A look to the past. The depression era "Federal Theater Project.

Friday's Star Tribune had an article on the U of MN Weiseman Art museum having a display of WPA depression era government funded art. http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/art/18779779.html I might stop down and view the exhibit (it's free) but the art shown in the Strib article seems neither the worst nor the best. It reminds me some of Communist propaganda art that is painted with a "broad brush".

The point of this is that the government has always done poorly when it tried to define or give subsidies to art or theater. The Strib article mentioned the "Federal Theater Project". This is perhaps best known for Orson Wells doing "Voodoo Shakespeare". Here is a wikipedia article on the depression era "Federal Theater Project" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Theatre_Project Note that it caused a lot of publicity and a lot of grief for elected officials. More recently we had the National Endowment of the Arts which funded the likes of Maplethorpe and Athey where the taxpayer dollars supported "piss christ", a crucifix in a jar of the artists urine. Athey also did a highly stylised "women of the Klu Klux Klan". (Your tax dollars at work!)

The groups like the National Endowment of the Arts has plenty of worthy things they could give grants to. Governor Palenty recently derided and line item vetoed a "band music museum" earmark. From the reading I had of this it seemed to be a national to world resource for this material. Historic band music isn't politically controversial, but should Minnesota taxpayers be picking up the tab for a more "national" of "global" resource? This would seem to be a far better use for a NEA grant. (I have never personally applied for one of these grants or been in a position to profit from one.)

I have had some indirect experience in dealing with the National Endowment of the Arts. I own and live in the first Sears Catalog House formally identified in the Twin Cities area. I have a rather lame website for my hovel http://searshouse.com There is a loose network of people promoting the catalog house story and they have at times applied for grants from organisations like the National Endowments for the Arts and the National endowment for the humanities. None were approved as far as I know. I gave technical advice to some of the people who made the grants.

The subject of these houses built mostly in the 1920 would not be politically controversial. There were an estimated two million catalog houses sold. Sixty to one hundred thousand were Sears Catalog Houses, the "gold standard". In the case of the Sears houses, which were widely copied and "cloned" every architechural design team included a woman and Sears encouraged women to write to her. As close as I can tell women wanted more kitchen and closet space. Note the layout of my house and the closets, one a walk-in. Closets were rare in 1920 houses like mine. http://ocrscans.homestead.com/somerset.html

Sears popularised the type of mortgage that we know today where you make payments equal or cheaper than rent and you end up owning the house when you retire (worked for me!). Before this home loans tended to be "balloons" usually five years. Sears promoted the 1920's version of the suburbs (my Minneapolis Longfellow "bungalow" community) with the mortgage we know today where you end up owning the house outright when you grow old.

Sears was arguably lax when it came to qualifying requirements for a mortgage and this came back to haunt during the depression. Sears had to foreclose on some mortgages and the negative publicity hurt Sears. Sears did recover 85% of owed amounts on the foreclosed homes but the foreclosures tarnished the image of Sears, even if the foreclosures were justified.

In terms of history the Sears catalog houses popularised many modern concepts in houses. The first is good architechural design. Virtually all Sears designs have all plumbing at the center of the house. This helps prevent freezing. (My parents 1950 house had external wall plumbing). The next factor is consumer response design, an example being my 1920 walk-in closet. There is also the "pay off mortgage" where the house is a retirement asset. Also, Sears had a lax mortgage qualifying process which made the depression era losses worse.

These all apply today. Hennepin County and Minneapolis dropped my house value for 2009 by 5%. This doesn't directly affect me since I paid off the mortgage in 2005 (fulfilling the Sears concept of a retirement assets) but the mortgage crisis of today mirrors the Sears experience.

The Sears houses were promoted as lower cost to buy and construct due to the pre-cut materials. The pre-cut materials made for a far "tighter" house that was left "drafty" and used less fuel to heat. These lessons are applicable today.

Also, another issue is the compatible replacement houses in these older urban neighborhoods. By studying the original Sears house design architechs and designers can develop "sidewalk level compatible" replacement houses that fit in the neighborhood but are modern in design, energy efficiency but look "old" from the curb or sidewalk so they preserve the "ambiance" of the neighborhood. The extra cost to make it look "compatible old" is very low if you plan ahead and I use the street/sidewalk standard.

Grants form the National Endowments for the Arts for this would have been politically noncontroversial and give useful information for today's' situations. (in the older urban areas people generally drive a lot less). No government grants.

The point is that the government has had a very poor record when it comes to defining "art" and "theater" or anything useful to current situations. This should have been known to the MN legislature when it decided that the state would define "theater" when it passed the so called "freedom to breath act". If you have time read the widipedia post on the ill fated "Federal theater Project" even though it is lefty biased. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Theatre_Project Greg Lang

Update from Lisa Nistler

With Shilea taking a much needed respite from this for the fishing opener the slow smoking news provided an opportunity to post this update. I worked in the "courthouse" for almost 33 years. Knowingthe "mechanics" of government is very valuable. Lisa mentions "bikers". Like those opposing the bar smoking ban (many who don't smoke) motorcycle riders are less than a majority of the populace but they have a strong lobbying and legislative effect. They are worth studying. Greg Lang

To: sen.steve.dille@senate.mn; rep.ron.shimanski@house.leg.state.mn.us; rep.dean.urdahl@house.mn

Subject: Thank You!

Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 22:40:00 -0500

Hello - Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my emails regarding issues that were important to me this session. I hope do attend next years Biker Day at the Capitol with ABATE next year. Remember the Failure to Yield effort as it is important and we hope this gets further next year with more support. I still advocate for relief for the small establishments that are unfairly affected by the smoking ban. The Anti's told the biggest lie when they stated it would be good for business. There are other factors that are hurting our economy, but to take away a customer base that the casinos are still allowed to cater to, is another bullet in the back of small business. Especially the small bars that have no other way to expand or change their buiness plans. I am still a Meeker County HRA commissioner and I am very proud of the accomplishments of the MCHRA the past year. We obtained a $118,000 grant which allows us to finish the physical needs efforts on our properties. It is because of the hard work of past and present HRA commissioners along with the knowlegdge and expertise of the Director, Sandy Teischer, that this happened. Ms. Teischer is an invaluable resource with the knowledge of housing, rules, regulations, guidelines, people, etc. I wish the County Commissioners knew what an asset she has been to the HRA and County. She also saved the MCHRA $75,000 which was noted in our last "stellar" audit. This money would have been lost if she had not taken the time to go back through the Capital Funding from past years and discover the unspent funds. It was because of her knowledge that this error was found. The MCHRA continues to operate for the PEOPLE of the county in the best interest of low income housing efforts. Again, Thank you for your time and the extra hours you will put in the next week or so to tidy up the business for the State of Minnesota.

Lia Nistler
241 Cedar Avenue S
Watkins, MN 55389
320-764-2530

Tuesday followup article on court appearance.

Greg - A good article on the Court Case.



http://www.shakopeenews.com/news/general_news/bar_smoking_arguments_go_scott_county_judge-5776
Bar smoking arguments go to Scott County judge
May 6, 2008 - 9:04pm — sfiecke
By Shannon Fiecke, Staff Writer
Drama over the statewide smoking ban spilled into Judge Jerome Abram’s Shakopee courtroom Tuesday with the first court hearing in Minnesota on the issue. An Elko New Market bar faced the state in Scott County District Court, where attorneys debated whether "theater performance" smoking at Bullseye Saloon violates the state ban. With a $2 membership to its actor guild, Bullseye allows patrons to light up, citing an exemption in the state ban, which permits actors to smoke during theatrical performances with proper notice to the audience. The Minnesota Department of Health is seeking a temporary injunction to stop smoking at the bar, which is located in southeastern Scott County. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Olsen asked Abrams "to put an end to this charade," arguing that "The Unconstitutional Ban" production at Bullseye isn’t real theater, but merely an attempt to get around the ban. "The people they are entertaining seem to be themselves," she said. The Legislature left the definition of theater broad, argued Bullseye’s attorney Patrick O’Neill. He said Bullseye’s owner researched the law carefully to make sure he complied with the letter of the law by giving advance notice of the production, making performance programs and requiring buttons identifying actors. "Mr. Ripley gave a lot of thought before he decided to do this," he said. "What part of it is a sham? Who are they to say it’s a sham?" O’Neill noted that the state sent a letter in March to every bar in the state, saying they were violating the law if they were holding a theater performance. Abrams questioned whether what is going on at Bullseye is any different than before the smoking ban was enacted. How is the production distinguishable from real life? he asked. "Don’t performances have a beginning and an end?" he said. O’Neill said that yes, patrons often play themselves, but he noted that others dress up. Rather than tell bars what theater isn’t, the department should say what is allowed, O’Neill said, noting this hasn’t happened. They’re amateurs, he said of the bar patrons. "The standard is Elko New Market." Abrams quipped back that he personally thinks Elko New Market has high standards. Olsen said when most people think of theater, they think of conventional acting, places like the Guthrie Theater, and there being a story, with a beginning and an end. She said actors don’t pay to get in or for their own props, food and beverages, and there isn’t normally smoking in each play or performance Much of Abrams’ questions to attorneys revolved around whether the smoking might constitute as protected speech. "Hasn’t theater been a forum of protest?" he asked. This issue bumps up against the First Amendment, he said, remembering that in law school, even eating was discussed as possible protected speech. The state attorney argued that smoking in this case wasn’t intended as "expressive conduct" and to the extent it was, the state could regulate it. Olsen said it’s the department’s job to protect the public, and bar patrons and employees would be harmed if the ban wasn’t enforced. The bar’s attorney said smoking at Bullseye is "expressive conduct" and a form of protest. He further argued the ban was political, because if it was truly about public health, the Legislature wouldn’t have carved out several exemptions, include the theater provision, which was added in the late hours of session by a conference committee at the request of the Guthrie. While Olsen argued that legislators didn’t intend to allow bar smoking with the theater exemption, O’Neill countered that there was laughter in the conference committee as lawmakers talked about the definition of an actor and the possibility that a bar owner might become a play director. If legislators wanted, they could have narrowed the definition, said O’Neill, pointing out that the full House and Senate never even discussed the provision. "They left it broad and you can’t narrow it now," O’Neill said. Olsen said if the theatrical performance exemption is interpreted so broadly, it will "swallow up the statute as a whole." Abrams said he plans to issue a decision on the temporary injunction soon, but instead of making a summary judgement on a permanent injunction, he prefers to have a jury trial so each side can present testimony. Abrams said he doesn’t intend for the trial to be a prolonged affair and he’d like for the matter to be decided soon. Both the state and bar said they’d be ready for a jury trial next month. The state has also now taken action in neighboring Dakota County against Buggs Bar. The South St. Paul bar has been summoned to appear in court, said owner Bill Buggs, who proudly spoke about his case after observing the hearing in Scott County. Two bars in northern Minnesota also have been fined by local municipalities for allowing smoking as part of theatrical performances. Attorney Mark Benjamin, who has volunteered to help bar owners, said on May 23 there’ll be a hearing in Virginia, Minn., on a $300 petty misdemeanor fine. Benjamin noted that the ticket has been laminated and posted at Tank’s Bar in Babbitt. Shannon Fiecke can be reached at (952) 345-6679 or sfiecke@swpub.com.

Can We Post. It's a little late but it is a good article

Hey Greg - Can We Post. It's a little late but it is a good article.


http://www.shakopeenews.com/news/general_news/rally_saturday_bar_testing_bans_theater_exemption-5726
Rally Saturday for bar testing ban's 'theater exemption'
May 2, 2008 - 3:46pm — sfiecke

By Shannon Fiecke
A giant playbill greets patrons at the door to one of the two neighboring bars dotting Main Street in the former town of Elko. Inside, the bouncer — excuse me, usher — checks a visitor’s ID and makes sure she is aware of tonight’s performance. For just $2, this visitor can also get a badge and become an actor if she cares to smoke as part of the performance at the Bullseye Saloon in Elko New Market. The production this evening (or rather, early morning)? A theatrical performance and satire called "An Unconstitutional Ban," in which bar patrons typically act as themselves. Bullseye, located on a tiny downtown strip in southeastern Scott County, is also center stage to a much bigger drama: The controversial statewide smoking ban. By using an exemption in state law that permits smoking on stage, Bullseye Saloon has gotten around the state’s new smoking ban and unwittingly become a test case for the Minnesota State Department of Health’s enforcement of the indoor clean-air act. The state is seeking a temporary court injunction to stop smoking in Bullseye and verify what it thinks is clear — theatrical performances at bars are not what legislators intended when they carved out the exemption for actors into the state law last year. As of Oct. 1, 2007, smoking is prohibited in virtually all indoor public places and indoor places of employment, including bars and restaurants. Actors are one of 11 categories the state lists as exempt in a fact sheet on the Freedom to Breathe law.
Bullseye Saloon will hold a smokers right rally on May 3, starting at 4 p.m. For more information, go to www.bullseye-saloon.com/.
What’s a stage?
No one knows exactly how many places are holding theater "performances" to allow smoking. A health department official estimates there is only a handful, while the Tavern League of Minnesota director said it may be between 70 and 220 (apparently some businesses went underground after the injunction was filed). Bar owners like Robert Ripley of the Bullseye Saloon argue they are obeying the law and legislators never defined what they meant by theater performance. "They left it broad," Ripley said. "By doing so, they allowed a lot of people to perform." But John Linc Stine from the Department of Health believes it’s pretty clear bars don’t fit the theater exemption intended by legislators. "If you read the law and legislative testimony, it’s doesn’t sound that confusing," he said. While some bars have established specific theater nights, Bullseye considers its stage always open. Ripley likens Bullseye’s ongoing performance to a Cheers-like skit that happens every day. He considers it improvisational theater, with one skit running right into another. People mostly play themselves, he said, but sometimes dress up or pretend to be somebody else. Some put their name on actor badges and at the end of the night, leave them at the bar, selecting a different one next time they visit, perhaps then choosing to act as a friend or neighbor, he said. "It’s an ever-changing performance," he said. "The way the law was written, I’m an actor right now," said Marcus Pollack, an Elko New Market resident who is a bartender in Shakopee and was hanging out at Bullseye last weekend with a roommate. "In my act, I want to be a bar patron who drinks and smokes," Pollack said, noting that he doesn’t smoke or drink in his home or workplace. "All the world is a stage. When I go to the bar, I become a different person," he said. Another smoking "actor" told a visitor he was a doctor from the Mayo Clinic and showed her "blood" stains on his long-sleeve shirt as proof. "What kind of doctor?" the visitor asked. He thought for a moment. "Orthopedic surgeon."
Economic factors
Hands shot proudly into the air last weekend when bartender Sarah Braun asked the crowd if there were any actors in the house. "We’re going to fight this thing people — we need to," she shouted into a microphone from the karaoke stage. Like the other employees at Bullseye, Braun is a smoker. Ripley, the owner, is not. Ripley opposes the ban because he thinks it violates personal freedom. He also says it’s harming establishments in an already down economic time. Ripley, who took out a home-equity loan about five years ago to buy Bullseye, said he reviewed the law carefully before turning Bullseye into a theater. Bar owners like him are just working creatively within the law to try to keep their businesses open, Ripley said, and he doesn’t like the way Bullseye has been portrayed as a renegade establishment. Recently interviewed on KTLK-FM radio, Ripley told host Jason Lewis the state health department has its heart in the right place. "[But] you have to balance health mandates with personal liberties," he said. "The smoking ban tips the scale too far in this case." For Ripley, the financial weight of the ban has been heavy. Sales dropped drastically when the ban took effect in October and were down an average 20 percent for five months, he said. They came back when theater performances began in March. "I had employees upset that their tips had gone away and they were really having trouble making ends meet. I said, ‘I’m going to do everything in my power to keep all of your jobs,’ " he said. Patrons don’t stay as long or drink as much if they have to go outside to smoke. After hearing Barnacles Resort in Aitkin had successfully tried "theater nights," Ripley contacted his attorney and Barnacles to work out the legalities of starting his own performances "I realized it was a viable option to keep revenue [up] and employees working," he said. Steve Hamilton, a traveling DJ who performs at Bullseye, said he’s witnessed the bleeding of bar customers from border towns like Red Wing. One of his gigs was cancelled because it was too cold to expect smokers to come out, knowing they’d have to go outside if they wanted to light up. Ripley said the man who delivers frozen pizzas to Bullseye has lost a lot of accounts and is being driven out of business, having laid off all of his workers. Opponents of the law note that more than 190 establishments have closed since smoking bans started to be enacted in the Twin Cities area. While not every closure can be directly attributed to the ban, Ken Rockler, director of the Tavern League, said the ban is a big factor, with closures five times what is considered normal. In two recent meetings in outstate Minnesota with large groups of bar owners, Rockler said two-thirds predicted they will go out of business. A lot of owners were willing to show their sales tax figures, he said, and many were down by up to 65 percent in gross sales. "I’d predict by this time next year, if there weren’t some type of relief, there will be over 10,000 jobs lost," he said.
The statute
Given the tough economic times, Ripley said business owners should be commended for their ingenuity in keeping establishments afloat, rather than being prosecuted. Although Bullseye could be fined up to $10,000 per violation, it isn’t facing a fine right now, Riley said. Black trench coat-wearing inspectors showed up at Bullseye about 2:30 p.m. one day this spring with clipboards (Ripley thinks they might have watched the movie "Matrix" one too many times), but the inspectors didn’t find anyone smoking in the bar. However, they spotted an ashtray, which had just been used by the bartender (who was "acting"), Ripley said. They also noted an aroma of smoke, he said. (He points out this would likely be there regardless, seeing as there’s been "smoking in that bar for 100 years." Given the pending legislation, Linc Stine said he couldn’t comment on what exactly health inspectors found. Ripley, who wasn’t at the bar at the time, said inspectors asked for him to be called and told he was supposed to come down and sign a paper saying what the bar was doing was illegal. "I said, ‘Do what you have to do, we’re not going to sign a piece of paper when we don’t feel we’re doing something wrong [and we’ll] leave it up to the judge,’ " Ripley recounted. This is the first injunction the state has filed against a bar, although it has issued warnings along with local municipalities, which have taken actions in a couple cases, said Stine. The health department is seeking court action to clarify the intent of the law, hoping to put the issue to rest for other establishments as well. "We think it’s important to get the position understood as soon as possible," Stine said. The vast majority of establishments are complying with the ban, he said, noting that the department has been contacted by business owners who want a level playing field. "We don’t want to suggest by anything we are doing that there is an egregious abuse of law by all bar owners," he said. About 45 communities handle the licensing of local bars, restaurants and hotels, whereas the state is responsible for others like Bullseye, Linc Stine said. Businesses must follow the state clean indoor act in order to be licensed. The department’s main concern with the theatre performances is to stop second-hand exposure to cigarette smoking, Linc Stine said. Ripley, however, believes if the state was truly concerned about people’s health, legislators wouldn’t have exempted actors, which he thinks places them into a different class of citizens than bar patrons. "We’ve leveled the playing field (with actors)," he said. "This ban isn’t about health — it’s about politics." If the matter was really about second-hand smoke, Rockler said, legislators would allow smoking patrons to take their drinks into a warm shelter, which wouldn’t affect bar employees.
Loophole or not?
A recent article in the online newspaper, MinnPost, recounts court cases elsewhere in the United States, in which judges have struck down creative methods employed by establishments to try to skirt smoking bans, such as using candlesticks for ashtrays, enacting membership fees and giving employees shares of the business. Unless a judge rules differently, Stine said he doesn’t think legislators need to clarify what is meant by the Freedom to Breathe act’s theater exemption. Andrew Wittenborg, a Minnesota House DFL spokesman, said legislative leaders don’t see a real loophole in the smoking ban requiring fixing. "If courts find there is a loophole that needs legislative action, then we’d probably do something," he said. But Rockler, the Tavern League director, believes the real reason legislators haven’t addressed this issue is they don’t want to re-open the matter up for debate. Now that it’s known how much the ban has hurt businesses, there wouldn’t be enough votes to clarify the language of the bill, Rockler said, and legislators don’t want the economic facts shown. Ripley doesn’t believe the theater provision issue is even within the purview of the state department of health. While the department might be good at assessing health risks, it’s not its job to assess what is or isn’t good theater, he said. "We’re not good," he admitted. "We’re just amateurs, [but] we’re doing our best."
Shannon Fiecke can be reached at (952) 345-6679 or sfiecke@swpub.com.

Sheila Kromer Theater Night Update

Hello Everyone -

A couple of important announcements before I head out for fishing opener. Please consider the fund raising effort below...it could really help us out! We have come this far and there is NO stopping us now! Also, I finally found the article relating to the alcohol campaign that kicks off in 2009....they just won't stop and we better be prepared for the next battle!



- Fund Raising Effort (Thanks Shawn!)

I would encourage every to sign up for an account at Revolution Money Exchange. For every account that signs up through my website, you will receive $25 and I will receive $10 which will go toward the Minnesota Theatre Night Defense Fund (This is the "exemption" in the Minnesota Smoking Ban that allows smoking in theatrical productions in bars). Please sign up through the website www.freedomfight08. com to get the $25 and the $10 towards the defense fund. If you are feeling very generous, you could also donate a portion of your $25 (only if you want) to the cause at shawn@freedomfight0 8.com. You can also get $10 for each person YOU refer!More info about what you are signing up for:This is perhaps the best, easiest way to open a free online bank account and make $25 or more! You don't even need to deposit anything, just sign up and get $25, plus get $10 per new person you refer (up to $500). I just signed up and the $25 was sent in less than 60 seconds. This is a true bank account (Account issued by First Bank & Trust, Brookings, SD, Member FDIC and part of the Fishback Financial Corporation) , that works sort of like PayPal, except it's *ahem* free. There's FREE member to member transfers and FREE wire transfers from your regular bank account too, something you don't get with PayPal. It's funded by Citi, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Revolution LLC, and on its board of directors is the former president & CEO of MasterCard, Co-Founder of AOL, Former Chairman & CEO of Fannie Mae, Former CEO of Charles Schwab, and more! Anyhow, this is set to expire 5/15/08, though there is always the possibility of it being pulled earlier. Don't wait and miss out.
Thanks to those of you who have signed up so far! That money will be helpful to our cause. If you haven't signed up, please do at www.freedomfight08. com. For a review on Revolution Money Exchange, please read this review on the USA Today Website. Thanks for your help!

Thank you so much for your help! Let me know if you have questions!
Shawn Gertkenwww.freedomfight08. com





- Article on Alcohol Campaign

Health leaders plan worldwide campaign to target alcohol abuse
Geneva - The World Health Organization (WHO) agreed Tuesday to target alcohol and alcohol addiction worldwide with a campaign warning against the risks of abuse. European countries are the greatest consumers of alcohol, with the Czech Republic consuming more beer than any other country and Luxembourg more wine, according to WHO figures. Moldova, the Russian Federation and Thailand are mong the biggest consumers of spirits.
The move follows a similar WHO initiative against smoking in 2003 when the world body organized the anti-tobacco convention.
The WHO estimates there are two billion alcohol consumers worldwide. Some 87 million of them lived in Europe, that is ten per cent of the population. There were 2.3 million cases of alcoholism, with alcohol blamed for 1.8 million deaths a year or 3.2 per cent of the total.
Alcohol is said to play a role in 20 to 30 per cent of cases of cancer, liver, chest and throat disease and is blamed for up to a third of all traffic accidents.
Alcohol consumption and diseases related to drink are twice as high in Europe compared with the average worldwide. It was responsible for 55,000 deaths in young people aged 15 to 29 in 1999.
The WHO plans to launch a worldwide drive to curb alcohol consumption in 2009.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/65089.html#

Yesterday's Court Case Write Up

Subject: Yesterday's Court Case Write Up
It’s a beautiful spring morning in Shakopee and District Court Judge Jerome Abrams strides briskly to his seat promptly at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3 of the Scott County Courthouse. Twelve weeks and two days after our first Theater Night at Barnacles, the court will finally examine the legality of our movement.
The state was represented by Assistant Attorney General Kristen Olsen; the defense by Patrick O’Neill. Judge Abrams asked if they wanted to combine the proceedings to address a temporary and permanent injunction against Bullseye Saloon. Neither side, however, had discussed the possibility of proceeding with live testimony and for that reason the arguments were limited by the facts presented in the sworn affidavits.
At 9:05, Ms. Olsen addressed the court and argued that Robert Ripley’s theatrical production of “The Unconstitutional Ban” was little more than a pretext for smoking indoors. Judge Abrams interrupts and asks if Mr. O’Neill isn’t correct in asserting that the Department of Health is trying to define “theater” and wonders openly whether or not theater has always been a form of comment or protest about culture, politics and so on. Ms. Olsen repeats that this is all a pretext, not a protest.
She asks the judge to look at the legislative intent of the Act. Judge Abrams responds that he read the transcript of the conference committee (where the “theatrical productions” exception was inserted with little public debate) and saw that one legislator suggested that any bar owner could become a director. Judge Abrams then states that this legislator was greeted by laughter and no discussion took place.
Judge Abrams then asks both attorneys to discuss the First Amendment aspects of the case, that is, whether or not this form of protest might be protected speech under the Constitution. Ms. Olsen responds by saying that there is no audience at Bullseye and that smoking is not expressive conduct. She finishes her argument at 9:17.
Mr. O’Neill starts out by boldly asking why are we here? Where’s the violation of law? He states that no citations have been issued by the Scott County Attorney. He says that Mr. Ripley called a lawyer and contacted the city council before beginning Theater Nights on March 2nd. He instructed his employees to direct any non-actors to put our their cigarettes or go outside. And he provided posters and playbills that notified the public that there would be smoking during his performances. Mr. O’Neill makes it clear that Mr. Ripley was trying to follow the law. Mr. O’Neill finished his argument at 9:52.
The judge then said that he wanted more evidence in the form of testimony and that a trial should be scheduled in June. He said he would rule on the state’s request for a temporary injunction in the next ten days.
I watched all of the proceedings and I was very impressed with Judge Abrams. It was clear that he had read the court filings and reviewed the law. He had many questions for both attorneys. It was a fair hearing in the sense that the judge had not yet made up his mind.
It appeared to me that Judge Abrams was focusing quite a bit on the content of the performance at Bullseye. I’m not sure that the case will hang on this. But it is worth noting that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that burning the national flag was protected by the First Amendment, even though 48 states had laws against flag desecration. So if flag burning is protected speech, shouldn’t tobacco burning be protected as well? Just a thought.
I have high hopes for the legality of Theater Night. The fact that a distinguished jurist like Judge Abrams was taking the time to wrestle with the issues in this case indicate that our position is legally viable. If it was open and shut (as the Department of Health would have us all believe) then the judge would have ruled right away.
So stay tuned! And our show goes on.
-- Mark Benjamin

Trump calls on casino's to sue over smoking ban

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ATLANTIC_CITY_SMOKING?SITE=WSAW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Apr 25, 12:37 AM EDT
Donald Trump calls on Atlantic City casinos to sue over smoking ban, says it's a disadvantage By WAYNE PARRY Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- Donald Trump called on 11 casinos Thursday to sue over a new smoking ban approved by the Atlantic City Council, arguing that it created a competitive disadvantage.
The real estate magnate, chairman of a company that owns three casinos in Atlantic City, said he would not file his own suit but wants the Casino Association of New Jersey to stop the ban from taking effect in October.
"I'm not a smoker, and I don't personally like what smoking does to people," Trump told The Associated Press in an interview in his Manhattan office. "But this puts us at a huge disadvantage."
Slot parlors in the Philadelphia area, which have been stealing many of Atlantic City's most profitable and reliable customers over the past year and a half, permit them to smoke while gambling. Some smokers shunned Atlantic City last April when the city imposed a partial ban that restricts smoking to no more than 25 percent of the casino floor.
But anti-smoking advocates said the partial restriction didn't work. The smoking areas were not walled off and separated from nonsmoking areas, as last year's law had called for, and smoke still wafts throughout the casino floor.
The ordinance allows casinos to construct gambling-free smoking lounges but does not require them to.
The association's president did not return calls seeking comment. Joseph Corbo has previously said the industry would reluctantly go along with a ban if it had enough time to prepare.Trump is the chairman and largest shareholder of Trump Entertainment Resorts, which operates the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, and Trump Marina Hotel Casino.

Smoking ban drama gets a new actor: District judge

Hello Everyone -

Just another quick update. Below are articles (with their respective links) about yesterday's court case. Sometime later today Mark Benjamin's summary of the court proceedings will be posted on www.freedomtoact.com

Ready on the set.....
Act One ...Take 2!

Enjoy!!




Minnesota Court Hearing (Forces Website with comments from Robert in the article)7th May 2008http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=1097

Smokers Exercise Their Rights in Minnesota (Forces Website)
6th May 2008
http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=1092

Smoking ban drama gets a new actor: District judge (Star & Tribune)
Scott County judge will give one of the first court interpretations of law that bars skirt with "theater nights."
By MARY LYNN SMITH, Star Tribune
Last update: May 6, 2008 - 8:19 PM

http://www.startribune.com/local/south/18710494.html


Scott County bar's 'theatrical' smoking case goes to court (Pioneer Press)
Proprietors statewide eyeing Elko case; judge to rule within days on state's request for injunction
By Jason Hoppin jhoppin@pioneerpress.com
Article Last Updated: 05/06/2008 11:28:51 PM CDT

http://www.twincities.com/ci_9174672?IADID=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

Theater Night Update 5-6-08 Court Case

Hello Everyone -

Everything went well in court today. The judge will rule on the injunction in 7-10 days but has requested a trial with testimony before he will rule on the "legality" issue. Mark Benjamin will be writing up a small summary tomorrow and have it posted on the www.freedomtoact.com website. The judge wants to expedite this case and asked each attorney what a reasonable date for them would be....so it appears that sometime in June it will be re-scheduled for trial. Reporters from both the Pioneer Press and Star & Tribune were there....so watch for their articles in tomorrow's papers.


Sheila

Smoke Shack provision removed from budget bill. Bills to ammend FOB still technically alive.

Note: "Smoke Shack" provision is separate from bills to change the so called "Freedom to Breath"act. Greg Lang


Hello Everyone -

Just a quick update. In case you hadn't heard, the "smoke shack" amendment was stripped out of the bill last week. Only a short time remains of the legislative session and if nothing happens there it will surely happen in November....election time to be exact! You know, things are heating up around the country and across the pond. People are getting pretty tired of the "nanny" laws. I have copied a few articles below from the Forces website. We are now joining hands all across the world to combat this assault on our personal freedoms....Germany is doing a great job against the anti's and in the UK they are taking their battle to the polls. All is not lost...it has only just begun!!! Enough is enough and I hope you legislators are listening. The American Cancer Society and American Lung Association may have oodles of money but all of us have the power of our votes. Come this November we will put them to good use and it doesn't cost us anything!!



Article One with link:

http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=1087
SUNDAY EXTRA - The Aldebaran TreatyJohn Gray4th May 2008
A landmark agreement amongst anti-prohibition advocates has been established at a summit meeting in Holland.
During the last few days covering the 1st to the 3rd May a group of people gathered for a Summit meeting on board the Aldebaran, an old sailing ship docked at the small port of Hoorn, in Holland. (Hoorn is fairly close to Amsterdam.) The purpose of this Summit was twofold: firstly to establish the existence of the International Coalition Against Prohibition (ICAP), and secondly, to plan for the 1st International Conference Against Prohibition intended to take place either in mid-autumn of this year or early next year.We are pleased to announce that the Memorandum and Articles for ICAP were successfully agreed and signed by an international body of subscribers and the document will now move forward to Companies House (UK) where ICAP will be registered as a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee. This has been a significant agreement between national representatives, many of whom had never met before, which will be known from now on as The Aldebaran Treaty.Planning for the International Conference will also go ahead although there is an enormous amount of careful and painstaking work necessary to that planning.As representatives of European and transatlantic nations and organisations we are now bound in solidarity against smoking bans and the many other damaging prohibitions that are lucrative to special interests and crassly fashionable amongst followers of "political correctness" in today's world of scientific fraud and political stupidity, where adults are treated as children, and freedom of choice is under threat. Furthermore, although all our strategies and objectives have not been fully agreed or aligned, as much of this will be decided at the coming International Conference, we now have the vehicle with which to coöperate, nation with nation, and this coöperation has already started. Also, as a result of the Summit, one of the participants — the well-known British publican and freedom fighter Nick Hogan — has already been invited to Brussels by a British MEP in order to lobby and network.Countries represented by the signatories of ICAP's governing document include: England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Holland, Denmark, Italy, America and Canada.Organisations represented at the Summit were:Freedom to Choose (UK)Freedom to Choose (Scotland)Forces InternationalForces ItalyForces HollandForces GermanyDaRy (Denmark)The Danish Smokers' PartyThe Party Against Nannyism (Holland)Smokers' Interest (Holland)The Association of Dutch Coffee ShopsThe Hungarian Association of Smokers' SocietiesWe are on the march and will not stop now!




Article Two with link:


http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=1058
What Pub Landlords Say30th April 2008
Freedom 2 Choose of England has asked British pub owners what they think of the smoking ban.
The British pub industry has been devastated by the smoking ban. Thousands of pubs have closed since last July and the toll keeps increasing by dozens every week. Poll results are interesting. The landlords (pub operators, also referred to in Britain as publicans) by a margin of ninety-eight to two put the blame squarely on the ban. Although the “hazards of secondhand smoke” touted by prohibitionists are an absolute fraud the propaganda has managed to scare more than half of the publicans, who nevertheless tended to believe risks had been exaggerated, and that alternative solutions such as ventilation had been impudently dismissed by prohibitionist legislators.
Fully 97% of publicans feel that government is contemptuous of their industry (Link 1) (Link 2) while 96% expect still more restrictions. In result, according to the Morning Advertiser, support for the shrinking Labour party is down to a microscopic 3% amongst pub operators, while an imposing 65% of the publicans have by now come to align themselves with the expanding United Kingdom Independence Party, the only party in Britain supporting reversal of the smoking ban. One publican explained: “I would vote for whichever party reassessed the smoking ban.”The strikingly dramatic change in voting patterns is more than understandable and likely to spread as awareness of the horrific consequences of eugenic technocracy reaches ever more sectors of the populace. Real change will further require more organization, communication within and beyond our movement, massive resistance, defiance, and demonstrations leading to social disruption that cannot be ignored. We are up against the devil himself in this.

The Labour Party Mayor of London was just defeated. Greg Lang


Article Three with link:


http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=16&storycode=59575&c=2
Pete Robinson: German ban goes up in smoke
29 April, 2008
By Pete Robinson
There's a war going on in Germany, and this time they're winning.I'm talking about the German smoking ban, currently jammed firmly in reverse gear. Angela Merkel's government has faithfully copied the tactics employed by our own beloved Nu-Labour - lies, propaganda and junk science - yet they've failed miserably in theface of people-power.Remember when we were being told our pubs had nothing to fear from the smoking ban? How commercially successful it had been in Ireland and the USA, where bars were teeming with 'new' customers?In my discussions with German landlords and their customers, when I inform them of the damage it's doing to our own licenced trade I'm always met with gobsmacked, shocked surprise. "No-oooo! You Englishers WANTED your smoking ban! Your pubs are all very busy now, we know this. Ya?"They're being spoon-fed the same diet of State-sponsored bull***t that we were. They are told we Brits have all 'embraced' our ban, that our pubs and clubs have never been so busy, and that most smokers are giving up the weed as a direct result.Amazingly they have all heard of the "Scottish Miracle", where heart attacks were virtually wiped out within one year of Scotland's smoking ban. I always said that lie would run and run - now we're exporting it.The Germans blame you and me for their smoking ban, believing it's us Brits who are arrogantly imposing our current obsession with health matters on the rest of Europe. If only they knew the truth. All I could do was bleat on about... yes, we have meekly accepted the ban without putting up a fight but under our elected dictatorship we had little choice. "Ve vere only following orders. For us ze var ist over".But the Germans are made of sterner stuff and their smoking ban has a troubled history. In 2006 Angela Merkel's government introduced a nationwide blanket smoking ban. Within days it was humiliatingly repealed following massive public outcry and a series of legal challenges. You see the German people are constitutionally protected from State-imposed unpopular laws, originally to protect them from any Nazi resurgence. So the ban was passed on for decision at local level in Germany's 16 different states.The end result has been a patchwork quilt of watered-down restrictions which has thrown up all sorts of daft anomalies. In a small town near Trier, for example, I found a Shisha Cafe next door to a large, traditional tavern where smoking was banned. The owner told me his wet sales had plummeted by 50% as customers had simply moved to the town's smaller bars where smoking was permitted. In fact most states have opted for 'soft' smoking restrictions, where larger premises need merely to provide separate smoking and non-smoking rooms.Bavaria had introduced the harshest bans, with smoking even banned inside the vast drinking tents of the annual Oktoberfest. Hardly surprising as the state is governed by the sister party to Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union.However last month Bavarian voters gave them an absolute roasting in the local elections, barely two months after the ban was introduced. Now those same, previously 'anti' politicians are back-pedalling furiously having decided they now hate smoking bans. Indoor smoking is already back on at the Oktoberfest, also in Munich and Nuremberg's historical brauhouses. Exemptions still in the pipeline will include fairer rules for most bars and even some restaurants.This bizarre spectacle has been nervously scrutinised by other hard-line states who are moving heaven and earth to soften their restrictions. In Berlin enforcement of their ban has been deferred until August while, following court action by a consortium of bar owners, small bars are to be exempt provided they display signs to warn customers they are entering a smoking venue.Similar court cases are being heard all over Germany, much to the chagrin of German antis. Otmar Wiestler, leader of the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ, their equivalent of our CRUK) is enraged at this turn of events. "We are miles away from implementing comprehensive protection for non-smokers," said Wiestler. Despite the positive news there are a great many German landlords losing out through this uncertainty. The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (Dehoga), which actively rallies against the ban, has released a report claiming that 58 percent of their member establishments have seen a sharp drop in business in 2008.Uli Stegmaier, a Berlin barkeeper and father of five children, hanged himself last month having left a suicide note blaming the new public smoking ban for his decision.Significantly ASH-uk highlighted this in their daily bulletin, as if it were something to gloat about.But in general the anti-ban lobby are tipping the scales. There are regular demonstrations where thousands of bar owners march to raise awareness of their fears.What I can't help but notice is a sense of unity about what they are doing. There are very few pubcos in Germany so representative bodies reflect the bar owner's interests, not the misguided greed of men-in-suits.German 'community bar' owners have mobilised their customers who are only too willing to support them. Petitions abound everywhere and they are quite prepared to "fight them on the beaches". Plus Germany has no equivalent of ASH, the obsessive, powerful state-sponsored 'charity' with a vested interest in the decimation of our pubs. Antis have far linfluence in Germany where the words 'majority opinion' aren't considered offensive.Which begs the question we must all ask ourselves: if the Germans can fight to successfully gain a fair interpretation of anti-smoking laws at what point will we follow suit?When we've lost half of our pubs? Two-thirds? Or never?

Shiela Kromer: Re: Theater Night Update 5-5-08

Also, first BullsEye/Robert Ripley court action tomorrow, Tuesday. 9:00 AM at the Scott County Courthouse. Phone: (952) 496-8200 (Good Idea to call ahead) Greg Lang


Hello Everyone -

It was a great time at the Bullseye Saloon fund raiser on Saturday. The weather was wonderful and the performance was great by all who participated. Sue from Polish Palace (Sobieski), Buggs from Bugg's Place (So. St.Paul), and Birdie from Bird's Nest (Garrison) were present and a big thank-you for coming! Thanks to all the performers (smoking and non-smoking) that participated and donated to the Defense Fund. We are getting closer to our goal (75%) but not quite there yet. A special thanks to the band "4-On-The-Floor" and Shawn & Jessie for all there help!


- Video of the Bullseye Event can be viewed on Shawn's website (donations can also be made here):
http://www.freedomfight08.com/



- Speech written by Mark Benjamin.

THE BULLSEYE ADDRESS
Four score and four nights ago Minnesota’s bar owners brought forth on this state a new art form, Theater Night, conceived in creativity and dedicated to the proposition that all smokers are created free and equal.
Now we are engaged in a great legal war, testing whether that art form, or any art form, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war, Bullseye Saloon. We have come to dedicate this bar, as a freedom-loving place of patriotism for those who lit up so that others might smoke. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this bar. The brave people, smokers and non-smokers, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here but it can never forget that we smoked here. It is for us, the smokers, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who smoked here before have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored smokers we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these smokers shall not have smoked in vain – that Theater Night in Minnesota shall have a new birth of freedom – and that Theater Night of the smokers, by the smokers, for the smokers shall not perish from this state.

- Comments from the MinnPost Article (In case you haven't read these. Also, Mr. Moffit...you should consider using spell check - you spelled "lousey" wrong....it should be lousy. And your a big time Communications Director..tsk..tsk..)

Link to article:
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/comments_stories/?blog_post_id=1585#comments_section

Comments to article:
1) On April 28, 2008, Author Editor Gerald Abrahamson says:

If they really are claiming to be putting on a play, then they will be able to show their city-issued license (or application--at a minimum) as a live-production playhouse....

(2) On April 28, 2008, Author Editor Robert Moffitt says:
http://lungmn.org/
"People are under economic stress and they don't have their regular watering hole to go to." Actually, they do. They are all smoke free now. In spite of the lousey weather this weekend, Spring is coming, and all smokers need do is move to the exit and enjoy their cigarette al fresco, providing a safer and healthier environment inside for the hospitality workers, musicians and patrons who work there.We have seen these type of cheap theatrics before, and as Judith mentioned, they always fail.I'm a Minnesotan -- a veteran and a regular Joe (well, a regular Bob) who enjoys the VFW AND the Guthrie. See my counter to Mr. Benjamin's points on this KSTP-TV story:http://kstp.com/article/stories/S368429.shtml?cat=206Bob MoffittCommunications DirectorAmerican Lung Association of Minnesota

(3) On April 28, 2008, Author Editor Rik Lynn says:

Judy and Bob seem to think this theater night scheme is just a way for business owners to get around the smoking ban for the short term and then, assuming the courts rule against them, they will just shut up, take their financial losses like good little citizens, and bow down to the state.None of these proprieters harbor illusions about continuing this scheme indefinitely. They know something will have to give.I can assure you that the theater exemption is just the crack in the door that they now have their foot firmly wedged into. It has opened the door for a ton of favorable publicity and some pretty impressive fund raising.This isn't gonna just go away if the courts rule against them, or even if they rule in their favor for that matter.A favorable (for the bars) theater exemption ruling will force the legislature to re-open the FTBA to get rid of the exemption and all sorts of havoc could result from that.I think the fun is just beginning.
(4) On April 28, 2008, Author Editor Gregory Lang says:
http://freedomtoact.com/
(1) On April 28, 2008, Gerald Abrahamson says: If they really are claiming to be putting on a play, then they will be able to show their city-issued license (or application--at a minimum) as a live-production playhouse...." Actually, there is no such thing as a as a "city-issued licence as a live production playhouse."If you have events open to the public a city can enforce reasonable fire and safety ordinances. This is reasonable in light of the history of fire deaths in public placed (an example being the Rhode Island bar where flammable foam ignited and killed 100 people a few years back.) As an example a former local "actress" Kathleen Ann Soliah/Sara Jane Olson wanted to have a fundraiser "Ungagged Two" in the summer of 2000 to try to raise money for her legal defense for charges she claimed were "all political". The event had a $10 charge and was advertised on her website. The original location was an artist "warehouse space" in Northeast Minneapolis that did not have a commercial occupancy permit. This was stopped but the event occurred at a church hall in the Tanglewood neighborhood, also in Minneapolis. They reportedly had a play (with political commentaries), speeches and music. No "live-production playhouse" permit was needed, just the fire code occupancy permit. A second example in my Longfellow neighborhood is Patrick's Cabaret. http://www.patrickscabaret.org/ It was originally in an old storefront near Franklin and 35W and had no public occupancy permit. It is now located in the old firehouse near Minnehaha and Lake Street. The building was brought up to code and it has a public occupancy permit. It does not to get a permit for a "play". (IE:Wicked Sister Dance Theatre on 04-30)I recall musical events at the old Gurthrie.

(5) On April 29, 2008, Author Editor Peter Swanson says:
http://swanblog2.blogspot.com/
I am waiting for the "What is art?" debate to begin. The players are different than in the NEA funding context, but the question remains.

(6) On April 29, 2008, Author Editor John Olson says:

For the vast majority of us, this is old news. The law was passed, took effect, and is now subject to enforcement. Its clear that neither side is happy--which means that the law is probably just about right.Most of us enjoy the clean air in the bars and restaurants. (Side Comment: Now, if something could be done about men and women who insist on marinading themselves in cologne and asphyxiating the rest of us in the elevator, THAT would be an accomplishment!)Like any other issue, the three or four percent at opposing ends will continue to try and turn this into an ongoing media circus. I have no doubt that there will be court challenges coming up, but one has to wonder if that money might not be better spent elsewhere.For instance:Minnesota taxpayers are going to spend $5 million to study why some miners on the Iron Range are contracting mesothelioma--a worthwhile expenditure. Why couldn't tobacco settlement funds have been used to pay for that study instead of spending more for lawyers and lobbyists? THAT is the sort of thing that should be funded out of those tobacco settlement funds.Both sides have legitimate arguments that will never be resolved.

(7) On April 29, 2008, Author Editor Gerald Abrahamson says:

(4) On April 28, 2008, Gregory Lang says:Actually, there is no such thing as a as a "city-issued licence as a live production playhouse."Not according to the City of Minneapolis. See the following link, where they require a license to be an ongoing "theatre", which would include plays, etc.http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/business-licensing/what-we-license.aspTherefore, other cities would/could also have similar types of laws for zoning and licensing. Perhaps not identical--but similar enough to be enforceable.

(8) On May 1, 2008, Author Editor Mark Benjamin says:

I've researched the law and can assure all of you that Theater Night will not pass into ... the night. The Legislature provided no limiting definition to the term "theatrical productions" -- like they did for Native American ceremonies, farms and tobacco shops, all exceptions to the smoking ban. The Judicial Branch interprets the law but does not re-write it. Thus, one court correctly interpreted what most people understand to be an ashtray (an object) but would have enormous problems interpreting "theatrical productions" (an art form). It necessarily would require a court to review each bar's Theater Night on a case-by-case basis - something the U.S. Supreme Court used to do in the '50's and '60's with pornography before giving up. Our approach to the defense of Theater Night is to remind the court that it need not define the term "theatrical productions". That is the province of the Legislature and they need to take a second look at the exception and clarify it. When they do, we will be there to remind them that public health is more than just physical health (clean air.) It is also mental health (having a job and a place to socialize.) If we're going to have a smoking ban, let's have one that takes into account the physical AND mental health components of a comprehensive public health policy.

(9) On May 1, 2008, Author Editor Barry Homan says:

Oh this is fun. Enjoy the show all you antis, and watch how these bans s-l-o-w-l-y disintegrate in the coming years.Now why didn't we smokers just toss out our cigarettes, buy Pharma cessation products and become your friend, sitting there for hours in clean bars, talking to you and making your life more and more interesting?Antis ARE destined to be a short paragraph in the history books - not smokers!Hey, we're not going anywhere. You thought it was gonna be so easy, that smokers would love you, and you wouldn't have to lift a finger - SUCKER!We ARE still here, we're fighting back now. We'll find a way, and time is on our side - because you don't want to keep fighting us the rest of your life, do you? No way! Because you actually got better things to worry about besides some guy smoking in a bar, or about some gal in your office wearing perfume.You're hoping the next generation will grow up to be feebs, ninnies and liars just like you?So here's a clap on the shoulder, and a fake grin of support and understanding, the kind we see antis make all the time - smokers aren't gonna go away, we'll just keep fighting, and why?Because now we have nothing left. YOU did that. Which means we have nothing left to lose, and that's when a person becomes dangerous. You wanted to take away everything! Not smart at all, but then I never met an anti who could think rationally; they can only tell great lies, they're good at that.Oh this is fun.This IS fun!Watch it all change!
(10) On May 2, 2008, Author Editor Jim Smrekar says:


Mr Moffit,Thank you for your service to our country. Soldiers have fought for our freedoms since the beginning of this great country. One of those freedoms is the freedom of choice. This law has effectively eliminated that for these small business owners, employees and customers.Our country was built on a free enterprise system. Any business owner who thinks it’s in their best interest to be smoke free should do just that. Any employee who thinks it’s in their best interest to work in a smoke free environment should do just that. And any customer who wants to have a beer in a smoke free environment should frequent that type of establishment. The anti smoking lobby blew it on this one. By not allowing exemptions were they obviously should be, this whole thing is going to blow up. That’s a good thing. Our legislators wrote a bad law and are afraid to reopen the debate. Seeing that cigarettes are a legal product, I’d say your money would better spent making the sale of cigarettes illegal vs putting your agenda on the backs on small business owners. But that will never happen. How would the politicians attempt to replace the tax revenue that would be lost as a result? Plus we all know how well prohibition has worked in the past. Thank you Mr. Benjamin for fighting for the right to choose and showing the obvious hypocrisy of the anti smoking movement here and across the country.

THE BULLSEYE ADDRESS - Speech written by Mark Benjamin.

- Speech written by Mark Benjamin.

THE BULLSEYE ADDRESS
Four score and four nights ago Minnesota’s bar owners brought forth on this state a new art form, Theater Night, conceived in creativity and dedicated to the proposition that all smokers are created free and equal.
Now we are engaged in a great legal war, testing whether that art form, or any art form, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war, Bullseye Saloon. We have come to dedicate this bar, as a freedom-loving place of patriotism for those who lit up so that others might smoke. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this bar. The brave people, smokers and non-smokers, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here but it can never forget that we smoked here. It is for us, the smokers, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who smoked here before have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored smokers we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these smokers shall not have smoked in vain – that Theater Night in Minnesota shall have a new birth of freedom – and that Theater Night of the smokers, by the smokers, for the smokers shall not perish from this state.

Fw: Theater Night First and Second updates Update 5-2-08

Hello Everyone -

Just a little informational material that you may find interesting.


- Conference Committee Report to the House (Friday May 11, 2007 at 11:14 PM)
(This is the video of the actual House Session last year on the Conference Committee Report FTBA. I recommend you watch it if you can. It will probably make some of you very
angry. I was there last year at the conference committee hearing and boy what a joke it was. What Rep. Rukavina says in this video about what the conference committee did is
exactly right and I can testify to that! About 9 minutes and 20 seconds into the video, the session actually starts so you can fast forward it to that point and then sit back and watch
our legislators at work.) Eight minutes procedural so the smoking part starts at 17 minutes in. Try listening while doing other computer work. Greg Lang

Added 05-05-08 I reorganised some drawers watching/listening to the 2007 FTB debate and vote 1 hour and a half hour after they got going at 17 minutes. I kept note paper handy with time and quick note of the "interesting" parts. I'll to do a write up tonight, basically a one page with a printable link so someone can hit the high/low points quickly and get through it in maybe 20 minutes. The "bar theater" was brought up and supporters said they expected it to apply to reservations. According to my notes "theater is 42 minutes in, $$$$$ is 01:22 and "tribal" is at 1:50


http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/programa.asp?ls_year=85&event_id=1379



- Minnesota Majority E-mail (Below is an e-mail from the organization Minnesota Majority. What I find so interesting about this e-mail are the comments about the MDH. Apparently, the MDH has a problem with laws.)
Are you aware that the state of Minnesota has been amassing newborn baby blood samples for over 10 years? It's true. Unbeknownst to most parents, the Minnesota Department of Health has warehoused DNA information on over 780,000 infants since 1997. In 2006, the state legislature passed a genetic privacy law requiring expressed written patient consent prior to gathering genetic information. But instead of complying with the law, the Department of Health continued its practice collecting newborn DNA without a parent's written authorization. Last year, a Minnesota judge ordered the Department of Health to cease its illegal activity. But the Health Department ignored the judges' ruling and instead vigorously worked to change the law in order to exempt infants from Minnesota's genetic privacy law. The state legislature has caved in to the demands of the Department of Health and passed bill number SF3138 which eliminates the requirement for a parent to opt-in to the collection process. Under the new law, the Department of Health will be able to collect an infant's DNA unless a parent expressly opts-out of the process within 24 hours. While the law require a parental disclosure, reading a disclosure and signing an opt-out form will be the last thing on the mind of the parents the first 24 hours after the birth of a child. Bottom line, this bill reduces a patients right to privacy by changing the law from an opt-in to a opt-out process. It puts thousands of individuals at risk of having their private genetic information inappropriately used by the state without their knowledge or consent.
Governor Pawlenty is the now the only person that can prevent this bill from becoming law.
TAKE ACTION
1. Click on the link below to watch two videos on the infant genetic privacy issue: http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/EntryID/78/Default.aspx2. Click on the link below to send a message to Governor Pawlenty urging him to veto HF3138: http://capwiz.com/mnmajority/issues/alert/?alertid=11327671&type=SW3. Forward this message to your friends and ask them to take action as well.
Thanks for doing your part to protect the privacy of children in Minnesota.
Regards,
Jeff DavisPresident, Minnesota Majority

- Sheila's Comments about the Minnesota Majority E-mail
Just want to let you know that this "opt out" option is becoming more and more prevalent. I have had my own experience with this just recently. This year my health insurance changed and it was not obvious how the deductible worked....so I actually picked up the health insurance booklet to see what I could find. Lo and behold, I went through the entire booklet and what did I find on the last page but an "opt out" form. I looked at this and couldn't believe what I was reading...it appears that my family and I were all automatically enrolled in 2 different research type organizations that could access our medical records unless I sent in this "opt out" form. I cannot tell you how shocked I was...if I hadn't actually read the booklet I would have never known. This is a very "sneaky" way of getting people's personal information and is just plain WRONG! If I want someone else to have my information then they need to ask my permission up front and then I will decide if they can have it. So needless to say, I sent in the forms to "opt out". The Health Insurance Policy was Health Partners. In addition, I have also heard some discussions that some states are trying to make "donor organs" an "opt out" option. This is just getting plain ridiculous!! (I also have HP, I've never read the contract. Greg Lang)

######2###Hello Everyone - Another quick update. ##########

- Thanks to those bar owners that will remain un-named.
Thanks guys for continuing to educate the public and other bar owners about the legal exemption for theater performances. Thanks for handing out those packets of information
so other bars can particpate. I appreciate your updates and the stories you tell. I know it has become a mode of survival now for many bars across the state.

- A Reminder & Thanks to Bob for his Support!
"Grab your Nitetimes Magazine at your local establishment!" If not there, please e-mail nitetimebob@comcast.net and we can get papers to you!!


- Another Reminder
Check out the http://www.freedomtoact.com/ website and catch the "Mario and Luigi help celebrate 6000 hits" link!


- People in Duluth
You guys once repealed your local smoking ban ordinance. Any possibility of "repealing" your Mr. Huntley come this November? Give it some thought since he is not finished yet
with the smoking ban. He currently has a bill that would take away the smoking exemption for psychiatric wards. What is up with this guy? Once he is finished with the smoking
ban, what will he turn to next? Based on what he has already done....I would speculate that "liquor" and probably "obesity" is next. He is the chair of the Health Care and Human
Services Finance Division Committee and in my opinion needs to retire!


- Comment to Bugg's Place
Buggs - We are there for you and support you 100% !


- Pioneer Press Article 5-2-08
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_9130488
Health Department asks court to stop South St. Paul bar's 'theater night'
Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 05/02/2008 06:39:26 AM CDT
The Minnesota Department of Health said a South St. Paul bar is violating the state's smoking ban and wants Dakota County to make it stop.
Buggs Place is holding bogus "theater nights" to get around the ban, which has an exception for theatrical productions, the agency said.
Several bars have staged mock plays in which patrons and employees are deemed actors so they can smoke, but the Health Department ruled in March that the theater exemption was being abused. They agency sent out 17,000 notices detailing its position.
The Health Department asked a court for an injunction against the Bullseye Saloon in Elko on April 11.
- Wisconsin is fighting the good fight. Let's support our neighbor in any way we can. There is a great article on the American Cancer Society...see excerpt below and visit their website for the full article. (WE must BAN together!)
http://banthebanwis%20consin.com/%20acs.aspx

The American Cancer Society: Up in smoke?

2006 Lobbying Efforts
1- $18,498,663
2- $12,810,000
3- $767,360

Can you guess who spent what in 2006?
3 is RJ Reynolds Tobacco (per opensecrets.org), 2 is Phillip Morris (per opensecrets.org) and 1 is the American Cancer Society (per their 2006 from 990). Big tobacco indeed...

When it comes to the American Cancer Society, you really need to read between the lines and understand who and what they are. You are dealing with an organization that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars every year, has over a billion dollars in assets (that includes investments and cash in the bank), and has a CEO that makes over seven figures in total annual compensation. Does this sound like the neighborhood charity that you can be proud of?

Dr. Epstein of the Cancer Prevention Coalition has called for a boycott of the ACS in order to force them to clean up their act - and for good reason. In a paper that he has written, he points out things like for every $1 spent on direct cancer services, $6.40 is spent on compensation and overhead costs. He also points out that even with over a billion dollars in reserve, the ACS continues to fund raise under the guise of a "lack of available funds for cancer research."

A quick look at charitynavigator.org has the ACS as a 2-star charity with a 1-star efficiency rating, and that isn't even using the latest numbers. Their 2007 990 form reveals an even worse mess (including a bigger salary for their CEO) than the Charity Navigator page presents.

Before blindly accepting the American Cancer Society as a legitimate and benign force for good, we need to take a hard look at who and what the ACS really is.

Subject: Smoking and Marxism

My "Red-rant" comments in red at end. Greg Lang

Subject: Smoking and Marxism

Sheila,

I appreciate all that you are doing to organize, coordinate, inform and fight for the basic federal and state inalienable constitutional rights that are steadily being ignored and overridden.

Two years ago I invested the fruits of my life's work in a property and business that included a restaurant and lounge. Through the unrelenting anti-business, anti-individual and anti-property rights mindset of County and State Government and some elected representatives, I have been driven to the edge of bankruptcy. I first closed the restaurant. Then the smoking ban, which eliminated 90% of my customers, drove me to closing the facility completely.

This is particularly frustrating to me personally. In addition to working twice as hard and taking extraordinary risks as an entrepreneur for 40 years, I managed to donate over 20 years of public service to our society. I served our nation in war, I served our state and several communities in a variety of appointed and elected positions. I no longer recognize or understand the society in which we live. One cannot help but think the majority of Minnesota citizens, elected officials and governmental agencies have agreed that socialist Marxism is the preferable way of life. That the government is in fact "Our Mother" and we can just sit at home and be satisfied with what our "Mother" grants us. Life is so much easier that way, until all the producers are gone and the government has no one left to tax or control. Then what?

I reject that !

I do think the "Theater Performance" loophole is the wrong approach. Fighting the elimination of personal and property rights is the battle. Fight the war to the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court, demanding the clear and final acknowledgement that our constitutional right of personal choice and the right to allow legal conduct on our private property cannot be usurped.

I wish I could contribute financially, but am unable at the moment. I will continue to support the fight. As Jason Lewis states in his promo, "At what point do the citizens of Minnesota rise up and revolt ?" It is now!

David Gageby
Harbor Village
St. Paul Park, MN

Start of "Red Rant". The author has some good points. According to my googling he took a course to the MN Court of appeals in the late 1990's and won (an out state estate jurisdiction case) so he has knowledge of how the appeals process works. I also have this type of knowledge. I read both books on the landmark first amendment case Cowles versus Cohen (http://stillbornrevolution.com/ (scroll down) Cowles (Media) was the the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Elliot Rothenburg was the lawyer, working out of his basement who took the case to the US Supreme Court and won. Dan Cohen was the plaintiff. Both wrote books which I read well before this started this. The first lesson of the books is that the appeals process is long and difficult. The second is that grand philosophical points don't work well in appeals. Basically you have to "figuratively" catch them "with their pants down" and focus on this. In Cowles v Cohen our two daily newspapers "outed" Dan Cohen as a source of information that was negative to a democrat. It was done in a ham handed manner worthy of "Citizen Kane". When our two dailies had to do some "explaining" then then got in trouble. Same here. the "theater exemption" is horribly written in many ways. My humble website http://freedomtoact.com/ mainstream media news stories going back almost three months while the legislature was in session. (they have two weeks more) My editorial stance, which is mine is that, if the MN legislature wants to reopen the law and rewrite or eliminate the theater provision this is fine. I support obeying the "letter" of the law. As Clint Eastwood said "Go ahead, make my day!". Reopening the law opens it up for debate and a publicly recorded vote.

Minnpost.com recently had an article that seemed to disparage our chances in court (does anyone know if George Soros smokes?). In Cohen versus Cowles the two local dailies "just happened" to publish stories disparaging Dan Cohen's chances everytime the case came up for appeals court review. Hmm!, is Minnpost.com with it's many alumni from our two newspapers carrying on the tradition? Does George Soros have the appearance characteristics we tend to associate with a "smokers face"? Greg Lang