Opinion editor's note: Published in Star Tribune Opinion letter We hear from readers online and in print every day.Click to contribute here.
•••
The editorial “National Groups Come Together to Stand with Ukraine” (April 12) outlines a number of important reasons why the United States must support Ukraine in its efforts to repel Russian aggression. Critical aid has been withheld in the House of Representatives for months as the death toll of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians mounts. House Speaker Mike Johnson declined to bring the bipartisan aid package passed by the Senate to the floor for a vote. He fears angering former President Donald Trump and losing his role as chairman, but this isn't just a Trump-Johnson debacle.
There are four Republicans in Minnesota. If you go to the websites of Reps. Tom Emmer, Brad Finstad, Michelle Fischbach, and Pete Stover, you won't find much about Ukraine. What position do they have in Ukraine now? Did they take a stand with Chairman Johnson? Do they have a strict isolationist attitude? Or are we just waiting for President Trump to tell us how to vote?
Ukraine is under siege and all you can hear from Minnesota's Republican delegation is the sound of crickets.
I ask Emmer, Finstad, Fischbach, and Stauber to express their views in an opinion piece submitted to the Star Tribune. Residents of Minnesota (and Ukraine) deserve no less.
Phil George, Lakeville
knock
Why special treatment?
I'm all for making swatting a felony (“False 911 Calls Could Soon Be a Felony,” April 10), but why only public servants? said state Assembly Minority Leader Lisa Demuth.[Swatting] It puts first responders at risk. Anyone who may be in that home is at risk. ” These statements are true whether the target is a public servant or not.
In the United States, everyone is equal before the law. The proposed law treats some citizens as more important than others. It says, “It's okay to bash ordinary citizens, but you should stop bashing people who work for the government.''
James Blunt, New Brighton
surveillance bill
Another cheap excuse
The repeal of the proposed extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reaffirms how right-wing Republicans and former president and current candidate Donald Trump are acting against the American people for their own political purposes. (“Surveillance bill fails in House,” April 11).
The article states, “Under Section 702, the government is authorized to collect the messages of noncitizens abroad without a warrant, even if the subjects are communicating with Americans.” Right-wing Republicans have teamed up with Democrats to remove capabilities that “national security officials say are critical to gathering intelligence and combating terrorism…”
Republicans opposed this narrow extension of Section 702 because they “want a more fundamental overhaul of FISA that would significantly limit the government's spying powers.” They did so by voting against the extension and adding a procedural argument that “condemns President Joe Biden's border policies.” However, it will only ensure that Democratic lawmakers do not vote to advance this policy.
President Trump opposed this narrow extension, apparently incorrectly saying he was concerned about “another section of FISA that targets American citizens and domestic persons in national security investigations.” This section allowed the FBI to obtain “wiretap orders against former campaign advisers for the 2016 campaign as part of the Russia investigation.”
Both right-wing Republicans and Trump reject this extension for reasons that have nothing to do with Section 702 or America's national security, and everything to do with their political objectives. It is un-American to advance political objectives at the expense of protecting Americans from terrorism.
Elaine Frankowski, Minneapolis
higher education
Combine the state's two systems
In a Friday briefing session, University of Minnesota Board of Regents leaders implored support for the university's legislative funding request (“Why should we, as regents, approve the university's funding request? (April 12) Early in my career, I worked in higher education administration, first at the state university system and then at the University of Minnesota. I recall that in the 1980s and early '90s, leaders of both organizations lamented the lack of funding and dwindling state funding for the same needs.
As a college graduate (late '60s), I have characterized pre-1970s higher education funding as one of the few national expenditures that primarily benefited the middle class. You can earn a college degree at an affordable cost and graduate debt-free. I remember attending a class on managing the National Defense Student Loan Program. This and work/study programs were the main sources of financial aid at the time. In the late 70s and early 80s, Congress decided to fund students rather than institutions, leading to funding for financial aid programs and allowing tuition to cover the bulk of higher education funding. became. As a result, the cost of higher education has exceeded the rise in health care costs in recent years.
Minnesota has two “systems” of higher education that compete for state funding. It is the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State University, which includes state universities, community colleges, and vocational/technical schools. Combining these programs would allow Minnesota to more effectively utilize the funding provided to higher education. Administrative costs could certainly be reduced, but the most valuable benefits would come from more effective leadership in the delivery of postsecondary education.
Demographic trends show that enrollment in traditional higher education is declining. Additionally, the cost-benefit analysis of non-professional academic higher education leads many to pursue professional career opportunities. The current structure of higher education in Minnesota does not adequately prepare students and higher education institutions for this shift in momentum.
The problem of lack of funding must be seen as an opportunity. Higher education systems must combine to make better and more effective use of available state funding.
Nick Lafontaine, Litchfield
comstock law
Ban porn? abortion? Yes, please.
The Star Tribune Editorial Board wants to repeal the Comstock Act because it could be used to restrict abortion (“Ending the 'zombie' Comstock Act,” editorial, April 7 Day). One law professor wants to strike down this law because it could limit people's ability to “happily” view porn on the internet (“they'll come to internet porn next”) Opinion Exchange, April 9). As a pastor who has seen the damage that abortion and pornography do to women, men, marriages, and children, I am happy to see legislation restricting abortion and pornography.
Tom Block, Minneapolis
eclipse
sweet and wonderful story
I have to say I loved all of Steve Yeager's comments in the opinion section about his adventure to Texas with his son to share his eclipse sightings (“What we saw at the eclipse” “April 12). It includes descriptions of the different groups of people and where they were, from the different fun and topic-related foods they brought (moon pies, sun chips) to the Corona beer they enjoyed after the experience. Sharing this eclipse made me feel like I was almost there.
Thank you for the well explained experience.
Yeager should be recognized for being a wonderful, interactive and caring father who takes time with his son on this trip. What was even cooler was taking a photo of his son in the bluebonnet field and sending it to his wife. A wonderful memory for everyone to look back on.
I hope Jaeger can see his son in the next pair of eclipse glasses.
Deb Schaffgen, Maple Grove
