Minnesota House passes controversial ‘Trans Refuge Act’
In the pre-dawn hours of yesterday morning, after a contentious, marathon debate on the House floor, the lower chamber passed HF 146, marketed as the “Trans Refuge Act.” In the…
We’ve got mail!
I didn’t find any letters in the latest issue. What is the reason? No letters received? Not enough space due to more pressing topics? Hidden so I can’t find them? Or?
I find the letters interesting. I guess I should get off my soapbox and contribute some letters.Ron Wood
Rules of the game
In the Thinking Minnesota Poll we learn that about two-thirds of voters would support a three strikes law for violent crimes committed with a firearm. This three strikes notion is fundamentally flawed. Everyone on the planet knows these crimes are wrong; why would anyone need to be reminded of that, three times?
Three strikes is a baseball analogy, and in baseball, the player needs three strikes because if he had only one there would hardly ever be any base runners. Scores would be painfully low, games would be very short duration, and the game wouldn’t be very interesting. Given three strikes the player has a much better chance of succeeding at what he is trying to do, which is get to first base and then maybe steal second.
If we gave the criminal only one strike his game would also be of short duration but given three strikes, like the baseball player, he has a much better chance of succeeding at what he is trying to do and when he gets to first, you know for sure he will steal second.
In the final analysis we know that a high percentage of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. That alone should tell us that three strikes for criminals is a bad idea. We don’t need a three-strike law we need a one strike law. One strike — game over — final score: Justice 1; Criminal 0.Earl Faulkner, Sr.
Polling the opposite
I’m reading your fall edition, specifically the polls about how voters feel and if they are optimistic about the future of Minnesota, among other things.
I have a question, about a future poll. I can’t understand why — if they feel the country and the state are not going in the right direction — then why do the voters continue to vote for the same politicians, the same policies, etc. that are taking the country and state in a direction they do not like?
I would love to see the answers to that.Wayne Cassibo
Thanks for convincing Ron and John to agree to your vision of a magazine, and for delivering so well on your promise. Thinking Minnesota is well-thought, well-written, and very well-designed. It delivers.
You’ve earned your retirement and here’s trusting that you and your wife can make good mischief together.
I’ll look forward to Jenna Stocker carrying on your collective vision through the pages of TM. I must, however, take issue with your paean to Benjamin Franklin’s successful medium. He would never have thanked the chairman for “loaning” his column. The proper verb is to lend. No more “thumb-sucking” contemporarily convenient language, please.
But I will happily keep reading quarterly and enjoying TM’s refreshing professionalism while you enjoy your marital mischief.John Ehlert
Sarasota, FL (Edina & Emily, MN in summer)
I wanted to thank John Phelan for writing this article, one of the best overall I have seen on my dad. Accurate and fair are two words I have not used often when describing something I have read about him, so I wanted to just express my appreciation.Todd C. Stenvig Shoreview, MN