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA: Recreation and entertainment infrastructure not core to mission. The U of M’s “intransigence” (to use one key legislator’s word) on its Central Corridor complaints threatens funding for its budget requests at the state Capitol. [Minnesota Daily]

FOLEY: Native son nabs National Book Award. T.J. Stiles, a Carleton College grad, won for his biography of Cornelius Vanderbilt. [St. Cloud Times]