Mayoral candidate Jacob Frey, 2017

In October of 2017, at the height of the campaign for Minneapolis mayor, I wrote a piece called “Swaggerapolis: is it what we really need?”. The article led with this quote by then candidate Jacob Frey:

“The mayor’s job is to set the tone and to set the vision. We need to regain our citywide swagger.”

Given that Frey was a first term councilperson running against two-term councilmember and Minneapolis’ second female mayor, Betsy Hodges, I took issue with the gendered language and arrogance of his statement. Frey was largely running against what he deemed as Hodges’s failure to lead during the occupation of the 4th Precinct following the fatal shooting of Jamar Clark by a Minneapolis police officer. In this context “swagger” seemed a not-so-subtle inference that it was time for a man to take over. (See this brief clip of candidate Frey.)

Well what goes around…. now the tables have turned, and Frey is the incumbent facing ongoing criticism for his mishandling for the nights of arson and violence that destroyed whole sections of our city following George Floyd’s murder. I have compassion for any mayor who has to deal with officer-involved shootings, but Frey’s inaction and misreading of the realities on the ground made a tragic situation much, much worse — and continue to this day.

The StarTribune and PACS like All of Mpls — run by a former Frey campaign staffer and funded by his wealthy donors — are trying mightily to paint a picture of a strong mayor held back only by the ineptitude of the Minneapolis City Council. While I won’t give the council a free pass, this is untrue; according to the current city charter the Minneapolis Police Department answers ONLY to the mayor and the city council has no power over the police.

The inability of Mayor Frey to rise up and meet the challenges facing our community continue to cost this city in every conceivable way: homicides are up 108%, shootings up 153% and carjackings up an astonishing 222%. Hotrodders are taking over city streets, choking regular traffic and causing danger to both onlookers and nearby residents. The explosive rise in crime is not the only impact: the City of Minneapolis is self-insured and paying out huge settlements to the Floyd family and other victims of police violence, including journalists and protesters who were seriously injured by law enforcement’s irresponsible use of “non-lethal” rounds during the 2020 protests. These settlements are so large that the monies set aside for the city’s self-insurance fund cannot cover them, and settlement dollars have been taken from the city’s general fund.

For over a year we have lived in a city in turmoil with a mayor too often missing in action. The issues at play are complex and evoke strong emotion. Words like “defund” and “abolish” have been used in emotional settings, perhaps unwisely, but Frey and his All of Mpls PAC have willfully exploited this moment in the most cynical of ways. As he said, the mayor sets the tone, and it is at this that Frey has failed most spectacularly.

Four years ago Jacob Frey bragged about bringing swagger to the mayor’s office, to which I responded, “Minneapolis doesn’t need swagger… Swagger is an empty suit. Minneapolis needs substance, strength, and unwavering commitment to build a city that will not just grow and prosper, but will embed Wellstone’s vision of our collective betterment in all its endeavors.”

There is no reasonable measure by which Jacob Frey has earned a second term as mayor of Minneapolis.

Camille Gage, an artist and writer, lives one mile from the intersection where George Floyd was brutally murdered. She is supporting former Minnesota state representative Kate Knuth for Minneapolis mayor.

There’s a chance Minneapolitans may grudgingly re-elect an unpopular mayor who has demonstrably made our community less safe*. Why? Because they are afraid of the public safety charter amendment. To paraphrase Talking Heads’ David Byrne, “My god, how did we get here?”

Public safety is the #1 hot button issue for most voters following the murder of George Floyd and the explosion of violence that’s plagued our community since that tragic and fateful day. Finding a path forward was never going to be easy, but there are powerful players out there intentionally poisoning the water in an attempt to make any progress impossible: meet All of Mpls, a political action committee with demonstrable ties to Mayor Jacob Frey.

Frey and his team have come up with contemptuous re-election strategy: stay out of sight — he doesn’t even attend most of the mayoral forums anymore — and let the All of Mpls political action committee frighten Minneapolis voters into re-electing him. It’s cynical, deceptive, and the mark of a man who has always been out of his depth in the office.

By now you’ve likely seen some of the tsunami of ads and mailings disseminated by All of Mpls (AOM). Social media is drowning in them, their glossy mailers arrive in post boxes weekly, and their video ads pop up on sites like AccuWeather. Their website lists no staff or supporters, just the claim to be a “locally organized, broad-based effort.” It’s appears a classic case of astroturfing: AOM wants to appear a grassroots efforts, but in reality it’s a well-financed bludgeon bashing the actual grassroots effort to demand public safety reform. Politics can be an ugly business, sure, but what’s unconscionable is that AOMs avalanche of ads and social media posts contain outright lies about the charter amendment. It’s an intentional strategy, one that former Trump advisor Steve Bannon once called “flooding the zone with shit.” Confuse voters until they either begin to believe your lies or become so disgusted they don’t vote at all.

The All of MPLS PAC has torn this page out of the trumpian playbook, employing misinformation and half-truths to frighten people and stir up a firestorm of anger and confusion about the public safety charter amendment. They claim not to coordinate with any candidate, yet a recent mailing features wall-to-wall full color photos, front and back, of Frey gazing admiringly at MPD Chief Medaria Arradondo.

Lets take a look at the All of Mpls campaign:

A recent All of Mpls mailer claims that Question 2 “eliminates the police department and Police Chief Arradondo.” A Facebook ad claims the amendment will “eliminate the police and replace the chief.”

NO IT WOULD NOT. It would put police, the Office of Violence Prevention, and other response and prevention initiatives under a newly formed Department of Public Safety. There would still be a police led by a Chief of Police or position with a similar title.

Another mailing uses an out-of-context statement from MN Attorney General Keith Ellison to make it seem like he is against Question 2.

UNTRUE: Ellison publicly stated his support for Question 2, tweeting, “As a resident of Mpls where George Floyd’s murder sparked a national call for real reform, I will vote Yes (on question 2) for greater public safety & more human rights for all.”

Yet another mailer claims the other mayoral candidates want to abolish the police.

WRONG: At least one candidate, former State Representative Kate Knuth, has publicly stated she will support police staffing at current levels.

All of Mpls ads relentlessly pummel voters with the same basic lies: the proposed public safety charter amendment would eliminate the police and fire Chief Arradondo, and that all other mayoral candidates want to abolish the police.

Who would put together a PAC designed to turn the crucial debate on public safety into a Bannon-esque shit zone?

A few things to know about All of Mpls PAC:

Its only publicly named staffer, campaign manager Leili Fatehi, was on the communications team for Frey’s campaign in 2017. Here’s a video of her and Frey together during that campaign.

Fatehi’s spouse, Peter Ebnet, is currently a policy aide to the mayor.

(It’s also worth noting that there’s quite a bit of crossover between major donors to All of Mpls PAC and Frey’s re-election campaign. See chart below.)

There’s nothing illegal about former campaign staff running an attack PAC that benefits your current campaign, even if they are married to one of your senior policy aides. However it sure begs the question of ethics and the level of Frey’s involvement in this organized propaganda effort.

Every week I talk to friends and neighbors who don’t want to vote for Frey but feel they have to because of the public safety charter amendment. This is exactly what All of Mpls and the Frey re-election campaign is banking on. So take a few important things under consideration before you decide who to support as your next mayor and how you will vote on charter question 2.

1. The Public Safety Amendment does not abolish or defund the police. Anyone who says so is lying. Full stop.

2. The amendment is a GUIDELINE that will be further shaped and enacted by city leadership should it pass.

3. Few cities in Minnesota have a city charter with a provision that requires a police department, much less how many police it should have or what portion of the budget should be spend on police. This is a relic of the 1960’s. Even our sister city of St Paul does not require a police department. (See list below).

Minneapolitans are considering the relative merits of a groundbreaking charter amendment and most are striving to do so in good faith. It’s not easy and there’s no place for the malicious lies of a political action committee in this intense public debate. It’s also deeply concerning that our current mayor may have links to such a lie campaign, or at the least be turning a blind eye to it and the damage it is doing to our public discourse. Our community is wrestling with one of the greatest political challenges we will ever face.

Vote with facts, not fear.

Camille Gage is a Minneapolis based artist and writer. #GagePage

• * Fox 9 News report, May 20, 2021: “The city has seen a 222 percent increase in carjackings this year compared with this point in 2020, averaging 1.27 incidents per day, according to police data. Homicides are up 108 percent from a year earlier, while shootings have risen 153 percent.”

Cities with charters and whether police departments are required by charter:

Donors to All of Minneapolis and the Frey re-election campaign. Taken from public records you can view in their entirety here.

When I got the call that my friend Kirk Washington, Jr. was dead a thought shot through me like a lightning bolt: “The police killed him.”

Kirk was a wise and gentle man who used art and poetry to advance his calls for justice. He was an artist with the Creative City Making project and, with his beloved wife Aster, founded The Breakfast Club, a weekly community conversation held in a church on the Northside. I had no reason to believe Kirk would have an altercation with the police. But Kirk was Black, and a Black man can be killed by law enforcement on flimsy justification in contemporary America.

Over the past few days a number of Minnesota politicians have weighed in on one of the most challenging issues facing Minneapolis voters: the charter amendment that aims to reform policing in our community, an amendment that grew out of the cataclysmic agony following the murder of George Floyd.

Although all of these politicians purport to support the aims of the amendment — significant reform of law enforcement — none of them support the citizen-led effort to seriously address it.

These politicians, including Governor Tim Walz and Representative Angie Craig, hold significant political sway. Their position provides them with a bully pulpit that could make a real difference in the reform effort. But instead of using their platform to educate and inform voters, they have sided with the status quo and the fearmongering that has surrounded three words: “Defund the police.”

Nowhere in the proposed charter amendment does it call for defunding the police.

I agree with the chorus of naysaying politicians on one thing: words like “abolish” or “defund” were ill advised. They’ve confused many and hurt the effort to create systemic change. However, we need to remember the genesis of those words: they were born out of the grief and rage of young Black Americans following the deaths of Black and Brown men and women at the hands of the police. The death, not only of George Floyd, but of Philando Castile, Trayvon Martin, Breonna Taylor and on and on and on.

In the one year following the murder of George Floyd, 229 Black people were killed at the hands of law enforcement in the United States. No one can argue that the current system works for all of our citizens.

Again, nowhere in the charter amendment does it call for abolishing or defunding armed law enforcement. That is a misleading extrapolation exploited by conservatives and those who oppose substantive change. It’s an extrapolation feared by those who support reform but also see the need for armed law enforcement. The misinformation being spread is also the foundation of the current mayor’s campaign for re-election. Lacking precious few accomplishments to run on, Jacob Frey is hoping to ride our fears to a second term.

I expected Republicans and the MAGA movement to jump on the “defund” rhetoric to vilify those seeking reform and frighten their constituents. What I didn’t expect — and can’t accept — is Minnesota’s DFL leadership following suit. I know these three words, raised in the heat of the moment, have been politicized. But there are times when politicians need to do what’s right regardless of political cost and this is one of those times. I’m deeply disheartened that so many Democratic leaders have succumbed to political expediency. Instead of educating voters and leading the way towards a new public safety paradigm they’ve bowed to words weaponized by politicians operating in bad faith.

Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd while defiantly looking straight into the eye of the camera that was recording him. He knew that the system was set up to support him — no matter what he did — and to deny a Black man like Mr. Floyd his basic humanity. The look in his eyes sent an undeniable message: “Just try to stop me.” And until the court found Mr. Chauvin guilty, few police officers were held to account for murdering or brutalizing Black and Brown women and men. The recent release of shocking bodycam footage in the Jaleel Stallings case shows just how broken the Minneapolis Police Department has become.

Floyd’s cold blooded murder, watched by millions of horrified citizens across the globe, put Minneapolis at the heart of one of the most serious and difficult policy debates of our time. We have the unique opportunity to powerfully impact the future of law enforcement nation-wide and help this country take yet another baby step towards the elusive “more perfect union” imagined by our founders and evolving with each generation. Will our political leadership join in the effort to create a system of public safety that truly works for all? Or will they shrink from the task, afraid of the political ramifications of doing the right thing?

My friend Kirk was not killed by the police. He died in an auto accident in April of 2016, the victim of a drunk driver. As we ponder the future of our beloved community let us consider his words, taken from the poem, Minneapolis: a city in verse:

“I speak the gospel of the Northside, the rage of
lovers…
 …and perceive in my dreams…
a unified breath that electrocutes fear and
misunderstanding”
 …to remain apathetic is assured enslavement
so…precisely, what is a dream?

My fellow Minneapolitans, the world is watching.

Camille Gage is a Minneapolis-based artist and writer

I recently got into a thoughtful discussion with a person I very much respect re: public safety and the Minneapolis mayoral election. He is a former law enforcement official, is against the public safety charter amendment and is supporting Jacob Frey for re-election. I support the amendment and am supporting former state representative Kate Knuth to replace Frey as mayor. Our email “conversation” was incredibly clarifying for me and I thought it would be worthwhile to share some of my takeaways with those confused by the proposed amendment and its impact on the future of public safety in Minneapolis.

I believe it’s important to center the mayoral conversation around the fact that there is a stark and binary choice before us: moving towards change or accepting the status quo. I believe most Minneapolis residents want comprehensive change in the area of public safety. Many of us have lost confidence in both the current administration and the MPD’s ability to keep our community safe and thriving under the systems that currently exist. We are concerned about police violence towards our Black and Brown neighbors. There is no indication that Mr. Frey would do a better job of leading on the issue of public safety and its reformation if given a second term. Voting for an incumbent mayor is a vote of confidence in the job the mayor has done. I, for one, cannot cast that vote.

I also believe it’s a mistake to conflate concerns regarding the proposed charter amendment with the mayoral race. Doing so is a form of single issue voting, if you will, and creates a tunnel vision that distorts the mayoral choice before us. The charter amendment will be approved — or not — by the voters of Minneapolis, not the candidates for mayor. If it is approved it will be implemented in some fashion no matter who is mayor.

For those confused about it (and there are many of us!), the public safety charter amendment ends the Minneapolis Police Department as a stand-alone department and replaces it with a multi-faceted Department of Public Safety (DPS). The DPS would include a traditional armed police force among other violence prevention and response initiatives, the idea being that if armed law enforcement does not need to deal with minor traffic violations, homelessness, mental health, etc., it is more efficient and frees up time to address violent crime. The charter proposal makes Public Safety a department within the city — just like any other department. Here is a list of Minneapolis City departments; I think it’s edifying to take a quick look. It’s easy to imagine a Department of Public Safety within this context.

One of the topics also raised is the “15 bosses” issue, which is really part of the “strong mayor” –vs- “strong council” issue that has been a part of local politics since the turn of the century and is being raised again this year. If the public safety amendment passes, the Department of Public Safety will not have 15 bosses; it would be led by a single commissioner, nominated by the mayor and confirmed by the council. Again, this would make the Department of Public Safety management structure the same as every other city department. Knuth has taken this a step further: in her public safety proposal the director of the department would answer to her as mayor — not the city council. (Policy nerds can check out this great explainer on the history of the “charter wars” and its impact on this election.)

Other concerns aired about the future of public safety included state and federal laws affecting law enforcement, binding arbitration, and qualified immunity, which is currently codified under state law. All of these important issues must be addressed, but they are issues that largely play out at the state and federal level. The mayor and council have little power aside from lobbying and the bully pulpit of elected office.

One area of agreement my friend and I share is our mutual support of Chief Arradondo. I continue to be grateful that former Mayor Hodges had the vision to appoint him as Chief. I have met the Chief and worked with him and other officers directly on the Franklin Hiawatha homeless encampment. I know his history and his hopes for the department and I support him. I believe retaining Chief Arradondo is key to negotiating the challenging road ahead.

During our exchange my friend also raised concerns about a “depleted and demoralized” MPD, the accompanying rise in violent crime, and the “general lawlessness” that is plaguing our communities. I share these concerns — but hasn’t all of this has happened on Mr. Frey’s watch, under a system in which the mayor alone has responsibility for the MPD? I struggle to see how another four years under a mayor who has failed so spectacularly will improve this dire situation. Additionally, the City of Minneapolis is self-insured. How much longer can we afford to pay out huge settlements to victims of police violence and misconduct? The City has paid out over $70 million in settlements over the last two decades, much of it in the last three years. Allowing the status quo to continue is something we literally cannot afford.

Citizens here and across the nation are calling for a re-visioning of law enforcement . With the right leadership Minneapolis could be a trail blazer in this effort, helping to move our city and our nation towards a more equitable and efficacious model for keeping communities healthy and safe. I have embraced Kate Knuth’s candidacy and her proposed approach to public safety; I believe hers is a well-considered middle path between the status quo of the current administration and proposals made by some of the other candidates. Knuth’s Building Public Safety and Transforming Policing proposal is comprehensive. I urge all who truly care about this issue to take the time to review it. There’s both the full plan and a “Reader’s Digest” version available.

Whether creating a Department of Public Safety is a positive step towards needed change, as I believe, or a diminishment of the existing policing structure, as my friend fears, is a matter of personal opinion. We must all consider this as we wrestle to decide who will best lead our beloved community forward during these troubled times.

Camille J. Gage is a Minneapolis based artist and writer.

For four long years Democrats, Independents and some Republicans have waited for a new administration to restore decency, professionalism and ethics to the White House. Our wait is finally over and President Biden has nominated a diverse and well qualified slate of nominees for his Cabinet — nominees that reflect the multi-culturalism of our changing nation.

So I’m troubled, Senators, that some of you might withhold support from Biden’s nominees. Any decision to block well qualified candidates flies in the face of national calls for unity and are especially unsettling as concerns the President’s nomination for Secretary of the Interior: Representative Deb Haaland.

Senators, we are at a defining moment in our nation’s history, a turning point encompassing both our land and our people: Will we finally learn to embrace our Earth as more than just a commodity? And will we finally and fully abandon the policies and deeply rooted racism that has too long prevented us from moving toward an inclusive and equitable future.

Representative Haaland’s nomination is emblematic of this turning point.

I don’t think it is hyperbolic to say that America cannot go on as it has in the past. The years of denial over the undisputed science of climate change has placed our nation in a deficit position when it comes to the pivot towards Green energy. The many senators keen on attempting to extract promises from Haaland on future drilling on public land willfully ignore this reality. We as a nation have to be bold and innovative as we find ways to move away from our dependence on oil and towards renewable energy sources. Jobs versus the environment has always been a false argument — and never more than now. No one — no Democrats, Independents or Republicans — wants to leave Americans jobless as these inevitable economic changes occur.

America also cannot go on without an equally bold commitment to addressing its cruelty and injustice towards Indigenous peoples — and indeed, all people of color. With Haaland’s nomination the U.S. Senate has a long overdue opportunity to to begin to redress our nation’s history of violent discrimination while also bringing Native wisdom to the center of our land and resource management. Stewardship of our land and waters is one of the spiritual centerpieces of Native life, and we as a nation would have much to gain from Haaland’s leadership.

I am not suggesting that you vote in support of Rep. Haaland’s nomination as a symbolic act of reconciliation; as vice chair of the Congressional Committee on Natural Resources, Haaland is well qualified to become the Secretary of the Interior. Instead I am asking that you challenge yourselves to adopt a broader, longer, lens: one that sees beyond current energy technologies and towards a time when America can become a global leader in the creation and production of the energies of the future. And one that acknowledges the heavy weight of our ruthless past, a weight that will always deter us from the shared goal of creating a more perfect union.

Senators, I’m asking a lot of you, but if you are strong and visionary enough to accept the challenge I can assure you, you won’t take it on alone. For five years I’ve contracted for and been deeply involved in projects initiated by Native-led organizations. As a white person I had a lot to learn about Indigenous ways and practices, and the dark history of our government’s treatment of Native peoples. Incredibly, despite this brutal past, the Native people I worked with and for were generous with their knowledge and welcoming to anyone who showed up “in a good way”: with honesty, commitment and compassion.

I ask you, Senators, to show up in this good way. To be leaders in blazing the difficult but righteous path towards a more just and sustainable future. If you have the vision and courage to vote for her nomination, Representative Deb Haaland will be a wise, fair, and invaluable partner in this work.

Camille J. Gage is a Minneapolis based artist and writer.

Please note: This article was revised after Sen. Joe Manchin publicly announced his support for Rep. Haaland’s nomination.

Camille J Gage

This week Lisa Montgomery, Corey Johnson, and Dustin Higgs will be executed. All of their scheduled execution dates were moved up so the Trump administration could execute them before President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in. Biden has said he will suspend federal executions immediately upon taking office January 20. This story was originally published on December 10, 2020.

At 9:27 PM on December 10, 2020, Brandon Bernard was pronounced dead. After 20 years on death row and despite pleas to spare his life by both the original prosecutor and five surviving members of the jury that convicted him, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to grant a stay of execution. His story is heartbreaking and his execution a miscarriage of justice, but within his personal tragedy a larger issue looms: Why was the current administration so determined to execute him, as well as others on death row?

Federal executions are exceedingly rare and an informal moratorium on federal executions has been in place since 2003. But in July 2019 U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr announced federal executions would resume, and they have, with a vengeance.

Over the past 50 years there have been only twelve federally sanctioned executions, but of those, nine have happened over the past 18 months. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Trump will leave office as the most prolific execution president of the last 130 years. If all goes according to Bill Barr’s plan, Trump will leave office having executed 13 people in less than two years, nearly a quarter of all federal death row inmates. To accomplish this Barr has actually moved up the execution dates of three prisoners, an inhumane and unspeakable act of cruelty especially as an execution during the presidential lame duck period has not happened in over a century.*

Again, why? Why is this administration so determined to kill?

Donald Trump has always been an unusually vocal proponent of the death penalty, most famously in his very public call for the execution of the Central Park Five, all of whom were later exonerated. But despite their undeniable proof of innocence, Trump has always refused to back down, and as late as 2019 stated to reporters he would never apologize and that “You have people on both sides of that.”

It is not surprising then that Trump would support the death penalty as president, but the speed, scope, and sheer cruelty of these executions boggles the mind. Although not all of the prisoners executed by Trump/Barr have been white, the majority of those executed by the time he leaves office will be prisoners of color.

Both modern policing and the death penalty have always been inextricably linked to the history of slavery and lynching. “Slave Patrols,” created to apprehend runaway slaves, predate modern law enforcement, and legal executions were promised in a bid to discourage post-Civil War lynching and vigilante justice. While public opinion has slowly turned against the death penalty and 22 states have since banned its use as cruel and immoral, government sanctioned executions continue.

Since losing the election Trump’s rush to execute death row inmates has taken an even more ominous turn: on November 27th the administration widely expanded the methods through which a death penalty can be carried out. The federal government can now employ any method for execution including hanging, electrocution, gas or firing squad, an evocation of the era of lynching is both inhumane and obvious.

Will Trump end his presidency with the hanging of a Black prisoner? Whether or not this administration actually acts on its newly created ability to choose the method of execution, the reintroduction of extreme ways to control the bodies of Black and Brown persons has entered the collective consciousness.

I live exactly one mile from where Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd. We would do well to examine the relationship between Chauvin’s casually barbarous strangulation of an as yet uncharged Black man and this nation’s legacy of lynching, both extra-judicial and state-sanctioned. The answer to the looming question of “Why?” may be that these executions are being conducted as a proud and public exclamation that part of “Make America Great Again” is a modern-day return to the darkest era of our nation’s past.

Written in honor of Brandon Bernard, executed by the U.S. Government at the Federal Correctional Center in Terre Haute, Indiana on December 10, 2020.

* President-Elect Joe Biden has publicly stated he will discontinue federal executions. If Barr and Trump simply did nothing, these three prisoners would live. As death penalty activist Bryan Stevenson has repeatedly noted, “Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve done.”

Thank you to Dr. Charles Watson for a passionate and edifying discussion on these topics.

Camille J. Gage is a Minneapolis based artist and writer.

While watching federal paramilitaries assault protesters in Portland I was reminded of a similar time: the nation-wide rallies and marches against President Ronald Reagan’s devastating policies in Guatemala and other Central American countries.

In the 1980’s the Reagan administration circumvented Congress in order to provide military aid to the ruthless and illegitimate Guatemalan regime. During this deadly time tens of thousands of Guatemalan citizens were killed or “disappeared” by masked militias and death squads. The similarities to the anonymous enforcers in Portland sent a chill down my spine.

As Reagan’s administration ratcheted up military support, protests across the country grew larger and more boisterous. Then, as now, law enforcement would often hit back hard, at times brutalizing and beating peaceably assembled protesters.

In response Women Against Military Madness, a Minneapolis-based peace advocacy group, organized its membership to form a front line at future protests. We were to be a human buffer between the police and protesters, especially the young men whom were often the target of police violence. It was much like the contemporary Wall of Moms, although we did not wear an identifying color and there was no social media to amplify our efforts.

A protest was planned in downtown Minneapolis and though we were peaceful we practiced civil disobedience by occupying the street and blocking traffic. It wasn’t our first civil disobedience and the police were impatient and angry. As planned, the women created a front line, a human chain of non-violence resistance. The tension in the air was thick and alarming, a dark rage palpable.

Without warning officers began reaching past the line of women into the crowd and grabbing protesters who were catcalling, hauling them into the street and slamming them on to the ground to rough up, cuff, and arrest. I remember clearly how one of the young men lost his glasses as he was thrown down — they flew off his face due to the impact. Although I had protested before this was different. It was disturbing to see the visceral violence, unleashed and uncontrolled, up close.

All of the police in the line stood in the same stance, holding their batons in riot position, parallel to the ground, ready to hold back the un-moving line of protesters. The officers knew violence was happening right behind them, that their fellow officers were out of control, but none turned to look and no one tried to stop them.

I was standing next to a woman named Donna. We’d introduced ourselves as we took our positions at the beginning of the action. As we looked past the line of riot-geared officers to the beatings taking place in the street, we were frightened but resolute.

Suddenly the two officers directly across from me and Donna, took their batons and placed them slowly on the ground between us. Their message was clear: We will not participate in this violence. It was a powerful act of solidarity. We looked directly into each other’s eyes — a moment seared into my mind.

I long wondered how much grief they took for that simple act, how much abuse, perhaps even formal sanction. At that time, and in that moment, they were incredibly courageous. Some might argue that they should have tried to stop the violence happening behind them, but it would have come to no avail. Looking back I believe they did the most powerful and honest thing they could amidst the chaos and cacophony — and I will never, ever, forget them.

It bears noting as we discuss police reform and the need for more diversity in law enforcement that one officer was a woman, the other a Hispanic man.

I share this story as the nation watches anonymous federal paramilitaries brutalize protesters in Portland. I share this story because a Minneapolis police officer believed he could casually murder a Black man with no consequence. And I share this story because this corrupt administration will likely be sending more of these brutal enforcers into our communities, hoping to wreak havoc and division in the run-up to the 2020 election.

Community-based protests will continue, led by groups like Black Lives Matter and supported by the Wall of Moms, leaf blowing dads, military veterans, and others heading to the streets in solidarity.

The men and women who have taken an oath to protect and serve, or to defend our Constitution, have a choice to make: Will you participate in beatings, brutality and state sanctioned violence? Or will you stand with your fellow citizens as we march for equity, historical honesty, and the sanctity of Black and Brown lives?

It is always possible to put your weapons down.

Written in honor of Rep. John Lewis on the day of his funeral, July 30, 2020. He left us this message before his passing:

“Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.”

Camille Gage is an artist, writer and activist from Minneapolis, MN

Just as we are called on to unite against a deadly pandemic, there are those who would undermine progress that has taken over a century to achieve.

Chances are you’ve never really wondered how Mother’s Day came to be. The cynics among us might imagine a room full of crafty marketing men, cooking up a holiday tailor-made for commerce: flowers, chocolates, jewelry, and saccharine-sweet greeting cards. While it’s easy to imagine this genesis, in reality there was a real woman who inspired our national day of recognition for mothers, and her name was Ann Maria Reeves Jarvis.

Her life story is indeed a motivational tale that should inspire us all, as Ann Jarvis was both a loving mother and one of the nation’s first public health activists. It’s also especially relevant this Mother’s Day, as our nation fights to contain the Covid-19 virus.

The Jarvis family, like many families during the mid-1800's, experienced unimaginable tragedy. Ann Jarvis bore thirteen children but only four survived to adulthood. The other nine died of diseases such as measles, typhoid fever and diphtheria, epidemics that were common in the Appalachian communities where the Jarvis family resided. These losses inspired her to take action to help her community combat childhood diseases and unsanitary conditions.

Jarvis organized Mother’s Day Work Clubs to improve health and sanitation. She and other women joined the growing public health movement and sought to provide assistance and education to families, with the goal of reducing disease rates and infant mortality. Jarvis’s brother James Reeves, a physician who had combated the typhoid fever epidemics in northwestern Virginia, advised this grassroots public health effort.

During the Civil War years the Mothers’ Day Work Clubs declared neutrality and provided aid to both Confederate and Union soldiers. Under Jarvis’s guidance the clubs fed, clothed, and — when typhoid fever and measles broke out — nursed soldiers from both sides.

Jarvis advocated for literacy and public health throughout her life. Her daughter, Anna, was so inspired by her mother’s tireless efforts that she embarked on a mission to make Mother’s Day an officially recognized holiday. She succeeded when, in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed a congressional resolution making the second Sunday in May the national Mother’s Day.

As the coronavirus spreads like wildfire throughout the nation, Ann Jarvis’s story should come as an inspiration. It’s incumbent on all of us to remember the efforts of Jarvis, and others like her, who took on the public health challenges of the day and made a real difference in their communities.

Jarvis’s story also underscores how far we have come in eradicating childhood disease and improving public health. But just as our nation faces a new challenge, there are forces at play that would undermine progress that has taken over a century to achieve.

The Covid-19 pandemic is shining a bright light on a growing cohort of Americans who are science deniers, including many elected officials and our current president. These citizens ignore public health experts, doctors and scientists. They dismiss the warnings of experts and elected officials. In some cases they directly disobey orders to social distance, wear masks and comply with other mandated measures that slow the spread of this deadly virus. Even worse, some of them are also “anti-vaxxers” who have chosen not to vaccinate their children against the same diseases that killed the Jarvis children and so many others just a century ago. Many pledge to refuse the Covid-19 vaccine when it becomes available.

This misdirected movement is a direct and deadly threat to our nation’s public health.

Those using the Covid-19 global pandemic to promote science denial and a political agenda have forgotten the suffering of our ancestors and the efforts of public health pioneers like Ann Jarvis. Some of them are even calling for another civil war and extolling violence in communities already ravaged by fear and disease. These individuals believe our differences are more important than the ties that bind us. However, if we have learned nothing else in the battle against Covid-19, the pandemic has illustrated beyond a doubt that we are all interconnected in ways that cannot be denied.

Mother’s Day should remind us of the tireless efforts of our fore-mothers to save their fellow citizens from unspeakably painful deaths or disability due to communicable diseases like polio, diphtheria, or typhoid fever. It should inspire us to double down on our efforts to stop the spread of Covid-19, including standing up to those who deny science in the name of political gain.

So this Mother’s Day, honor Ann Jarvis’s memory — and moms and families everywhere — by taking this pandemic seriously. Stay home. Stay safe. Stay healthy. And speak up for science.

A special word of gratitude to Dr. Eve Switzer for her fearless advocacy on behalf of our children. She and other doctors, nurses, and public health professionals deserve our undying support.

Camille Gage is a Minneapolis-based artist and writer.

This article includes information from Wikipedia.

Three months ago one of my closest friends was hospitalized with a serious infection in her arm. Over the course of a few days doctors battled the infection with antibiotics and surgeries. Liz nearly lost her arm and faces months of rehabilitation to regain full use of her arm and hand. Guess what else she faces: $7,340 in co-pays for 2019, and $280 per 30 minute visit for rehab until she hits her 2020 deductible. She has been going once a week for three months, but no more. As Liz says, “Who can afford that? Not me. Even once a month, the cost is too outrageous.”

Liz and her husband are livestock farmers and she also works part time as a librarian in a rural Minnesota county. They cannot afford to pay for her rehab.

This could be any of us, or most of us. Most Americans do not have $500 in the bank for emergencies, much less an extra $10,000 sitting around.

Health care propelled Democratic victories in the 2018 midterm election, and should be the deciding factor in the 2020 election for Congress and for the presidency. Many lives, literally, depend on it.

Most of us are one accident, one illness, or one surgery away from bankruptcy and financial ruin. An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues. Further research shows that even though the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has helped more people gain coverage, it has not had a positive impact on financial difficulties caused by medical-related causes.

An analysis of the study published in the American Journal of Public Health states “…despite gains in coverage and access to care from the ACA, our findings suggest that it did not change the proportion of bankruptcies with medical causes.”

As another article put it, medical bankruptcy is killing the American middle class.

Change, however, is difficult, and people are rightfully leery of promised solutions without a price tag or a plan. Enter Elizabeth Warren’s first term plan for reducing health care costs in America and transitioning to universal coverage for all Americans.

Warren’s plan is detailed and has been vetted. It is palatable and promising to those who would trust and prefer an incremental approach.

I can’t blame people for being scared after all the fear mongering of the current administration, who have vowed to “repeal and replace” the ACA but in reality hope to repeal with no plan to replace. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the ACA in its entirety and, in keeping with their steady stream of lies on the topic, recently filed a brief asking the Court not to rule until after the 2020 elections. Why? Because they know damn well that 20 million people will lose their health insurance and voters will be rightfully furious. They also know that both Democrats AND Republicans like the ACA. A 2018 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 80 percent of Republicans like the ACA’s provision that lowers the cost of prescription drugs for those on Medicare, and 58 percent of Republicans like that it stopped insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.

So health care is a bipartisan issue with wide appeal, and Warren’s plan would appeal to those who fear losing their coverage or increased costs. Warren’s plan would cause no tax increase to the middle and working class. Her campaign recently asked Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics and a former advisor to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, to independently review her financing plan for expanding health care coverage to include all Americans. Here’s what Zandi had to say:

“(Warren’s) numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families…

“But once we start to consider the broader consequences of the totality of Warren’s plans, it’s incumbent we do so with regard to both her tax proposals but also the investments those taxes will fund. Based on my own analyses, Warren’s plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes. Criticism that Senator Warren’s Medicare for All plan can’t be paid for, at least not without putting a greater financial burden on lower- and middle-income Americans, is wrong.”

Zandi finished his assessment by stating that Warren has credibly laid our her vision. He was also very impressed that she “sought out the opinions of those who may disagree with her to provide independent validation of her numbers. That’s the kind of rigor we should expect from all of our presidential candidates.”

Agreed! If health care won the Democrats 40 seats in the 2018 midterms it can also win us the presidency. I’m sure glad there’s a plan for that.

P.S. Liz’s ‘nevertheless she persisted’ tattoo was done by Minneapolis tattoo artist Emily Snow. Snow was inspired by Mitch McConnell’s attempted take-down of Warren to create a tattoo event which raised funds for Women Winning, a statewide movement and one of Minnesota’s most influential women’s political organizations. Hundreds of women showed up to get the tattoo, including yours truly.

P.S.S. I also trust Warren to work with unions and other stakeholders on health care and other issues. She is a uniter, a consensus builder and a team player!

Camille Gage is a Minneapolis artist and writer.

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert recently debuted a new segment: Fury Road to the White House 2020. The segment opens with a montage of short clips from the Mad Max: Fury Road movie, with the heads of top 2020 Democratic contenders edited on to the bodies of the movies principal characters. Elizabeth Warren is shown as Imperator Furiosa — a perfect metaphor for where we, and she, find ourselves now.

For those unfamiliar: Fury Road takes place in a post-apocalyptic, nearly waterless desert, where the villain Immortan Joe wields power over all. He rules over the Citadel, one of the only places with a source of fresh water. Joe uses access to water along with blunt cruelty to intimidate and control. In his lair, he has imprisoned five women, ‘wives’ who must bear his children.

Imperator Furiosa is one Joe’s commanders, but her fealty is feigned. The movie takes off as the sly Furiosa, a one-armed force of nature, executes a daring plan to rescue the women and escape the Citadel.

Late Night’s Fury Road to the White House 2020 is an extremely funny and clever bit and the ‘casting’ of Elizabeth Warren as Furiosa struck me as incredibly ri,ght on.

The 2020 campaign has been challenging for all Democratics, but much more so for Warren and the other female candidates. Haunted by the specter of 2016, many voters are now afraid to even consider the possibility of a female president. The shroud of electability blinds many to the possibility of women in power and to the excellent vision and qualifications a candidate like Elizabeth Warren would bring to the office. A woman running for president continues to have an automatic disadvantage; like Furiosa she is handicapped, one arm tied behind her back. And that is damn sad for the year 2020.

But also like Furiosa, Warren refuses to give up despite the sand getting kicked in her face every day. Her third place finish in Iowa barely warranted notice as pundits breathlessly covered Buttigieg’s win; indeed, MSNBC and CNN didn’t broadcast Warren’s speech in real time, opting instead to show Joe Biden — the 4th place finisher — instead. Her New Hampshire results were disappointing, but it’s barely mentioned that Warren remains in 3rd place in terms of delegates awarded. Why has the media all but written her out?

With Iowa and New Hampshire under our belts we have now heard from a whopping 1.4% of the electorate in mostly white states. Hardly a tipping point or an accurate indicator of the choice of voters nationwide. Why is the media chomping at the bit to shut this race down? And even more important: why are we listening to them?

Buttigieg faces a very uncertain future in states with a high percentage of voters of color. Klobuchar is at 7th place in averaged Nevada polls. Sanders is just starting to be vetted and unviable candidates continue to drop out, leaving their supporters with a choice to make.

Warren refuses to be written out of the race. She continues to do the work, day in, day out, nose to the grindstone with plans in hand. She will fight to the finish because that’s what winners do — just look at SuperBowl 2020 and the surprising 4th quarter comeback of the Kansas City Chiefs.

In the end, Mad Max: Fury Road is about women never giving up, even in the face of soul crushing odds. Near the end of the movie Furiosa discovers that the ‘Green Place’ she’d hoped to escape to with the women is no longer habitable. After a moment’s deep grief she revises her plan and decides to return to the Citadel and take on Immortan Joe. She is aided by the Vuvalini, a group of older women who escaped capture and live hidden in the desert. Against impossible odds Furiosa and her team vanquish Joe and distribute water to the people living in the Citadel. In the final scene the people adopt Furiosa as their new leader.

In a recent interview Warren was asked, what if she doesn’t win? What will all her persistence and hard work mean without results? Warren answered:

“Look,” Warren begins. She is quiet for a long moment, leaning forward in her plastic chair with the intensity of someone who wants to make sure she gets this right. “We have to show that we’re willing to take the risk,” she says slowly. “Because if we’re not, then women will never win.”

Post Script: Mad Max: Fury Road received ten nominations at the 88th Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director for Miller, and Best Visual Effects. It went on to win the most awards at the ceremony, with six, including Best Film Editing, Best Production Design, and Best Costume Design.

Camille J. Gage is a Minneapolis artist and writer.