thumbnail of Almanac; No. 543; 1989-07-07
Transcript
Hide -
<v Speaker>Almanac is a production of K T.C.A. <v Speaker>TV for stations of the Minnesota Public Television Association. <v Jan Smaby>Well, we've looked at the TV Guide tonight, and believe me, there's nothing else on but <v Jan Smaby>bad reruns. And we have plenty to keep your attention. <v Jan Smaby>We'll jump into the big fight over whether Hudson, Wisconsin will get a dog racing track. <v Jan Smaby>Then St. Paul Mayor George Latimer will square off with State Human Rights Commissioner <v Jan Smaby>Stephen Cooper over St. Paul's much contested firefighters test. <v Jan Smaby>We'll even take a bite of what may be the last chunk of the salmonella story. <v Jan Smaby>All that and sports geek J.G. Preston too its another of Friday fun we call <v Jan Smaby>almanac.
<v Speaker>Funding for Almanac is provided in part by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren attorneys <v Speaker>at Law. Serving clients from offices in Bloomington, Minneapolis, and Coon Rapids. <v Speaker>Norstan Inc. A distributor for telecommunications equipment products including <v Speaker>IBM. Grant Thornton. <v Speaker>Accountants and management consultants for America's middle-market. <v Speaker>Our business is knowing yours. <v Speaker>Minnesota's credit unions. People helping people. <v Speaker>Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota providing more than a million Minnesotans <v Speaker>with the care behind the card. <v Speaker>And Gabberts Furniture and design studio of idina. <v Speaker>There is no place like home, and there is no place like Gabberts. <v Speaker>Art's reporting on Almanac is presented through a grand from Super America and <v Speaker>its ninety five employee-operated stores throughout Minnesota. <v Mark Pearson>Hello, I'm Mark Pearson, farmer and agricultural commentator for Almanac. <v Mark Pearson>For most of my life, I've been involved in agriculture.
<v Mark Pearson>I've been through the ups and downs of the cattle, hog, corn and wheat cycles. <v Mark Pearson>I've also seen various government farm programs come and go. <v Mark Pearson>Some years the government wants us to produce more corn, or more soybeans or more wheat. <v Mark Pearson>The next year, they tell us to plant less corn, less soybeans, less wheat. <v Mark Pearson>I'm afraid these simple, carefree days are over. <v Mark Pearson>It was announced and signed into law by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency <v Mark Pearson>this week that the use and production of asbestos would be outlawed over the next seven <v Mark Pearson>years because the relationship between exposure to asbestos and cancer. <v Mark Pearson>Now, let me tell you about the economic impact of government mandated reductions in <v Mark Pearson>agricultural production. And I assume this is going to be true for asbestos when farmers <v Mark Pearson>reduce production of crops. Pretty soon, the small rural communities begin to feel the <v Mark Pearson>impact. The seed salesman sells less seed. <v Mark Pearson>The fertilizer dealer sells less fertilizer, farm equipment store sells less farm <v Mark Pearson>equipment. Pretty soon there are fewer hogs and cattle going to market and then fewer <v Mark Pearson>farmers. The impact of government bans and production reductions is called the ripple
<v Mark Pearson>effect. And now asbestos producers are being hit not just with the reduction, <v Mark Pearson>but a total ban. I shudder to think what the impact this ban is going to have <v Mark Pearson>on asbestos producers and their allied industries. <v Mark Pearson>Asbestos is in everything, our schools our homes our churches our offices. <v Mark Pearson>It's used everywhere and now it's banned. <v Mark Pearson>Think of the impact on asbestos mining areas and the asbestos manufacturing hubs around <v Mark Pearson>our nation. But the real loss of asbestos will reach deep into the fiber of America's <v Mark Pearson>health care communities. Terribly out of work. <v Mark Pearson>Oncologists respiratory therapist will be joining the ranks of the homeless, fighting for <v Mark Pearson>space on a park bench with university medical researchers. <v Mark Pearson>The ripple effect of the government asbestos ban could wreak total havoc on the nation's <v Mark Pearson>huge medical industrial complex. <v Mark Pearson>Why? if we're not careful. Major medical insurance rates might actually decline. <v Mark Pearson>God forbid there might be fewer lawyers. <v Mark Pearson>What would that mean to the state's economy? <v Mark Pearson>How would they fill office space in the World Trade Center? <v Mark Pearson>Now there's still time for action. I formed an activist group called Save Our Asses <v Mark Pearson>Bestos. We can't let the government ban asbestos before you know it.
<v Mark Pearson>They'll try and ban something as safe and innocuous as cigarettes. <v Eric Eskola>Well, here are some of the news items that Minnesotans we're talking about this week, a <v Eric Eskola>national news story, of course, predominated the news Monday, Supreme Court ruling on <v Eric Eskola>abortion. And we'll be talking more about that later. <v Eric Eskola>St. Paul police officer Robert Coon's made news this week and I bet he wishes <v Eric Eskola>he didn't. The head of the St. Paul Police Union, Coon's, was suspended after testing <v Eric Eskola>positive for DWI after having a car accident on the job last weekend.
<v Eric Eskola>And several other police officers are under investigation for their handling of the case. <v Eric Eskola>The threatened Wednesday strike by MTC drivers did not materialize this week. <v Eric Eskola>A last minute offer by management was accepted by the union's board, and drivers now <v Eric Eskola>will vote on it this weekend. In cultural news, thursday, Ado Dewaart <v Eric Eskola>signed on for another term as the conductor of the Minnesota Orchestra. <v Eric Eskola>And we start tonight with another story making the rounds today. <v Eric Eskola>St. Paul Mayor George Latimer announcing that he wants to thaw the hiring freeze <v Eric Eskola>of 25 St. Paul firefighters. <v Eric Eskola>The hirings were put on hold last summer after a lawsuit was filed by the state <v Eric Eskola>charging that the fire department has a test that is unfair to women <v Eric Eskola>candidates. Mayor Latimer says the department needs the firefighters now. <v Eric Eskola>And George Latimer joins us this evening, as does the state human rights commissioner, <v Eric Eskola>Stephen Cooper. <v Eric Eskola>Say, Mayor, you're short staffed on a fire department and there's been this story about <v Eric Eskola>nine, one, one, and you need more people for that. <v Eric Eskola>But this has been brewing for months and months now.
<v Eric Eskola>Can't you two guys get together, write a test that the commissioner will accept and ha- <v Eric Eskola>hire some women and go put out the fires? What's holding this up? <v George Latimer>Well, it's very complicated. <v George Latimer>The negotiations have gone on between the attorney general's office and the city <v George Latimer>attorney's office. And there's always hope something might come out of that. <v George Latimer>Meanwhile, we've got a city to run and we've got to make sure the public safety is <v George Latimer>protected. And it's pretty clear that we now have 30 openings <v George Latimer>not filled. We have the risk of as many as 60 <v George Latimer>going into 1990 that will be unfilled. <v George Latimer>That comes to almost one third of the number of people on the street putting <v George Latimer>out fires and and helping people who need medical help. <v George Latimer>So what we've got is a combination of the prospect of increased <v George Latimer>stress and the paramedics. We now have a shorter number of <v George Latimer>people available, an awful lot more money paying for overtime, <v George Latimer>which is incredible amount of cost. <v George Latimer>Last August, when we were before the court, the court, we
<v George Latimer>asked if we could hire the twenty five and then go on with the litigation. <v George Latimer>The court said that they wouldn't they would hold the hiring at that <v George Latimer>time. The court left open the possibility that if the matter got <v George Latimer>worse or grave, that we should come forward. <v George Latimer>We're now doing that. And that's the issue now. <v Jan Smaby>Commissioner, Mr. Cooper. Yeah. Given these dire problems, would you try and stop this <v Jan Smaby>effort to lift the freeze, at least on a temporary basis? <v Speaker>Do you think public safety is a joke? <v Stephen Cooper>Well, I think there's two very important points. <v Stephen Cooper>The first important point right now. St. Paul has more firefighters per capital per <v Stephen Cooper>capita than does Minneapolis. <v Stephen Cooper>St. Paul claim that they have a shortage of firefighters is far from persuasive, <v Stephen Cooper>particularly to the fact that it was a very similar ploy that was used years ago when the <v Stephen Cooper>court ordered breakdown of racial discrimination in St. Paul. <v Stephen Cooper>And after that time, when a bunch of people were hired, supposedly the next test was <v Stephen Cooper>going to be fear. It was six or seven years later before the next hiring took place. <v Stephen Cooper>The second thing I'd like to point out is it's been, as was pointed out in your initial <v Stephen Cooper>question. It's been almost a year, actually, more than a year now since the inaccuracy
<v Stephen Cooper>of this test came to light. The city's own consultant said the test is no good. <v Stephen Cooper>The court concluded the test was no good. <v Stephen Cooper>Our investigation concluded the test was no good. <v Stephen Cooper>It would take St. Paul about a month to do the test. <v Stephen Cooper>Right. It could have last June had new firefighters if it needed. <v Stephen Cooper>Last August, last, you know, each and every month. <v Stephen Cooper>Right now, if the city of St. Paul is serious about having a shortage of a shortage <v Stephen Cooper>of firefighters. Mayor Latimer and myself. <v Stephen Cooper>And go get a beer afterwards, sit down and talk this thing through. <v Stephen Cooper>I have the real problem is that St. Paul has basically taken no action <v Stephen Cooper>to correct this problem as long as they take no action. <v Stephen Cooper>The problem's going to continue. <v Speaker>Fellows are come from the St.- neither of you wants discrimination against women. <v Speaker>You fight your whole careers for end of that type of discrimination. <v Speaker>Mayor, why can't there be a test where some women firefighters can be hired? <v Speaker>What's the problem? <v Speaker>The intention was, in fact, we had 19 applicants and I had every hope <v Speaker>that there'd be all kinds of people would pass. <v Speaker>Women didn't pass. May I make a few comments about the last few comments <v Speaker>the commissioner made? Go ahead. It's unfair to compare with Minneapolis.
<v Speaker>Minneapolis does not deliver paramedic service. <v Speaker>You should understand that. You should understand, therefore, that comparison of the <v Speaker>personnel available is not accurate. <v Speaker>Secondly, they might not the bit about the 10 second. <v Speaker>Shall I stop? Now, how are you doing? <v Speaker>The second point is that the court did not determine that the test was in fact <v Speaker>wrong or false. <v Speaker>The court said that there's probable cause sufficient. <v Speaker>To undertake the trial, we want the trial to occur. <v Speaker>The trial is taken longer than I ever hoped. <v Speaker>I would love to see the test approved if the test isn't approved. <v Speaker>Then I say, let's get on with it. I'm happy to have a new test administered if there's a <v Speaker>bad one right there now. I'm happy to see everybody go to work that we need to go <v Speaker>to work right now. There isn't any reason you shouldn't agree with us. <v Speaker>Let the twenty five be hired. There'll be plenty of jobs open, including the lid again <v Speaker>that you represent. So why don't you agree to that? <v Speaker>We'll get on with. <v Speaker>There's actually that there's there's some excellent reasons, George.
<v Speaker>And let's go back a couple of things you just said. <v Speaker>First of all, it's entertaining to me that you give the same test for paramedics and for <v Speaker>dispatchers as you do for firefighters right off the top. <v Speaker>You know, you've got a problem there. Second of all, it's interesting to me that you <v Speaker>changed what the court actually said. <v Speaker>We were going for an injunction in court, not the right to go to trial. <v Speaker>We already had the right to go to trial when we went for the injunction. <v Speaker>You presented your evidence. We presented ours. <v Speaker>You read the court's finding. The court's finding was that the evidence was there to <v Speaker>conclude that an injunction should be issued. <v Speaker>And why did they conclude that they concluded that? <v Speaker>Because, as you know, you've got a terrible test. <v Speaker>You don't have a bad test. You have a terrible test. <v Speaker>You have a test. <v Speaker>No, we don't. We have a test to see if it's serious work. <v Speaker>You know, honestly, you know, we worked on that test for a year and we'll find out <v Speaker>whether good or not when we go to trial, we know you don't have a good test. <v Speaker>Why no women then? But but that has got to bother you Mayor Latimer, again given your <v Speaker>history <v Speaker>Isn't fair to say why no women. <v Speaker>I know I have a good test and we haven't trained the women well enough to pass it <v Speaker>and we had to do better at training. Don't throw out the test until we have finally ruled
<v Speaker>on it. We haven't had that ruling yet. And by the way, you added one more outrageous <v Speaker>statement. You just said there's something terrible about training for a paramedic <v Speaker>or firefighter. <v Speaker>You know, there's something terrible about it. <v Speaker>Said you say something deeply wrong. <v Speaker>Using the same technique, do people get something terribly wrong? <v Speaker>No. What I said was one of the five years I was saying take a number. <v Speaker>All three major functions. Now, let me let me finish. <v Speaker>You you quoted the consultant. The consultant said that cross training now <v Speaker>going on is the best in the nation. <v Speaker>Training them for all. And you're saying that we shouldn't be doing that? <v Speaker>Doesn't make any sense. <v Speaker>Somebody said to Commissioner Cooper, you said in your opening comments that the two <v Speaker>of you could go out after the show and probably reach some agreement. <v Speaker>What would you want me or Latimer do to agree to that would allow you to stop <v Speaker>fighting? <v Speaker>Maybe we can make a deal. <v Speaker>The first thing I'd want Mayor Latimer to agree to is what the city refused to do before <v Speaker>the city, when we attempt to negotiate it before, refused to discuss any of the key <v Speaker>issues. They first of all, refused to discuss whether or not the 25 people
<v Speaker>who passed this faulty test would or would not be hired. <v Speaker>They, second of all, refused to discuss whether or not rank ordering would or would not <v Speaker>be used. And what's the rank ordering is the decision that when you have that in <v Speaker>order for a test to be able to be drawn and quartered, you have to show that somebody <v Speaker>with a ninety one, in fact, is better able to do the job than somebody with a 90. <v Speaker>This test was not a test that you can say that about. <v Speaker>Those are the first two issues. The third issue and perhaps the most important issue is <v Speaker>let's decide now what we're going to do to make this test work in the future. <v Speaker>Let's not do what George says, which is give us everything we want now. <v Speaker>We'll talk to you later about what you want. Let's put it all on the table. <v Speaker>Let's hammer it all up and let's get this thing done. <v Speaker>We should've done you know that a month ago, the Supreme Court in the Birmingham <v Speaker>case said that a third party litigant can come forward <v Speaker>and vacate a settlement agreed to. <v Speaker>I am prepared to make a deal with you right now in front of maybe a hundred thousand <v Speaker>people who ought to be out fishing instead of listening to us. <v Speaker>And here's the deal. I'm willing to recommend that we hire the twenty <v Speaker>five people that we arbitrate.
<v Speaker>What a perfect test is. And we proceed to hire anyone who pass <v Speaker>that test, including the people you represent. <v Speaker>So no one be unfairly prohibited. <v Speaker>And I'm ready to do that. Now, if we do that tonight, with or without beer, you can have <v Speaker>beer. I for my part. <v Speaker>Water has always been fine for me. <v Speaker>But anyway, if you're to be serious, if we agreed on that, you know, <v Speaker>the Birmingham ruling and you know that the firefighters union will have a separate <v Speaker>cause of action to bring against us for any people who are not hired <v Speaker>because of a violation of a collective bargaining agreement or because of any other rules <v Speaker>the union can implement. Now, you know, that's the rule under Birmingham. <v Speaker>Anything there he just said that you could agree with? <v Speaker>So how do you how do you act out really just public deals? <v Speaker>Me when you know, I'd be happy to make you agree with anything that you just laid on. <v Speaker>Absolutely not. <v Speaker>As he well knows, first of all, once again, you started off with give me everything I <v Speaker>want first and then I'll talk to you about what you want. <v Speaker>That's not a deal. Tell me about the settlement. Let me finish. <v Speaker>And I talk. Let's talk about the Birmingham case in this particular action. <v Speaker>The union is a party. Let's also point out the fact that we were supposed to go to trial
<v Speaker>this week. It wasn't because the state didn't want to go to trial. <v Speaker>It's because the union in the city wanted to continue to October. <v Speaker>We were ready to go to trial three days from now. <v Speaker>We still are ready to go to trial three days from now. <v Speaker>It's you guys that aren't. Now, I'm telling you, you know, this telephone's well, we'll <v Speaker>get union reps down there, too. But the reality is, as you know, the unions are not <v Speaker>interested in settling this. <v Speaker>And I'm not too persuaded the city is interested in settling, the union believes that <v Speaker>we're going to prevail on all the points. <v Speaker>The union has got the local ordinance on its side and they want to proceed <v Speaker>all the way. We can make any kind of an agreement we have, as you know, and it's not <v Speaker>going to hold up if the union doesn't stand. <v Speaker>That's why we want to have an early hearing. <v Speaker>Far as I don't think I can argue with you about how long the lawyers have taken, I <v Speaker>haven't been involved in all that. Your lawyers have had all kinds of depositions and <v Speaker>they went on forever. <v Speaker>So I'm not going to argue with you or the guys who wanted to continue it. <v Speaker>Not us. Well, I don't think that we asked for a continuance joining the unions. <v Speaker>It doesn't sound like we've reached an agreement this evening. <v Speaker>But may I ask one final question before we close out? <v Speaker>And that is on a different topic.
<v Speaker>Mayor, as long as we have you here, are you satisfied with the way in which the <v Speaker>police department handled the arrest of Officer Coon's? <v Speaker>And do you believe there is a wider problem of drinking among police officers? <v Speaker>I don't. I don't have any evidence that there is any kind of a wide problem <v Speaker>of drinking in the police department. And as far as the way it's being handled, the <v Speaker>process is working very well. The chief has stepped in, suspended <v Speaker>several people, is calling for an internal investigation. <v Speaker>I have no judgment to make as to who acted well or badly. <v Speaker>And I think it's premature for anyone, the public or anyone else to assume <v Speaker>guilt. And if the process will work and I can guarantee you it will work well. <v Speaker>Little late developments in both instances. <v Speaker>Thanks, fellas. Appreciate extravagance.
<v Speaker>Well, the dog days of summer came a bit early this year to the town of Hudson, <v Speaker>Wisconsin. For months now, town residents have been snarling over <v Speaker>whether their town should have a dog racing track. <v Speaker>And the resulting dog fight has brought about a lawsuit. <v Speaker>A recall petition against the mayor and police officers detaining members <v Speaker>of the city council. You might say, in fact, we're sort of forced to say <v Speaker>that life in the normally relatively quiet Wisconsin town has gone <v Speaker>to the dogs. If only the issue was lighthearted. <v Speaker>Is this. With us tonight to talk about the proposed racetrack is Bruce <v Speaker>Muffett, a leader of the anti track group CCR D. <v Speaker>Burt Nordstrand is also here. A Hudson businessman, Nordstrom heads <v Speaker>Croixland Properties, the track developers. <v Speaker>Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. <v Speaker>Mr. Nordstrom, could we begin with you? <v Speaker>Could you briefly outline what the plan is for the dog racing track and Hudson? <v Speaker>Yes, I'd be happy to. The plan is a 400 acre site that
<v Speaker>we have developed. That's got to be right off Carmike later. <v Speaker>Change and new area change that has long been planned for the city of Hudson. <v Speaker>It's a unique opportunity in the fact that this land is available <v Speaker>for commercial industrial development. <v Speaker>Play on our property has long been planned to be developed that way by the city <v Speaker>of Hudson and Criden Properties, which is <v Speaker>proposing dog track called St. Croix. <v Speaker>Meadows is offering the acre to make that happen. <v Speaker>We have the city as committee, a commitment to put in a bypass <v Speaker>off of this interchange. <v Speaker>That bypass would have to be paid by the taxpayers. <v Speaker>If they didn't have a major anchor like Sacremento. <v Speaker>And so what we're doing, what we're proposing is a <v Speaker>large development for the people of Hudson, for the city of Hudson. <v Speaker>It's going to lower the tax base in the city. <v Speaker>We have one of the highest tax bases in the nation, a hundred thousand our home <v Speaker>in the city of Hudson. The taxes on that is thirty one hundred dollars.
<v Speaker>Experts have told us that this proposal will lower that by 20 percent. <v Speaker>We're going to create five hundred jobs just for the dog track itself, total economic <v Speaker>development during a total economic impact of one hundred and thirty five million <v Speaker>dollars. It's a significant development. <v Speaker>I've been a developer in Hudson for 20 years. <v Speaker>I've been involved in the historic district in downtown Hudson Bay, commercial <v Speaker>district on the Hill. And I know what the people of Hudson need. <v Speaker>I listen to a lot of street. <v Speaker>Each day I know the people. And this proposal is an opportunity to <v Speaker>keep a lot of the commitments the city has made. <v Speaker>And and we're very proud of it. <v Speaker>Mr. Moffitt, why are you raining on this parade? <v Speaker>It sounds like it's the greatest thing ever to hit your town. <v Speaker>Well, I don't think the facts actually are as well represented in <v Speaker>in racing boards, environmental assessments, summary as Burt would suggest. <v Speaker>And that is that there's going to be no tax advantage to the <v Speaker>local residents. And that is stated clearly.
<v Speaker>And to suggest that there is property tax relief just is not correct and fair. <v Speaker>That's a promise that won't come true. And the racing board has put that in their summary <v Speaker>assessment of the allocation. <v Speaker>The racing board feels that with the investment that the city and the services that <v Speaker>will be required will wash out any windfall tax relief. <v Speaker>The other thing is that it's important to realize in the state of Wisconsin that there's <v Speaker>an equalization that occurs. So as you increase your tax base, that equation changes. <v Speaker>And so you really can't necessarily develop your way out of property tax <v Speaker>or into property tax relief. <v Speaker>Is it dog racing? Let's say that you're opposed to or is it a development of this size <v Speaker>that would suck up these resources that you. <v Speaker>I think our opposition is is well, based on what the the racing board has said in their <v Speaker>mind, mental assessment summary, and that is that we'll have traffic conditions <v Speaker>similar to what you experienced in downtown St. Paul during rush hour. <v Speaker>We will have no tax advantage. The suggestion that just this interchange and road <v Speaker>leading to the site, in fact, would be paid for the developer is simply not true.
<v Speaker>The obligation from the city is in excess of eight hundred thousand dollars. <v Speaker>That's quite an impact. The core issue here is that the Hudson residents <v Speaker>simply don't want a dog track. <v Speaker>And that was true when we surveyed them and had a market research company tabulate those <v Speaker>results back in August when when Bert made his initial proposal, those that had an <v Speaker>opinion at the time, seven out of 10 said they didn't want this type development. <v Speaker>Now, we also have had the recent results on May 23rd of the referendum, which Bert and <v Speaker>the mayor tried to block for an excess of 10 months to keep that from being a part of the <v Speaker>racing board's consideration. The results there were 62 percent of the residents said <v Speaker>that they don't want this and only 38 percent said they did. <v Speaker>And let's also understand, the Bern North Strand started a citizen's group called <v Speaker>Citizens for Fair Government, which the treasurer was one of the Croyle employees. <v Speaker>They contributed nine thousand dollars to persuade people to. <v Speaker>Buy into this being credible or viable development? <v Speaker>Well, the fact is they outspent, outspent citizens that were opposed to this on a <v Speaker>12 to 1 ratio and still were only able to come up with 38 percent.
<v Speaker>What about well, this is just simply not true. <v Speaker>We're just hearing more of the same stuff that we've been listening to for a year. <v Speaker>The Croixland and Stankiewicz Mattos has developed over 18 feet <v Speaker>of documents, 18 feet of reports. <v Speaker>We've been in front of various bodies all over the city, all over the state. <v Speaker>And the facts speak for themselves. <v Speaker>We've presented our proposal to the city of Hudson after <v Speaker>hundreds of hours of study by the city city council. <v Speaker>They said yes to cry and they said no to Mr. Moffitt. <v Speaker>They said no to CCR D. <v Speaker>What about this advice? VRD advisory referendum? <v Speaker>Apparently went against you? <v Speaker>The advisory referendum is like going out and voting <v Speaker>for something that's already happened. <v Speaker>You like vote for the sick people of Hudson to go out and vote whether or not to have <v Speaker>ST's or not. We are there already there. <v Speaker>The dog track had already been approved. Why go vote? <v Speaker>It's amazing to me that we got 40 percent of the people to vote for an issue that was <v Speaker>mute. But this let me say far. Let me say it's something else. <v Speaker>We not only got approval from the city of Hudson, we got approval from the state of <v Speaker>Wisconsin, the state racing board. But a c.s.i.
<v Speaker>doo doo doo doo. They sue small group of people with a <v Speaker>lot of Minnesota lawyers decide to sue the city of Hudson. <v Speaker>They sue the racing board. We call the DNR. <v Speaker>We asked for air quality permit. <v Speaker>The DNR says yes to cry land. They say no to CCRC. <v Speaker>SICAD sues the quote to the governor. <v Speaker>The governor listens to them. The governor says yes to crime. <v Speaker>And he says, I believe in the process. Bruce Moffet criticizes the governor in the <v Speaker>newspaper. We go to the D.O.T., the D.O.T. <v Speaker>does the same thing. They approve our plans. We move forward. <v Speaker>I respond to some of a small group. <v Speaker>It is not a fair assessment. We have over 400 people that have supported us and given <v Speaker>to me and talking about who these people are and $20 contributions out of their pockets. <v Speaker>And this has been over the course of about fifteen months. <v Speaker>These are solid citizens. These are business people. <v Speaker>Certainly some are lawyers, people that are concerned about the future of Hudson. <v Speaker>And for them, the future of Hudson simply does not include a dog track. <v Speaker>One of the issues I think that is drawing people to it more so than simply is there going
<v Speaker>to be a dog track or not is simply the corruption of the process. <v Speaker>And an example of that would be that, in fact, when the land site was deemed <v Speaker>inappropriate by a bonified planning commission, a couple of things happened. <v Speaker>One is that the developers attorney, David Fleck out of Milwaukee, in fact, rewrote the <v Speaker>city ordinances. Now, he has publicly acknowledged that and that is on the record. <v Speaker>He has not. That simply is not OK. <v Speaker>And so in the middle of the game, our ordinances were rewritten. <v Speaker>Now, the interesting thing is the ordinances that were rewritten were the same ordinances <v Speaker>that were broken by the mayor and the council in their December 19th meeting. <v Speaker>And that meaning that the planning commission had said this is not appropriate land use. <v Speaker>Why did they say that? Because it's a residential neighborhood. <v Speaker>There's a YMCA camp that entertains 10000 children across the street from his proposed <v Speaker>site. But the important thing is this. That's a corruption of the process. <v Speaker>When you go re-writing city ordinances to accommodate accommodate a developer ahead of <v Speaker>the interests of the constituents of the Hudson community, where this is simply has most <v Speaker>outraged the citizens of Hudson, where it will stand. <v Speaker>Well, let me let me. We have been out. We've been approved by the city. <v Speaker>Women improve by the state. We've been through the city process three times.
<v Speaker>We gave her to the zoning with the planning commission and the city council. <v Speaker>Three times I said yes. All three times has been approved by everybody. <v Speaker>We're gonna be an under construction in a month. <v Speaker>Mr. Mr. Nordstrom, though, in the face of what may be some sizable <v Speaker>if not a majority of citizens of Hudson in opposition to <v Speaker>this, why Steven Hudson? Why not pick another Wisconsin town that may welcome you with <v Speaker>open arms? <v Speaker>First of all, I think, as I said, I'm a developer and husband for many, many years. <v Speaker>I think it's a unique opportunity to the people of Hudson, to our already tried to <v Speaker>crowded schools to get the kind of tax relief that we need. <v Speaker>I'm committed to Hudson. I've been involved in Hudson for most of my life. <v Speaker>I'm a Wisconsin person and I am not interested in the people that 3M <v Speaker>move in here, have their homes and then want to put a fence up around the city and say <v Speaker>that that's enough. <v Speaker>Well, anyway, you can stop them. Yes. <v Speaker>That's going to be my final question to you very much to answer the same question. <v Speaker>The question is, is one and the same. <v Speaker>Please, Burt, consider the Hudson community, the urban
<v Speaker>community. <v Speaker>We have less sleazy idea. What would let me draw. <v Speaker>The Hudson community has documented evidence through ten long, tortuous <v Speaker>months that they simply don't want this development. <v Speaker>Find a community that will embrace you. Please withdraw your proposal and you stop it. <v Speaker>Can you stop it? There will be no dog track in the Hudson. <v Speaker>Well, we'll have to wait and see. They'll be under construction in a month. <v Speaker>Right. Mr. Moffitt, Mr. Settle, another man on Almanac, I guess. <v Speaker>I guess not. But thank you both. Okay. <v Speaker>Thanks.
<v Speaker>Right now, we're going to talk to the man who many say has the weirdest body <v Speaker>in all of sports, and he's often seen playing with his twins. <v Speaker>And this week he received a wonderful touching honor by a narrow margin. <v Speaker>His fans selected him as the starting center fielder on the Al Haircut team. <v Speaker>J.J. Preston. <v J. G Preston>I just got this haircut today. How did you know to say that? <v Speaker>Do you bring your own bowl? <v J. G Preston> You get a discount. $2 off if you bring your own. <v J. G Preston>What's wrong with this hair, anyway? <v Speaker>It stinks. <v J. G Preston>Hey, I got as many hits this month as Mike Schmidt. I don't see any reason why I couldn't <v J. G Preston>be starting center field. <v Eric Eskola>What about that All-Star balloting? <v Eric Eskola>Canseco and Schmidt making the team? <v J. G Preston>What's the big to do? I mean, I just don't see where it's worth. <v J. G Preston>Like devoting your life to some passionate, heated outburst to how awful <v J. G Preston>the process is. [Eric Eskola: And what about our twins? <v J. G Preston>Speaking of-.] I'm going to play Canseco's not going to play. <v J. G Preston>So what? <v Eric Eskola>Then let's get passionate about our twins. <v Speaker>Boy can you know, I've been on vacation for two weeks of still haven't changed clothes <v Speaker>since I got back. [Jan Smaby: We noticed.] Thank you. <v Speaker>I have showered, though. You did. <v Speaker>Just stunning its a stunning outfit. <v Speaker>Yeah, that's what they tell me. And as I read the box scores in the paper in the
<v Speaker>Huntington, West Virginia Herald Dispatch, I couldn't help but notice the twins swept <v Speaker>Oakland and we're five and a half behind. And I was tempted to kind of call back here and <v Speaker>see if people were excited to do a little random conversation about the twins. <v Speaker>But then I saw the oth-. The other kicker. The thing that always got me was fifth place. <v Speaker>I don't care if you're two games out. Fifth place is tough. <v Speaker>Fifth place is bad news. And so then I guess that California series came and I was glad I <v Speaker>was out of town for that one. Mike Dyer, at least you got his name right. <v Speaker>Unlike Hartman, who insists on you can't tell him, apart from Jim Dwyer, apparently he's <v Speaker>on dwired dwired wire saying it's dire. <v Speaker>OK, you got it. Is he the answer? No, he's not at all. <v Speaker>Martin Guthrie. Good kid. <v Speaker>I had a nice time talking to him for a story earlier this year, but I don't think he's <v Speaker>ready quite yet. Besides, he's not a left hander. <v Speaker>You've got four left handers out there who are all basically the same kind of pitcher. <v Speaker>That's what they and the twins do any better than hope to finish in fourth. <v Speaker>I think third is not out of the question. Second might even be achievable. <v Speaker>What? Well, you know, it depends on what happens to other teams. <v Speaker>But First. No t-wolves a draft. <v Speaker>Pooh Richardson. We are touched still on the table? <v Speaker>No. Well, I was kind of surprised. I guess they told me that the Timberwolves people
<v Speaker>think Pooh Richardsons a heck of a ballplayer. And I'm got to defer to them on that one, <v Speaker>because that really came out of the blue to me. I thought there were three or four guys <v Speaker>at that particular position ahead of pooh on the list. <v Speaker>And I also didn't think was really a point guard they wanted. <v Speaker>But I have to say that by the time they got past about the seventh or eighth pick, I <v Speaker>guess about the eighth pick. Then there weren't the kind of guys to get excited about the <v Speaker>way those first eight were. So I'm not sure they could have picked anybody who was gonna <v Speaker>be a real barnburner. You have an athletic report. <v Speaker>Get the questions are so easy tonight, I just. <v Speaker>Topic? Let's do it like Karnack. OK, probation, no death penalty. <v Speaker>Well, it's bad, doesn't it? That Really looks bad. <v Speaker>I mean, I don't I don't know what to make, of course. They don't let me in the smoke <v Speaker>filled room. <v Speaker>Lou Holtz with the five C-notes to the intermediary to get to the bat. <v Speaker>They're not gonna NCW sanctions. <v Speaker>Do you think will come? It's so hard to tell. I really don't know. <v Speaker>I mean, I really don't know. It's clearly not at the level of Kentucky basketball program <v Speaker>was either way. I was fairly stunned. Final question. <v Speaker>With John McEnroe lost in the quarter. <v Speaker>Did he really have the semifinals excuse me, at Wimbledon? <v Speaker>Any words about John?
<v Speaker>Well, you know, it's kind of like like it's like the pot calling the kettle black, <v Speaker>because people who don't know me think that I must think of me the same way they think of <v Speaker>John McEnroe, just a really nasty, evil guy who just does cruel, stupid <v Speaker>things just to be a jerk. I'm not that way. <v Speaker>J.G. Preston writing his own epitaph right here on Almanac. <v Speaker>Cressman, my gut. <v Speaker>If you haven't done it already, it's time to scratch cheese off your dangerous <v Speaker>food list. Yesterday, state epidemiologist Michael Osterholm announced
<v Speaker>that the salmonella outbreak is over and it is OK to eat cheese again. <v Speaker>Actually, it was never absolutely proven that she's caused the outbreak. <v Speaker>Michael Osterholm joins us. And so does Joel Haugland with the Minnesota Grocers <v Speaker>Association. <v Speaker>Did I miss pronounce your name? You've got to just. <v Speaker>Right, right. Michael Osterholm, KSTP Channel 5 tonight that their 5 <v Speaker>o'clock news, they broke what they called was an exclusive story. <v Speaker>They gave the name brand of the cheese that's been causing all the trouble and they <v Speaker>claimed it was Crystal Farms. Is that accurate? <v Speaker>No, it's not accurate in two respects. First of all, it was not an exclusive story. <v Speaker>A number of news media sources have that today and all claiming it was exclusive, more or <v Speaker>less. <v Speaker>Second of all, as we made it very clear, Crystal Farms is a distributor <v Speaker>of cheese in Minnesota, a large distributor of cheese. <v Speaker>They buy all of their cheese at various plant in the upper Midwest <v Speaker>and the finger cheese of the many kinds they sell that happened to be involved. <v Speaker>Here was one that is also sold by no other packers, no other brands in Minnesota.
<v Speaker>So as far from the problem and it's just a part of this larger problem. <v Speaker>So media wrong again. <v Speaker>And given, however, the statements that have been repeated in recent <v Speaker>days that there have been over 4000 samples of cheese taken and not <v Speaker>one of them has shown to be infected with salmonella. <v Speaker>Are you still positive that cheese is indeed the source of this recent outbreak? <v Speaker>We're positive that cheese is the source of this outbreak. <v Speaker>And I might even take you back to a program. I was on hearing almanac about five <v Speaker>weeks ago in which I said at that time that it's very possible that we could test <v Speaker>thousands of cheese samples and not find this particular bacteria until we were able <v Speaker>to get it in exactly the piece. <v Speaker>We have every reason to believe that it could be as simple as a small part <v Speaker>of one slice of cheese that's contaminated. <v Speaker>This is very sporadic relative to the epidemiologic data, which are scientific <v Speaker>data themselves. This state is as strong implicating cheese as was tampons and toxic <v Speaker>shock syndrome or aspirin and rice and or any other study we've ever done.
<v Speaker>We've now completed three separate studies, all looking at cases <v Speaker>and, well, individuals. And out of hundreds of items we looked at, we didn't look just at <v Speaker>cheese. We looked at all kinds of items, everything from toothpicks to pepper to <v Speaker>fruits, vegetables, meats, etc. <v Speaker>Cheese inconsistently cheese has been the only thing that's come up and come up very <v Speaker>strongly. And we are not done with the investigation yet. <v Speaker>And I think that we're getting much closer to actually linking it back to specific plants <v Speaker>or flows of cheese that have come through a multitude of different processors. <v Speaker>Mr. Harlan, there was a advisory against eating certain types of uncooked processed <v Speaker>cheese, but there was no recall of any brands. <v Speaker>And I wonder if you felt from the retailer grocery retailers a point of view. <v Speaker>Was this handled properly from point of view, your business? <v Speaker>Well, food safety is our number one concern, and we're glad that this current situation <v Speaker>is over. This is only the third in the last four months. <v Speaker>First, we were dealing with apples. <v Speaker>And we're dealing with grapes and then cheese. <v Speaker>And we're getting a little concerned about the way, in fact, this
<v Speaker>information is being conveyed to consumers, because <v Speaker>I guess we're concerned about the fact that all of a sudden people are hitting with <v Speaker>a new item every month or every other month. <v Speaker>And after a while, the consumer is going to start to wonder whether or not this is real <v Speaker>or whether it's concieve type of thing. <v Speaker>And I think we have to be very careful about the way we talk about the different items <v Speaker>that are being thrown out. <v Speaker>What should he have done differently in this case, if anything? <v Speaker>Well, I guess we're concerned. And what I'd like to see, though, like a Geiger <v Speaker>counter of food safety. <v Speaker>You know what is more or less important or dangerous or that type <v Speaker>of thing. Now, he issued the Health Department and Agriculture Department's issued <v Speaker>advisories on this particular situation, and they advised that you should properly heat <v Speaker>cheese products, particularly mozzarella and processed cheese. <v Speaker>It's very difficult to heat processed cheese. <v Speaker>So that makes it kind of a difficult message. <v Speaker>But I think what we need to do is properly communicate to grocers are
<v Speaker>like our members and communicate to the consumers. <v Speaker>Second, so that we have a chance to get in this whole thing. <v Speaker>What was happening was that we were finding out from our customers. <v Speaker>And as a result, we were caught off guard wondering what was happening. <v Speaker>And these guys kept me in the loop. <v Speaker>In fact, they are. And I think the issue that Joel raises a very legitimate one, though, <v Speaker>in terms of the air of communication today, when you have information about <v Speaker>risk and specifically and the kinds that we had. <v Speaker>Timing is everything. The media will criticize you if you waited more than two hours <v Speaker>because you were derelict in duty. <v Speaker>On the other hand, and the consumer will do the same thing. <v Speaker>And how do you communicate basically to 4.2? <v Speaker>Minnesotan's in a way that allows for that loop to take place, and I think that's a <v Speaker>legitimate concern. I think even the issue of food safety is a very important one. <v Speaker>We have concerns. We're back into that summer season again. <v Speaker>We're starting to see the problem with the bloody diarrhea and the hamburger. <v Speaker>Based on the e. coli outbreak that we had last summer, we're seeing that again, we're
<v Speaker>seeing problems with eggs and salmonella. Right now, we're seeing problems with a lot of <v Speaker>different food items. How do you best communicate that to consumers? <v Speaker>At least it's clear now that cheese is safe to eat. <v Speaker>To the degree that we can say something safe. <v Speaker>Yes. This outbreak of salmonella jobby on it is not ongoing at this time. <v Speaker>But I have to say that to learn an awful lot about the communication system, there's a <v Speaker>tremendous opportunity here because the food industry is so diverse and has a <v Speaker>infrastructure in itself and we have the potential to access that. <v Speaker>I'm going to have to cut you both off at this point, but we thank you both for joining us <v Speaker>very much discussion. <v Speaker>Well, this summer, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis is featuring an exhibit called <v Speaker>First Impressions. It is a collection of the first published prints by 46 <v Speaker>contemporary American artists. <v Speaker>Printing presses have been used for centuries to reproduce images, but it wasn't <v Speaker>until the 1960s that printmaking was considered a legitimate artistic <v Speaker>media. Now, one of the artists in the show, Steve Sorman, works out of a studio
<v Speaker>beside the St. Croix River Almanacs. <v Speaker>Jim Bickell visited Sorman in his studio and learned some of the techniques <v Speaker>of printmaking. <v Speaker>This 1978 print is called the first building project, according to what plan, <v Speaker>Sorman says it's about his first impressions of working in a full scale professional <v Speaker>print shop. Actually, his first prints were made quite simply in his own studio. <v Speaker>In the beginning, the pieces that I did were done essentially <v Speaker>by rubbing the back of a piece of damp paper over over <v Speaker>an eight plate and done by hand. <v Speaker>So what I would do is cover the whole thing with ink, wipe the ink back so that the ink <v Speaker>was in the spaces between, take a damp piece of Japan <v Speaker>paper, place it face down on the ink plate and then <v Speaker>place sheet of poly behind this and rub <v Speaker>the back with an instrument like this. <v Speaker>This is a baron.
<v Speaker>Over the years, Sorman has used many other print making techniques news work, including <v Speaker>dry point etching, which involves drawing on a copper plate with a needle and you can <v Speaker>only get maybe a dozen or so prints from a plate. <v Speaker>Because what happens when you are cutting away that line? <v Speaker>This is the surface of the plate. <v Speaker>When you cut into that plate with that tool, what you are doing is cutting. <v Speaker>Like that and leaving a little burr. <v Speaker>And so the burr on the plate. <v Speaker>When the ink goes in here and catches on the bird, you have kind of a fuzzy rough line. <v Speaker>Well, a few times through the press in that burs worn, worn off. <v Speaker>Another example of intaglio printing <v Speaker>is the engraving. <v Speaker>An engraved plate will hold up for many, many, many more printings <v Speaker>because what you are doing is putting a V shaped <v Speaker>line in there that that pretty much holds its edge and maintains that,
<v Speaker>you know, that is filled with. <v Speaker>Well, we've just seen at least a little bit about how the print making process works. <v Speaker>Liz Armstrong joins us from the Walker Art Institute. <v Speaker>Welcome back, Liz. <v Speaker>We're going to take a look at for prints out of the many that are in the show, <v Speaker>and we'd like you to describe them. <v Speaker>I think the first one is by Chuck Close, and you can tell us a little bit about him. <v Speaker>And particularly in this piece, he uses what is known as the message tent process, <v Speaker>which is quite difficult. Right. <v Speaker>Not only is it quite difficult, but it's a very archaic medium that hasn't really been <v Speaker>used much in the 20th century, which is one reason Close wanted to use it. <v Speaker>He wanted to challenge himself and he wanted to challenge the printers as much as <v Speaker>possible. <v Speaker>Now, why, by the way, did he call this Keith? <v Speaker>Is that a self-portrait of closer? No, no. <v Speaker>It's a portrait of his friend. All right. OK, so there's the answer. <v Speaker>All right. The next one we're going to take a look at is by Andy Warhol. <v Speaker>And this is called the cooking pot. <v Speaker>And this is from the early period.
<v Speaker>Is this the period we should take more most seriously in terms of Andy Warhol work? <v Speaker>I think it is this most important period. It's when he first began to <v Speaker>appropriate images from the mass media. <v Speaker>And in this case, you can see he took a newspaper ad, which is kind of ironic cause <v Speaker>he made a print of a print that already exists. Is that art? <v Speaker>You bet. He called it a print and it's all just a print. <v Speaker>The third one we're going to take a look at is by Edward Rucci. <v Speaker>And this is called the Standard Station. <v Speaker>What is unique and different about this? <v Speaker>Well, at the time, he used silkscreen, which is a medium <v Speaker>that had only been used commercially until this 1960s, and he was one of the first artist <v Speaker>to adapt it to fine art print making. <v Speaker>The garish orange and blue sky in the background is what's really notable about it. <v Speaker>It's a technique called the rainbow roll. <v Speaker>And it was a commercial technique also that really by the end of the 60s became a cliche <v Speaker>of fine art printmaking. <v Speaker>All right. And finally, we're going to take a look at a local artist.
<v Speaker>And this is T.L. Saleen. And it's called The Three Sailors. <v Speaker>It's a print that was actually made here in Minneapolis at the Vermillion Print Editions <v Speaker>Workshop. And it sort of shows the resources that are available <v Speaker>to artists who started making prints in the 1980s. <v Speaker>It's very complicated, technically combining lithography and screen printing <v Speaker>and intaglio all in one print. <v Speaker>Well, it's got that mirro influence is so pervasive in this is this medium. <v Speaker>Seriously? Why? <v Speaker>Why did you choose to to isolate sort of the first works of all these artists? <v Speaker>Wouldn't they be more crude and primitive at that time? <v Speaker>Not as developed to sophisticated as fine? <v Speaker>Well, I make the analogy more to say an actor's first take. <v Speaker>Maybe there are some flaws, maybe not, but there's that kind of energy and enthusiasm of <v Speaker>a new endeavor. The first time you do something always turns up kind of interesting <v Speaker>results and it really doesn't. Printmaking. <v Speaker>Are the prints popular among collectors? <v Speaker>I mean, is it recognized as one of the media of of art?
<v Speaker>Does oils or other painting is concerned? <v Speaker>Well, it is very much so today. But that's really only happened in this country over the <v Speaker>past 30 years. And that happened to allow it to flourish. <v Speaker>Do you think? I'll tell you partly it was the pop artist getting involved and making <v Speaker>prints in the early 60s. And that's where the show begins, because pop art was accessible <v Speaker>to people. They were images. People understood. <v Speaker>And once pop art started selling prints, prints that <v Speaker>they made, it became interesting how many copies of a print can you get off of one? <v Speaker>I know what it played or whatever. <v Speaker>I mean, can you get hundreds or thousands or you can get hundreds now techniques for that <v Speaker>develop. But usually with the kind of prints we're looking at, it's maybe 50 to 100 at <v Speaker>the most. <v Speaker>Lewis Armstrong, how long does the exhibit run at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis? <v Speaker>It runs through September 10th through September 10th. <v Speaker>All right. Well, thank you for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. <v Speaker>I appreciate it. Great.
<v Speaker>Well, just a minute, fellas. <v Speaker>The story that dominated the news this week was, of course, the decision announced Monday <v Speaker>by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing states more latitude in passing restrictive abortion <v Speaker>laws. And while many eyes quickly look to Minnesota as a state where early abortion <v Speaker>legislation could take place on Wednesday, Governor Perjurious said that he might <v Speaker>not call a special session unless legislators already have reached agreement on abortion. <v Speaker>Well, how much control could the governor and or our legislative leaders have over these <v Speaker>special session agenda? <v Speaker>Well, let's ask a couple of legislative leaders. <v Speaker>Robert Banaszak, DFL speaker of the Minnesota House. <v Speaker>And Bill Schreiber's here as well. The are House minority leader. <v Speaker>Mr. Speaker, what about it? <v Speaker>If you've got some hardcore people on either side of this issue are bound and determined <v Speaker>to bring up an abortion bill in the September special session on property taxes. <v Speaker>Can they do it or can the leadership or the governor say no? <v Speaker>Well, there's nothing in in the House rules or Senate rules that can prohibit <v Speaker>any member of the legislature from introducing a bill during a regular session or during
<v Speaker>a special session so any member can put their own bill together, whether it's on abortion <v Speaker>or any other issue, and have it ready for an adoption the first day of a special session. <v Speaker>Normally what we try to do when we're in a special session situation is <v Speaker>that we like to have agreement on what the agenda is going to be ahead of time. <v Speaker>And we'd like to have the session last for a short period of time, usually a day or two. <v Speaker>I think you've got to go all the way back to 1971 to find an exception to that. <v Speaker>That kind of a situation from occurring. <v Speaker>And so I think you'll see an effort on the part of the legislative leadership as well as <v Speaker>the governor to try to come to some kind of agreement to limit the agenda. <v Speaker>I would like to see us focus on taxes. <v Speaker>That's the reason why the governor is considering calling us in special session in the <v Speaker>first place. <v Speaker>Would you guys just say, Reverend Schreiber, do you think it's possible to have <v Speaker>an agreement to not touch abortion during this special session or the abortion <v Speaker>issue is going to be before us in a special section? <v Speaker>And in my judgment and and particularly as it relates to the house and
<v Speaker>the fetal viability legislation, it's had its public hearings. <v Speaker>It's been amendments were offered in the House floor. <v Speaker>It was adopted during the regular session, sent over the Senate, said it did not take <v Speaker>action this during the regular session. <v Speaker>You know, I'd be amazed to not have that bill before us on the House side. <v Speaker>Both of you both of you are pro-life, publicly known as pro-life people in <v Speaker>terms of your position on the abortion issue. <v Speaker>But does each of you would each of you want the abortion question to be handled <v Speaker>slowly, perhaps allow it not to be dealt with until the next year? <v Speaker>Or do each of you support it being dealt with right now, right up front in this special <v Speaker>session, starting with you? <v Speaker>Well, I I have a real concern as it relates to precinct caucuses. <v Speaker>The abortion issue really polarizes people. <v Speaker>It's difficult for legislators to deal with with polarized folks. <v Speaker>We're accustomed to compromise. It's not unusual for us to tell people that disagree that <v Speaker>you're going in the back room. <v Speaker>We're going to lock the door and you. Right. You don't come out until you reach an <v Speaker>agreement. But as it relates to those real zealots on either side
<v Speaker>of the abortion issue, unless you gave them food, water, those folks die before they ever <v Speaker>come out, you know, they just can't reach an agreement. <v Speaker>And that makes it difficult for for legislators to deal with that issue. <v Speaker>Well, the governor said it would be could be days and weeks if if you let abortion go in <v Speaker>and with without a prior agreement ever, you'll never get agreement on <v Speaker>on a bill between the various groups that are interested in the issue. <v Speaker>What I would hope is that you'd get an agreement on the process. <v Speaker>And I think that there are some complexities in this most recent Supreme Court decision <v Speaker>that would do us all well, I think to spend some time looking <v Speaker>at just what that Missouri decision means, how it affects Minnesota. <v Speaker>The issue of, say, public hospitals, I think it's not so clear cut in this state because <v Speaker>it's not real clear just what a public hospital is in Minnesota as compared to, say, a <v Speaker>state like Missouri. And I would rather see us take some time, hold <v Speaker>some hearings and be more deliberative rather than acting hastily and getting something
<v Speaker>brought up in a special session just for the sake of passing a bill. <v Speaker>And one side looking good. <v Speaker>My my judgment as it relates to the Supreme Court decision is that both sides are <v Speaker>overreacting and reading more into that Supreme Court decision than what sexually. <v Speaker>They're the one. The one thing. <v Speaker>Yes, I do agree with Bill on that. I think if you really look at the impact of that <v Speaker>decision on the number of abortions that are going to be performed in this country after <v Speaker>the decision compared to before, it's not going to be that great. <v Speaker>The one thing that that is for certain, in my judgment, is that there is going to be a <v Speaker>tenfold increase in the amount of litigation that's going to take place, because <v Speaker>both sides are going to continue to try to fill the court out and find out just where the <v Speaker>lines are. <v Speaker>We had the bizarre specter this past week of a waiter in a topless bar crossing <v Speaker>the street to rescue a flag that was. <v Speaker>Being burned by pro-choice demonstrators now, is this <v Speaker>an example, an extreme one of how far out it's going <v Speaker>to get and how Mr. Schreiber commented on it earlier?
<v Speaker>How do you rein in a political process that's going to get wrapped up in this highly <v Speaker>charged emotional issue? <v Speaker>Well, I can think of no issue or very few issues that <v Speaker>create as strong and emotional feeling and people as the abortion issue does. <v Speaker>And as Bill said earlier, it's one of those where there is no compromise. <v Speaker>People are either on the people that are interested in the issue are usually very <v Speaker>strongly held positions on one side or the other. <v Speaker>And they're not interested in compromise. <v Speaker>And I guess I don't really see how you how you try to turn that into <v Speaker>something other than what it is. And what I want us to see, <v Speaker>as I said, I want us to have make sure we have a process in the legislature that's going <v Speaker>to allow everybody a chance to be heard. <v Speaker>Before we take action, because no matter what we do and even if we do nothing, <v Speaker>there is going to be a tremendous number of folks in this state that are going to be <v Speaker>unhappy with us. And the very least they deserve is their opportunity to be <v Speaker>heard before the legislature makes a decision. <v Speaker>And I agree with with with the speaker in saying that they have public hearings and so
<v Speaker>on. But personally, I would get I would like to get as much accomplished in the special <v Speaker>session as possible. We have precinct caucuses coming up in February. <v Speaker>And my fear is that if both those sides are so dominating precinct caucuses <v Speaker>that other people that are interested in environmental issues, tax issues, economic <v Speaker>development and so on will stay away from the precinct caucus, because some of those <v Speaker>folks will say, I don't want to hear the abortion debate for an hour and a half. <v Speaker>I want to go there for my issue. It's not going to be heard. <v Speaker>So I won't even go to the precinct caucus. <v Speaker>And that's a bill where both parties, whether we do something in a special session or <v Speaker>not, we're going to have the abortion issue back before us in that 90 session. <v Speaker>And it's going to be before Snowe's precinct caucuses and it's going to go right on <v Speaker>through the election cycle. I I hope that it isn't to the detriment of other important <v Speaker>issues that ought to be discussed in that 90 election. <v Speaker>But it's going to be a it's going to be with us for some time to come. <v Speaker>Good. Thanks, fellows. Appreciate it. We'll see what happens with the special session <v Speaker>occurs. Thanks.
<v Speaker>The Almanac junkies call this part of the show. <v Speaker>The IFS, the index file section. <v Speaker>Well, I call it the GTRNTEOTP,  the goofy time right <v Speaker>near the end of the program. So last week's if question had to do <v Speaker>with this photo, which we told you was the Minnesota Supreme Court circa January 1975. <v Speaker>Now, we went on to tell you that something happened then to cause the entire group to <v Speaker>resign. We added the hint that the resignations had something to do with the wild versus <v Speaker>Rarig case. Our question, what happened that made these nine members of the nineteen <v Speaker>seventy five Minnesota Supreme Court resign? <v Speaker>Now, many of you did well on this one, but others should have settled out of court. <v Speaker>The case had something to do with lawyers and judges receiving <v Speaker>honorariums for doing something for anything off the bench and <v Speaker>they felt they weren't making enough money without being able to do this. <v Speaker> All Nine justices quit the Supreme Court and <v Speaker>went into the research project at the U of M to try and stimulate hair growth.
<v Speaker>All nine judges of the Supreme Court of Minnesota recused themselves <v Speaker>from hearing that case because the lawyer who represented one of the parties <v Speaker>had so angered them in a variety of contentious <v Speaker>litigations previously that they all felt they couldn't be fair to decide the case. <v Speaker>The Ruling that the Minnesota Supreme Court judges made was on the retirement age <v Speaker>for the judges, and they were all over that age. <v Speaker>So they retired. <v Speaker>No, it wasn't a case of group retirement, actually, as 11 of you <v Speaker>recalled. These men were the judicial equivalent of Kelly Temporary. <v Speaker>The reason all nine justices resigned is because the original nine justices all had <v Speaker>conflicts of interest with boards involved in the litigation. <v Speaker>So they stepped down and appointed nine special judges to hear that case. <v Speaker>Once the case was over, those nine justices resigned. <v Speaker>That's right. The case of Wild vs. Rarig involved a lawsuit brought by Dr. John Wild
<v Speaker>against the Wilder Foundation. James Otis, who was on the state Supreme Court at the <v Speaker>time, was one of the trustees of the Wilder foundation. <v Speaker>So the entire court decided to disqualify itself and appointed a temporary court <v Speaker>to hear just that case, incidentally. <v Speaker>J. G. Glen Kelly, who was on that temporary court, is now a regular <v Speaker>member of the Supreme Court. So he may go down as the only Supreme Court justice to <v Speaker>resign from the court twice. All right. <v Speaker>Enough courtroom drama this week. <v Speaker>We're calling upon you to identify for us a certain place in Minnesota. <v Speaker>And here is some info. The town we're talking about was incorporated in 1926. <v Speaker>And that's not unusual. But this is all of the street names in this town have a single <v Speaker>common theme. And here's some more fodder. <v Speaker>The town in question once hoped to be the home of a Minnesota university. <v Speaker>And all the town streets are named for famous luminaries. <v Speaker>So your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to tell us the name of this mystery <v Speaker>town and what the street names have in common. <v Speaker>Now, the magic number that connects you with our answering machines is 6 1 2 2 2 9
<v Speaker>1 4 2 8. And even if you don't know the answer to the question, call <v Speaker>us anyway and tell us what you think of this week's show. <v Speaker>That number once again is 6 1 2 2 2 9 1 4 2 8. <v Speaker>Now, last week, many of you called in to add your comments about our discussion of the <v Speaker>new state law toughening up fines for stores who sell cigarettes to minors. <v Speaker>Several of you voiced this opinion. <v Speaker>What about the availability of cigarettes to minors in <v Speaker>the cigarette machines? There must be some big power behind this to have <v Speaker>the state legislature knock it down. <v Speaker>This is a very simple thing to do is to take the machines out and only control <v Speaker>them through the stores. <v Speaker>Well, once again, we want to know what is on your mind. <v Speaker>If you found yourself talking back to the TV set during tonight's show. <v Speaker>Get over to the phone and talk to a machine that listens. <v Speaker>Our answering machines can be reached at 6 1 2 2 2 9 1 4 2 <v Speaker>8. Well, that should wrap things up for this week. <v Jan Smaby>In fact, it does and just in time for Eric Leslie Escola.
<v Jan Smaby>I'm Jan Gritz Smaby. Good night. <v Speaker>Funding for Almanac is provided in part by Larkin Hoffman Daily and Lindgren attorneys <v Speaker>at law serving clients from offices in Bloomington, Minneapolis and Coon Rapids.
Series
Almanac
Episode Number
No. 543
Episode
1989-07-07
Producing Organization
KTCA-TV (Television station : Saint Paul, Minn.)
Contributing Organization
Twin Cities Public Television (St. Paul, Minnesota)
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia (Athens, Georgia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip-77-322bwqzv
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-77-322bwqzv).
Description
Episode Description
The episode includes a segment on the fight over Hudson, Wisconsin's new dog racing track and St. Paul Mayor George Latimer debates Human Rights Commissioner Stephen Cooper on the fire department's hiring freeze due to unfair testing of women candidates. Additionally, Almanac discusses salmonella and J.G. Preston from the Minnesota Twins.
Series Description
"Now in its fifth season, ALMANAC continues to make news. Broadcast live every Friday night to public stations throughout Minnesota, ALMANAC covers the week's most important events in a fast-paced and attractive hour. The program's innovative format blends serious debate, light conversation and humor in covering issues ranging from Minnesota politics and business to sports and popular culture, and has attracted an increasingly broad audience across the state. In addition, it has served as the model for similar public information shows at PBS stations around the country."--1989 Peabody Awards entry form.
Description
Weekly public affairs series focused on politics, issues of regional interest, weather and sports.
Broadcast Date
1989-07-07
Created Date
1989-07-07
Asset type
Episode
Topics
Politics and Government
Media type
Moving Image
Duration
01:02:43.775
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Guest: Pearson, Mark
Producing Organization: KTCA-TV (Television station : Saint Paul, Minn.)
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Twin Cities Public Television (KTCA-TV)
Identifier: cpb-aacip-325e4edce8e (Filename)
Format: 1 inch videotape
Generation: Dub
Duration: 00:56:40
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia
Identifier: cpb-aacip-a88af5081b2 (Filename)
Format: U-matic
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Almanac; No. 543; 1989-07-07,” 1989-07-07, Twin Cities Public Television, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 26, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-77-322bwqzv.
MLA: “Almanac; No. 543; 1989-07-07.” 1989-07-07. Twin Cities Public Television, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 26, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-77-322bwqzv>.
APA: Almanac; No. 543; 1989-07-07. Boston, MA: Twin Cities Public Television, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-77-322bwqzv