Readers Write (Nov. 7): Rally against team name, thoughts about the election

A Chi Miigwetch (big thank you) to Chief Greg Hestness and the University of Minnesota police, the Minneapolis police mounted patrol, Lt. Gary Nelson, Inspector Kathy Waite, Lt. Erick Fors and the U's Tim Busse for their willingness to work with us on the "No Honor In Racism" rally at TCF Bank Stadium on Nov. 2. The weather was perfect, and everyone associated with the rally was safe and courteous to those attending the game.

Miigwetch to the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, Shakopee Mdewakanton, Sisseton Wahpeton and White Earth Honor Guard, to our speakers, and to the more than 5,000 people supporting our rally who helped to deliver a powerful message to the world that the Washington NFL team needs to find a new logo and name. The "R" word needs to go.

We look forward to the day the indigenous peoples of this land are no longer portrayed as mascots and logos for the pleasure of sports teams. We look to the day the "honor" these teams purport to show us is done by way of understanding who we are and celebrating with us by honoring the many treaties and agreements signed more than 100 years ago by our government.

The writer is president of the National Coalition Against Racism in Sports and Media.

The postelection headline "Gridlock or compromise?" (Nov. 6) implies that this choice is something new with Republicans taking over the U.S. Senate. However, it has been Harry Reid, as Senate majority leader for the past eight years, who has created gridlock by refusing to bring bills to the floor for a vote.

With Republicans in the majority in both houses, bills will now reach the president's desk that have been languishing under Reid's watch. Now we shall see if gridlock means presidential veto.

• • •

First, there is the Incumbent Party. Incumbents won 88 percent of the Senate races in which an incumbent ran and a whopping 97 percent of House races. For all the talk about dissatisfaction with Congress, the voters sure have a funny way of showing it.

Second, there is the Apathy Party. If you combine all the votes received by both Democrats and Republicans from eligible voters, they are dwarfed by the approximately 65 percent of those who didn't bother to vote.

• • •

In a follow-up to D.J. Tice's excellent column about who is or should be voting ("Which risk is worse: Low turnout or high tune-out?", Oct. 26), I offer this from Tuesday's election:

Nationwide, 38 percent of voters showed up at the polls. Voters were 75 percent white, 12 percent African-American and 8 percent Latino. (The actual eligible population is 63 percent white, 13 percent African-American and 16 percent Latino). Voters were 37 percent over age 60 and 12 percent under age 30. (Actual eligible population: 26 percent over 60 and 22 percent under 30).

• • •

I'm still wondering why no one has analyzed the Supreme Court results in the Lillehaug-MacDonald race. David Lillehaug got just more than half of the total votes cast in that election, running against a candidate who even Republicans repudiated after her recent conviction for resisting arrest and refusing a sobriety test. Michelle MacDonald's "story" had been discussed very candidly in the press ever since she was arrested last summer. Given the results of her trial, and her comments before and since, I wonder if the 679,940 people who voted for her knew who they were voting for. If they did, then our knowledgeable voting public doesn't mind having a Supreme Court justice with a criminal conviction. And, if they didn't know who they were voting for, they make a great case for having court candidates vetted and appointed by a panel of other judges, lawyers, legislators and citizens.

Having only 50 percent of eligible voters taking part in the election, and then having 600,000-plus voting as they did in that race is shameful for our republic. We need to do better.

• • •

Regarding "Poor showing sends a once-vigorous Independence Party back to the minors" (Nov. 6): I'd like defeated IP gubernatorial candidate Hannah Nicollet to define what she means by "socially left but fiscally right." Seems to me if one embraces socially liberal ideas and programs, one would want a left-leaning economic policy to make it happen.

Over time, I have been involved briefly with almost all of Minnesota's parties on the far left and the Greens. I speak from experience when I tell you none of them ever will pose a threat to the Democrats and the Republicans. Some like the Greens and the Minnesota Communist Party are more like social clubs than bona fide political parties, and none of them except the IP has the slightest idea of how to present a platform to the public or, for that matter, any ideas to the public. They seem content with living out their lives as political martyrs, as do many peace and justice organizations.

Good luck to Ms. Nicollet, wherever her political explorations take her.