MSM Rejections V

June 27

Regarding “Public Workers – There’s no debating their economic impact” (StarTribune letter, Jun 27), please permit me that debate. The writer stated, “There is no net GDP gain when you forcibly take a dollar out of the community in the form of a salary for a government workers vs. a voluntary exchange when someone freely gives a dollar to purchase an item the buyer perceives is of more value [the writer uses Apple products as an example] than the dollar in his pocket.” The “forcibly take” is disturbing because this is a democracy – would the writer prefer another form of government?

But to the central premise, there would be no Apple absent government (and its employees). The government defines and protects private property. The government provides the copyright and trademark patents for private companies and their products and provides the legal system if there are issues in that regard. The government provides the infrastructure – i.e., roads, waterways, airports, ports, bridges, dams, et al – necessary for the conduct of private business. The government provides security for all, and secure sea lanes for such as Apple to send material and product to and from China. The government invented much of the technology used by companies such as Apple. The government provides the system that educates those who become employees of such as Apple. Well, the list is endless – water and sewage treatment, weather forecasting, institutes of health, food inspection . . .

So, the next time you see, for example, a teacher – thank them. Really, they should not be thankful to work for us at low pay with no benefits. We shall overcome the Wisconsin-syndrome.

June 24

Jason Lewis may have reached a previously unattainable level in his Dungeons & Dragons trek through life by somehow equating voter ID laws and stripping (StarTribune, June 23). Surely, even Mr. Lewis must understand that voting is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States . . . and stripping is merely a method for discarding clothes prior to bathing? And I presume because of his political proclivities Mr. Lewis would consider himself a strict constructionist. If so, he must also then be aware there is nothing in the Constitution that requires a photo ID to exercise your franchise.

So, once again the photo ID issue stumbles back to voter suppression – as much as Mr. Lewis and the Republican Party may protest otherwise. I’m pretty sure they would rather not have a fly-on-the-wall while they’re holding “private” discussions on the matter.

Oh, and it would really be a thoughtful gesture if someone from Mr. Lewis’s side would thank President Obama for lowering gas prices.

June 18

A letter writer asked (StarTribune, June 18) why “he” should have to pay for contraceptives for people to have recreational sex. This issue is always raised by a “he.” And, of course, the short answer always is why should we have to pay for “his” (in the generic sense) erectile dysfunction medications for “his” recreational sex?

The writer seems mostly concerned with the cost of contraception – “his” cost. Well, a simple Google search can produce a variety of health issues resolved (at least to some degree) through contraception. Contraception is useful tool in the fight against STD’s. The treatment of somebody else’s STD’s is also paid for by the writer’s health insurance – at a cost undoubtedly far greater than preventive contraception. Unwanted pregnancies? Major dineros here! From taxpayer funded education or incarceration (as unfortunately can be the path for an unwanted child) to health care, food, and lodging assistance. Contraception not only prevents unwanted pregnancies, it’s a heckuva lot cheaper. Think of contraception as a deficit reduction tool.

Contraception involves dual responsibilities. In far too many instances, the sire in an unwanted pregnancy situation never becomes the father. And single mothers are forced to bear the economic and emotional costs of child rearing on their own. Absent affordable and available day care, the potential for the mother to produce income for life’s needs becomes onerous.

Finally, when we think of things we should help fund only if it involves us directly, I would prefer to not pay that portion of my health insurance payments that support treatment for those who smoked their whole lives, who contracted diabetes through bad eating and health habits, who didn’t wear their seat belts, and that portion of my federal taxes that support Interstates 37 and 44, two highways, to my recollection, upon which I have never driven.

May 23

Once again the people who do such things have made a list of the top high schools in the United States . . . and once again it appears that Minnesota does not have a school in the top two million? I’ve always found this strange because there are other people who make other lists that show, for as long as I can remember, Minnesota is always in the top five (or better) for statewide academic achievement? How do we do this with such crappy high schools? And the states we generally think of as being educationally challenged invariably have dozens of highly rated individual high schools? My only explanation, with due deference to Church Lady, is that it must be because of . . . Satan!

May 6

I would like to thank Katherine Kersten (StarTribune, May 6, 2012) for correcting the long held misconception that institutions of higher learning, and thus by definition where smart people hang out, are bastions of liberalism. Thanks to Ms. Kersten we now know the smart people are actually conservative.

From a personal standpoint, I now have to wonder how I navigated through the ‘U’ without succumbing to its conservative indoctrination. After graduation, I was able to pay off my student loans in a couple of years, rather than the couple of decades it takes now – do you suppose that has anything to do with it? As an intolerant, ill-informed liberal, I can only make an uneducated guess.

March 18

Representative Mary Franson claims she is not naïve (StarTribune, March 18). Unfortunately, the facts say otherwise.

Last week, Alexandria high school students held a fundraiser for the local food shelf and to raise awareness about poverty. Thank goodness for students! Each table included a placard with the following information: 12 per cent of people (over 4,000) in Douglas County are living in poverty; one out of every 10 children are living in poverty; the average cost of raising a single child is twice the poverty line; cash assistance to impoverished families has not changed in 14 years; the ratio of job seekers to job openings is 3 to 1; the food shelf usage has increased 45 per cent in the past year; if one parent stays home the other parent would need to make $14.38 per hour to meet basic family needs – very few jobs pay that much; and 73 per cent of mothers with children are currently in the work force.

And yet Ms. Franson, still playing the victim of her own words on the subject, and her Republican colleagues in the legislature look upon these people as welfare cheats, ne’er-do-wells, and those who would rather collect a government check than work. It defines the major difference between the parties today. Republicans always view their fellow citizens in a most negative light, forever questioning non-existent motives. They have proposed that anyone making $10.90 per hour (or $22,000 per year, assuming it was a full-time job) would not qualify for assistance. If such a person wanted health insurance, their effective annual income would be cut in half. $11,000 for food, lodging, clothing, transportation, taxes . . .? Que sera, sera?

March 8

A March 8 writer to the StarTribune is concerned about paying, through insurance premiums, for someone else to have safe, contraceptive sex. As we all know now, Rush Limbaugh shares that concern.

[Lisa Brown, Michigan state representative, is fighting back against these louts!]

Absent contraception, a sexual encounter can lead to . . . unplanned parenthood! If there is one thing all people can agree upon it is that unplanned parenthood is not a good thing. And why? For purposes of this discussion, it’s costly. Each unplanned pregnancy will cost all of us thousands of times more – for health insurance, for education, etc., etc. – than for contraception that would have prevented it. It is an economic winner to provide contraception to anyone who wants it for as little cost as possible.

It’s interesting that the right has gone into total conniption over insurance coverage for women’s contraception – yet we’ve never heard a peep about insurance coverage for erectile dysfunction. With the right’s total obsession with sex, you’d think someone would have recognized the dichotomy of promoting sexual activity on the male side while condemning it for women? Besides, isn’t it also interesting – or bizarre – that Viagra is covered by insurance, and eyeglasses, hearing aids, and dental work aren’t?

The writer also made an issue as to whether contraception should even be considered a health issue. The basis for that perception is that having sex is a conscious decision on the part of the participants – and they can always opt not to. But you can say the same thing about any medication – if you choose to smoke, why should I have to pay extra insurance costs to cover your health care; if you choose to over eat, why should I have to help defray your costs for medicating hypertension, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes; if you choose to go sky diving, why should I have to help to pay for any injuries you may incur doing so? Oh, and the birth control pill – it has several health care applications beyond just contraception.

February 1

Regarding the recent hue and cry among legislatures to end teacher seniority, one has to ask if they are willing to apply those same standards to themselves?

It appears the goal is to return to the “spoils system,” where all government employment is based on the whims of the power of the moment. If government has to “start over” after each election, that would create societal chaos. Apparently some people think that would be a good idea.

April 15, 2004

[An oldie recently re-discovered mothballed in a orange marmalade jar.]

I’m sure all Democrats were relieved to discover that William Bennett (Tribune, April 15) is concerned about the direction of our party. Unfortunately, Mr. Bennett’s understanding of what the party actually stands for could use a little tweaking.

I’m not sure if I know a single Democrat who has turned his/her back on “the muscular defense of America.” I know it comes as a total shock to someone of Mr. Bennett’s persuasion, but, believe it or not, Democrats are also pretty much committed to the idea of protecting their own lives and the lives of their families. (It is incomprehensible how so many on the right find that so hard to . . . well, comprehend?) What we mostly disagree with, however, is that the war in Iraq was in defense of America. We were not attacked by Iraq – Iraq is 7,000 miles away with one-tenth the population, less than one-hundredth the military budget, and with a leader mostly interested in building palaces to himself and writing romance novels. Iraq was not a military threat to this country.

As to Mr. Bennett’s idea of what constitutes “the promotion of democracy abroad,” I think most Democrats would prefer that such promotion not be done at the point of a gun. Democracy at the point of a gun seems somehow . . . undemocratic, don’t you think? I think most Democrats would prefer that the principles of democracy be espoused in a much more benevolent manner.

Before We Go

When we were in Indiana last month for the grandson’s high school graduation, the biggest story in the state for the entire week was about the valedictorian in Frankfort (whose school nickname is, no joke, the Hotdogs). The concern was that the valedictorian may not make it back in time for her graduation because she was trapped in a foreign country – Mexico, the country of her birth. It seems that if you are not a citizen of this country, you must return the country of your birth by your 18th birthday to renew your visa. This young lady has lived in Frankfort since she was 4 years old. Frankfort is the only home she knows. But she had to participate in this legal requirement and, as usual, these things never go as planned. So the weeklong watch was on – would she make it home on time? Great minds and resources went into action, and . . . she made it! The state breathed a sigh of relief. So even in conservative Indiana, the question is – why isn’t this young woman already a citizen?