All about torture, or the lines we cross

This is one of the best and most interesting debates I’ve seen in a while.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M – Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

But I do have just one question: So if what Cliff May is saying is that it’s ok to “torture” or have rules of torture, being that you can inflict so-called discomfort to someone as long as it will not result in death, why would terrorists give up the information interrogators want if they know that it (the torture) can not kill them?  Besides, these people want to be killed so that they are martyrs for their cause. I guess I just don’t see how the threat of supposed death, but they knowing they can’t be killed is any incentive to give up the information one is trying to get out of them.

And according to what he says, the Geneva Convention even states that you cannot inflict discomfort of any kind.  But as we all know, rules are just there to be broken anyway.

The Perpetual Whine

I’m getting sick of the whining. That background hissing that’s coming out of the throats of all Limbaugh following conservative sheep. Obama won the election and is now the president, but it seems these people are already trying to get him out of office, even before he’s done anything. And the constant talk of 2012 doesn’t help anything. Who cares who’s going to run, it wont even happen for another four years. I can understand a difference of opinion, but it feels like Republican congressionals  are doing nothing more than voting against everything the new administration is trying to pass. And the president is trying his best to appeal to both sides. That’s something that Bush never did in his eight years. That administration’s tenure was the most polarizing time in the history of the United States, next to the Civil War of course. We’re still trying to snap back from it.

And then there’s this. I’ll have you know, if you didn’t already, that I am an environmentalist. I have converstaions with people on a regular basis about the issues of climate change and the like. On day I was talking with my boss (a staunch Republican) about it and he disagreed with the possibility of climate change and he was firmly opposed to any action being taken. I asked him the question I always like to ask people who disagree: What if we’re right and climate change is happening? Shouldn’t we do something to stop it, and even if we were wrong, we’d probably make the world a better place to live in? He told me no, so I asked him about his kids, and if it mattered to him that the world that they would live in when they grew up would be potentially ruined. He said that he didn’t care because it didn’t involve him. He wouldn’t be around. Ive heard this sentiment again and again from conservitives: If it doesn’t concern me, why should I care?

But then the budget came out, the recovery plan from Geithner, all these expenditures, and now I hear consevatives across the board concerned about generational debt. Really? You mean you’re actually concerned about your kids now, and the deficit they’ll inherit? I doubt it. Mask those sentiments all you want but in truth all you’re concerned about is your own pocket book. You’re not fooling anyone, so just come out and say it already.

This obviously doesn’t correspond to all conservatives and Republicans out there, just a good majority. It just seems like we need to work harder to get back toward center in this country. And Obama isn’t the big bad Socialist that a lot of people think he is. In fact, Socialists agree that he isn’t.

Greg Pason, National Secretary of the Socialist Party USA: “Barack Obama’s programs are not socialist. The vast majority of his proposals are anti-worker (or he might say ‘pro-business’). His health care proposals are more to save the for-profit insurance industry and do not have the goal of ending for-profit insurance. He has refused to support a Senate version of HR676, which would create a single-payer program (not socialist but much better than we have, and [which has] the support of labor and community organizations across the US). Many of his other economic proposals are pro-corporate.

A socialist program (even a reformist one) would not be a program that props up capitalism when it fails, but one that transforms the economy. None of Senator Obama’s proposals do that. Senator Obama’s tax plan is regressive and even less ‘progressive’ than programs put forward under such conservative administrations like the one of Richard Nixon.”

From Human Events

In fact, Obama is closer to center than many people thought to begin with. He’s no crazy liberal. Just a Democrat. I think we need to stop the whining and move toward fixing the country. Negativity never helped anyone.

Preaching Inequality

On Thursday, a Minnesota House committee rejected a bill that would require voters to show a photo ID to get into their polling place. The bill was proposed by Represtentative Tom Emmer (R-Delano) and is similar to several conservative- backed proposed bills country-wide attempting to prevent voter fraud. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie said that the law would likely disenfranchise voters as well as cost the state a good deal of money. In my eyes its as simple as this: this bill will likely affect the elderly and those with lower incomes and no ability or desire to acquire a driver’s license. These are the people more likely to vote Democratic (no matter how much the Republicans want to call themselves the party of the people) and therefore the loss of votes would actually improve Republican chances in the state.

As I’ve stated before, my coworkers like to listen to AM1500 during the day. I do my best to ignore it, but often I am flabbergasted at the things suggested by their radio personalities. The other day, Joe Soucheray was talking about voting in Minnesota having discussed the recount and the photo ID vote, and he said something that I believe says a lot about the channel and right-wingers. He suggested that as we continue to include more people in the vote (and in the context I can only assume this means immigrants and people of so called lower classes), the system is becoming cheapened. From my interpretation of Soucheray’s phrasing, it seems as if he feels voting should remain a relatively exclusive institution in this country. As if it should not be the right of every American to vote for the person they want to run their country. This is dangerous language, as is anything relating to taking rights away from people, and harkens back to the opinions of conservative white men when blacks and women were given the right to vote. But the difference is that the right is already there, the attempt is to snatch it away.

This sort of inequality seems to be a standard opinion across the board for right-wingers. There are movements now attempting to make English the official language of a handful of states, to make it genuinely harder for people who do not speak English to live in the United States. Is this a value this country was based upon? What ever happened to the term “melting pot?” The line is “liberty and justice for all,” not just for some. “That all men are created equal” does not only apply to rich, white men. We all come from different backgrounds here. Many of us caucasians have roots in Europe. We’re all immigrants, except for the Native Americans, who technically are the only people who belong here.

It frustrates me when people work so hard to take other people’s rights away. Especially when its just an attempt to recover a few more votes for the other side. This bill has absolutely nothing to do with voter fraud. Do not mistake that.

Palin and the Wolves

Canis lupus, the gray wolf, is the center of even more debate. In the late 1980’s and into the 90’s, the wolf population was restored in the Rocky Mountains in Yellowstone National Park through a controvesial process of live-trapping in Canada and relocating. This was highly debated and fought mostly by ranchers and farmers in the area who feared for the lives of their cattle. Now, in the year 2008, the population of wolves has gone up to over 1000 across three states from almost zero.

But the trouble now is in Alaska, where the population of wolves is relatively high, at 7,700-11,200. There is a wolf control program that exists in the state, allowing citizens to receive a license to hunt the animals. According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game:

Wolves and bears are very effective and efficient predators on caribou, moose, deer and other wildlife. In most of Alaska, humans also rely on the same species for food. In Alaska’s Interior, predators kill more than 80 percent of the moose and caribou that die during an average year, while humans kill less than 10 percent. In most of the state, predation holds prey populations at levels far below what could be supported by the habitat in the area. Predation is an important part of the ecosystem, and all ADF&G wolf management programs, including control programs, are designed to sustain wolf populations in the future.

The Alaska Board of Game approves wildlife regulations through a public participation process. When the Board determines that people need more moose and/or caribou in a particular area, and restrictions on hunting aren’t enough to allow prey populations to increase, predator control programs may be needed. Wolf hunting and trapping rarely reduces wolf numbers enough to increase prey numbers or harvests.

Currently, five wolf control programs are underway that comprises about 9.4% of Alaska’s land area. The programs use a closely controlled permit system allowing aerial or same day airborne methods to remove wolves in designated areas. In these areas, wolf numbers will be temporarily reduced, but wolves will not be permanently eliminated from any area. Successful programs allow humans to take more moose, and healthy populations of wolves to continue to thrive in Alaska.

Now a group called Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, with actor Ashley Judd as their figurehead, has launched a campaign including a television ad attacking Sarah Palin and her stance on the program.

According to the group, Palin is attempting to pass legislation in increase the program’s limits, allowing for more hunting of wolves and bears. Palin’s background on environmental and wildlife issues tends to paint a picture of a woman who has little care for the world around her. She was well known for her stance on drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR) and also sued the US government to stop the listing of the polar bear on the endangered species list. Just recently, she suggested that she would sue the government yet again to remove the beluga whale from the endangered species list in Alaska’s Cook Inlet. It is not beyond resoning that she would be opposed to any action to save the gray wolf, but this is what she said in response to the ad:

“It is reprehensible and hypocritical that the Defenders of Wildlife would use Alaska and my administration as a fundraising tool to deceive Americans into parting with their hard-earned money.”

“The ad campaign by this extreme fringe group, as Alaskans have witnessed over the last several years, distorts the facts about Alaska’s wildlife management programs. Alaskans depend on wildlife for food and cultural practices which can’t be sustained when predators are allowed to decimate moose and caribou populations. Our predator control programs are scientific and successful at protecting vulnerable wildlife. These audacious fundraising attempts misrepresent what goes on in Alaska, and I encourage people to learn the facts about Alaska’s positive record of managing wildlife for abundance.”

“Shame on the Defenders of Wildlife for twisting the truth in an effort to raise funds from innocent and hard-pressed Americans struggling with these rough economic times.”

From Reuters

Now that you have the background, here’s what I think. Being a biologist and having my background in environmental and ecological biology, I’ve done my fair share of study of gray wolves. The wolves act as an apex preditor, meaning that through their predations, all other organisms sharing the same environment are affected in some way. The wolves check the caribou and moose populations, slowing the browsing of new growth of plants, thus letting them grow larger and thicker. This in turn increases the numbers of birds in an area by providing more nesting and more food through insect increases. This sort of cascade happens all across the food web of which wolves sit in the center. I do believe that the ADFG is taking a scientific stance in its  wolf control program. Most likely if the wolf population stayed where it is, food could become limited and the wolves would die of starvation. Such is the way the biological world works.

That being said, the aerial hunting methods, the proposed bounty for the forelegs of the animals, and the idea of running a “propaganda campaign” to increase hunting seem vile to me. If one chooses to hunt a wolf, it should be performed just like deer hunting, with a gun and your own two legs. Wolves do not attack humans frequently, and in the last 40 years only 22 attacks have been recorded in North America (International Wolf Center), thus if the use of helicopters and low-flying planes is for safety, the claim is mostly groundless. The idea of a propaganda campaign and a bounty sounds a bit along the lines of the programs that led to the near extinction of the wolves in Yellowstone. Overall, I do not agree with the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund that any hunting of wolves is a terrible thing, but I also do not agree with Alaska’s methods of killing the animals. We mustn’t push science away, and I’m afraid that this is just what Sarah Palin would like to do. Anything done after an analytical review of the data available is better than running blindly into it.

The New Martyr

“The martyr sacrifices themselves entirely in vain. Or rather not in vain; for they make the selfish more selfish, the lazy more lazy, the narrow narrower.”
-Florence Nightingale

I’m starting to get annoyed with the whole “liberal media” thing. I really didn’t assume I would be commenting on something as inane as the little shibboleth that could, but after enough time hearing it nonstop, I really couldn’t help but make connections.

The Right seems to be playing the martyr these days. After John McCain birthed the concept of acting as if his campaign could be getting the low deal just because of media bias, the Conservatives ran with it. And they have yet to let it go. I hear it everywhere, on NPR, on local news broadcasts, and especially on the Right-leaning Minneapolis talk radio of AM1500.

Their new host, whose name I can’t even seem to remember (the replacement for the only good thing that came from AM1500, Mischke), is a bit of a zealot. He seems to bat for all the traditional Right-wing interests (pro-life, anti-immigration, pro-Christian), and thus seems to have a firm case of woe-is-meism.  The Franken/Coleman debacle thunders on with more twists and turns than ever, and now that Franken is up by 225 votes, the media is to blame for some of the troubles, according to said pundit. You see, no one around the country even knows what’s happening because the liberal media is suppressing the important facts: there was double counting of votes and no standard method for the counting of improperly rejected absentee votes. Warning, the entire last sentence was sarcasm.

There’s not a whole lot to say on the topic, I guess. But this martyrdom is a bit annoying. Seems to me that in the last eight years while George Bush was in office ruining the country, us liberals took our chance to point out the falsehoods, inaccuracies, and downright lies coming from the administration. We didn’t complain that the world was out to get us, we just fought back. If this is the kind of attitude the Right is going to take, they really do have no chance to win the next election. And that’s fine with me.

The Season of Consumerism

If Jesus were still alive today, he’d be a Buddhist.

I mean, think about it. Was Jesus a consumer? Did he long for the things that people consider symbols of high status? Did he care for status at all, or did he live as a simple man who needed for only the simple things. Wasn’t his point that life is more than the little things? “What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?” – Matthew 16:26. Look at me, I can quote Bible verses too. I guess I seem to understand this, and I’m an agnostic.

So where did this idea come from that the so-called celebration of the birth of Jesus meant buying things? Campaigns have begun to urge Americans to spend more money in order to bolster the economy. “Go out and spend your hard-earned money on gifts for the people you love. It’s what has to be done to make them love you more. And to save our country.” But I guarantee this: If you spend less this Christmas season, the people who mean anything to you won’t stop loving you.

It seems like the consumer drive is getting worse every year. In the 90’s, the fad was Tickle-Me Elmo, or even Furby, and people charged stores and trampled people, leaving them with bruises and broken bones, to get to the idols of desire. This year, it killed someone.

A Wal-Mart worker was killed Friday after “out-of-control” shoppers desperate for bargains broke down the doors at a 5 a.m. sale. Other workers were trampled as they tried to rescue the man, and customers shouted angrily and kept shopping when store officials said they were closing because of the death, police and witnesses said.

At least four other people, including a woman eight months pregnant, were taken to hospitals for observation or minor injuries, and the store in Valley Stream on Long Island was closed for several hours.

Nassau County police said about 2,000 people were gathered outside the store doors. The impatient crowd knocked the man, identified by police as Jdimytai Damour of Queens, to the ground as he opened the doors, leaving a metal portion of the frame crumpled like an accordion.

Dozens of store employees trying to fight their way out to help the man were also getting trampled by the crowd, said police spokesman Lt. Michael Fleming said.

Witnesses said that even as the worker lay on the ground, shoppers streamed into the store, stepping over the 34-year-old man.

It’s old news, I know, but it’s important. It says something so dire about our society. When the deals and the shopping mean more than the lives of the people around us, we have to reevaluate our priorities. People who have families and friends who love them and need them. In the idiomatic “God’s country,” it would seem that the people who follow the teachings of Christ have strayed very far from the ideals of a simple carpenter from two millenia ago.

Where does the gift-giving tradition come from? It could be related to the Magi, but more likely comes out of the traditions of pagan religions, such as in the Roman festival of Saturnalia. Overall, the base concept of Christmas is that of giving, of charity and goodwill toward loved ones and those who are in need. It has evolved into the materialism we see these days because it is much faster and easier to go out and buy something to give to someone else. Not that I’m saying consumerism is such a horrible thing, but as all things it should be done in moderation. We need to remember the season of goodwill and practice charity. Even for those of us who do not prescribe to a certain religion, or those of us who do not celebrate Christmas, the concept of charity and giving is something we can all accept. When people focus so highly on the buying part of the holiday, the meaning becomes diluted.

“Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without.” – Buddha

Bachmann: An Urban Legend?

It looks like perennial gaffe-happy U.S. Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is at it again. Her appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews in which she made comments suggesting the anti-American beliefs of now President-Elect Obama and other members of Congress and offering that soneone should launch an inquest into these beliefs (à la Joseph McCarthy), now apparently didn’t happen.

MINNEAPOLIS — Rep. Michele Bachmann has a new explanation for media accounts about comments that she made on cable TV suggesting that Barack Obama and other members of Congress might be “anti-American.”

She’s calling them an “urban legend.”

The Minnesota Republican appeared Tuesday night on Fox News’ show with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. Colmes, the show’s resident liberal, read a transcript of Bachmann’s quote from her appearance on Chris Matthews’”Hardball” show on MSNBC before the election. Colmes also offered to have her watch the video of her remarks. But the segment ended before Bachmann could fully respond

From Rochester’s Post-Bulletin

I guess she really does exist in her own little world. I’m still reeling that she actually managed to be re-elected, and I mostly attribute it to her false claims concerning the past of Elwyn Tinklenberg. So now we have another two years to see what she’ll do next. Let’s hope that if she manages something dangerous enough, we can pull her from her seat or at least convince congress to censure her.

Proposition 8 Ramblings

I figured I’d preface this post with Keith Olbermann, who said it best. As you likely have heard, proposition 8 in California passed. It is:

a California State ballot proposition that amended the state Constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman. It overrode a decision of the California Supreme Court from earlier in the year, In re Marriage Cases, that had recognized same-sex marriage in California as a fundamental right by overturning the California Defense of Marriage Act. The official ballot title language for Proposition 8 was “Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.” The entirety of the text to be added to the constitution is: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

From Wiki

I’ll warn you in advance that this post will be rather disjointed, since I have several somewhat related points to discuss. I’m really surprised that a state as liberally minded as California could pass such an amendment. I suppose my comprehension of this is a bit skewed since I cannot see why the idea of same-sex marriage is so disturbing to people. Its not as if anyone is being forced to marry someone of the same sex. In fact, this is the business of those choosing to be married and not affecting anyone else. This ties in with abortion in that it is the conservatives, who constantly talk about the government keeping out of other’s lives, wanting the government to check personal choices. Apparently the libertarian thinking relates only to money and the like.

Regardless, there were some interesting statistics involved in the vote:

ABC News exit polls found that blacks voted in support of Prop 8 and to ban gay marriage by heavier margins than other ethnic groups. The exit polls indicated that 70 percent of black voters supported Prop 8, while 49 percent of whites and Asian Americans voted for it and 53 percent of Latinos supported the ban.

I found this to be the most interesting. The fact that people who fought so hard for civil rights in this country, who saw an African American rise above all the racial bias and bigotry to take the highest seat of power in the United States, voted in such numbers to take rights away from another group struggling just as hard is astounding.

Reading WordPress several days ago I found the posting of another blogger, a conservative blogger, with a rather audacious idea: Legally end marriage. That may sound crazy, and if I still had the link to the blog I’d post it, but consider this: Marriage is a religious institution. It has been taken up as a legal term and is used as a legally binding contract. But what if we removed the word “marriage” from the legal books and left it to religions? What if we changed our wording to “civil unions” through the legal system. That way we could allow civil unions for anyone who wanted to get one and let religions handle the marriage world by themselves. Separate church and state, religion and government, as Thomas Jefferson suggested in his letters so many years ago.

And also, since some people at least are aware of my distaste for local radio station AM1500, KSTP talk radio in Minneapolis, I thought I’d discuss something I heard on the show “Garage Logic” two days ago. Host Joe Soucheray was talking about this:

A Stone Age burial in central Germany has yielded the earliest evidence of people living together as a family.

The 4,600-year-old grave contained the remains of a man, woman and two youngsters, and DNA analysis shows they were a mother, father and their children.

“Their unity in death suggests unity in life,” researchers said in Tuesday’s edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

From MSNBC

He went from talking about this, a scientific finding that suggests that nuclear families existed 4,600 years ago, to suggesting that throughout history no society has ever accepted same-sex marriage. In other words, using this science to support the passing of proposition 8 and thus the outlawing of same-sex marriage. But is our society the first to ever try to allow same-sex marriages? A book by Andrew Sullivan would suggest otherwise:

Same-Sex Marriage in History

One of the recurring clichés of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In many cultures and in many eras, the issue has emerged-and the themes of the arguments are quirkily similar. Same-sex love, as Plato’s Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage. In other cultures (see the debate between Brent Shaw and Ralph Hexter) the meaning of same-sex unions remains opaque and complex. In Native American society, marriage between two men was commonplace, but its similarity to contemporary lesbian and gay marriages is far from evident. And today in a number of foreign countries, laws extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples have been or will soon be enacted. Judge for yourself what this might mean for our current convulsion. One thing emerges clearly: this issue is not a modern invention. The need to balance human dignity and social norms is as old as civilization itself. Although much of the past history of this debate has been buried until recently, it has begun to emerge again with all the passion that now crackles through modern Western culture.

My suggestion to Soucheray would be to do your research a bit beforehand. It seems a bit preemptive to dive into a conversation on a publicly available media source without examining the background of your suggestions first. Although, I must say that the majority of the “information” provided on AM1500 is not news and shouldn’t be taken as so. It is just the punditry of uniformed individuals ranting on the topics that annoy them and not adding any truly worthwhile suggestions in return.

In the end, I hope that the passing of proposition 8 does not discourage the people in the GLBT community. Keep fighting the good fight and do not go calmly into the night. I’m sure you won’t. I was heartened this last weekend seeing a rally up in the Great Cold North of Duluth, Minnesota. I know that whatever the setbacks, people with a goal and a desire, especially one with such a deep place in the heart, will never stop.

More on the Minnesota Recount

Again, I’d like to stress the fact that the Coleman-Franken race that is being re-examined is being done so by mandatory recount. Because the margin is so small, under the point at which a recount is required by state law (>0.5%), at just 238 votes, the Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, is organizing a recount. Coleman seems to be blaming the recount on Franken:

Coleman urged Franken to waive his right to a recount, saying that the prospect of changing the result was remote and that a recount would be costly to taxpayers (about $86,000).

“I just think the need for the healing process is so important. … hopefully, you don’t have TV ads during an election recount,” Coleman said.

From the Star Tribune

Today, however, Ritchie has commented on Coleman’s use of language during this process:

Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, said it was “unfortunate” that the Coleman campaign was questioning the integrity of the election. He said adjustments are a normal part of the canvassing process before results are official as officials reconcile the ballots and numbers in the voting machines.

“The decision to use words designed to create a cloud over the election is a political strategy,” said Ritchie, a Democrat, at a Capitol news conference. “It’s a well-known political strategy. It’s unfortunate, but it’s their choice of language, not ours.”

From the Examiner

The recount will begin on November 19th and will face a December 5th deadline for submitting results. As for my opinion on the whole process: I’d love to see Franken take the win in the long run, but I don’t really believe that anything will change. They may bring the margin closer, but we’ll see the results by December.

The Minnesota Election Rundown

As you are all aware, or at least I should hope you are, Barack Obama has succeeded in his run for office. I thought I would take a little time to run the stats here in Minnesota, just for fun.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden took Minnesota last night a short time after the polls closed. They managed, in the long run, to take 54.1% of the vote to John McCain and Sarah Palin’s 43.8%, and Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez’s 1.0%, to win Minnesota’s 10 electoral votes. Below that, the Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman and challenger Al Franken is still in dispute, both currently at 42.0% with Coleman holding 1,211,628 votes and Franken holding 1,210,901. Independent challenger Dean Barkley has 15.2% of the vote. The most likely outcome in the next day or so will be a mandatory recount, as dictated by the Secretary of State. This law states that there will be a mandatory recount should the results fall under one half of one percent.

In US House of Representatives seats, we’ll go district by district. In district one, Democrat incumbent Tim Walz defeated challenger Brian Davis overwhelmingly, 62.5% to 32.9%. In district two, John Kline won over Steve Sarvi, 57.3% to 42.5%. In my own district, three, the highly contested seat that once belonged to Jim Ramstad went to Republican Erik Paulsen over Ashwin Madia, 48.5% to 40.9%. In district four, (D)Betty McCollum beat (R)Ed Matthews 68.4% to 31.3%. In district five, Keith Ellison took the vote over Barb Davis White, 70.9% to 22.0%. In a somewhat surprising result, Michelle Bachmann maintained her seat over challenger Elwyn Tinklenberg 46.4% to 43.4 %. In district seven, Collin Peterson beat Glen Menze, 72.2% to 27.7%. And in district eight, Jim Oberstar maintained his place in Congress over Michael Cummins, 67.6% to 32.2%.

Minnesota State Senate:

Senate District 16

(D)Lisa A. Fobbe  48.3%
(R)Alison Krueger 48.1%

Senate District 63

(D)Ken Kelash     67.3%
(R)Craig Marston  32.4%

And, being lazy, I’m not going to post the entirety of the Minnesota House results, but you can view them all here.

The Minnesota Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, the addition to the Minnesota constitution that helps protect the natural resources and the arts in the state, passed with 56.1% of the vote.

That’s that. All in all, I’m very excited about the results. As you can tell, I’m absolutely amazed and happy about Obama’s victory. The Franken-Coleman battle is going to get tiresome and I can only say that, while I really want Franken to take the seat, I’m hoping he only pushes this so far. Don’t wear us out, and don’t ruin the chances for a Democrat in another six years. The Madia-Paulsen result is sad, but it was close. Both sides played out their parts, and we’ll see what happens in the next election. As for district six, I can only say that I assume Bachmann’s slanderous false ads did the trick. If you voted for her, don’t complain when she puts her foot in her mouth again, or starts something horrendously worrisome.

Congratulations to all the victors, it was one hell of an election.