Readers Write: American missiles in Ukraine, voter turnout, representing Minnesota, columnists

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

So how does President Joe Biden react after being told “No” by the Pentagon in October after he expressed his desire to authorize use of American missiles in Ukraine, and after being told unequivocally by Russian President Vladimir Putin that this would be an act of war? Without any debate in Congress or public debate, Biden made a personal decision to authorize their use despite warnings (“U.S. approval affects Ukraine’s use of a missile and its mission,” column, Nov. 21). A selfish and dangerous act on all counts. So guess what folks, we now have the beginnings of World War 3 with Russia. How well will this turn out for us? This is most likely a last-minute effort by Biden to save face for himself as he leaves office, as he has been largely responsible for all the death and suffering in Ukraine and elsewhere in the world.

Barry Riesch, St. Paul

•••

Biden, whom I once voted for, has authorized the use of U.S.-produced long-range missiles to be fired into Russia. I wonder if this administration thinks that this type of action will cause Russia, China, North Korea and Iran (now aligned) to back down and concede to U.S. demands? None of the leaders of those countries want to lose face and so my fear is they will retaliate, possibly with nuclear weapons. Additionally, as we have learned from history, missiles don’t always hit their targets, resulting in collateral damage — meaning innocent civilians too often pay with their lives, causing deeper divides between nations. This is not a red or blue issue because it involves everyone in this country, not to mention the citizens of other countries. Our tax dollars paid for the bombs that are being deployed overseas. Is this OK with most Americans? Why are military means seen as a solution to international disagreements and problems? We are playing with fire here. The highest and wisest spiritual masters throughout history have warned us that violence is never the answer. As Pete Seeger posed, “When will we ever learn?”

Ginger Beck, Glenwood, Minn.

John Crea’s article on our civic duty is right on the mark (“We still need better voter turnout. Here are three suggestions,” Strib Voices, Nov. 21). Election Day should be a federal holiday. In most countries, federal elections are held on Sundays, when most businesses are closed. Personally, I would rather not mix government and religion in any way, so I prefer making the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November a federal holiday for voting. Besides, everybody likes a holiday — even business owners, as long as they can blame the government for cutting into profits.

I have not experienced ranked-choice voting, but I understand the concept. I think Crea is giving modern politicians far too much credit to think they’ll abandon attack ads, especially as their strategists and ad agencies would have less work and the campaign may have to really explain what their candidate thinks. (Do they think?) All that aside, I’d give it a shot.

And then there are primaries. What in George Washington’s name is the state doing running primary elections for the political parties? It serves no useful purpose except to gather the names of people who lean toward one party or another; names that the parties can then use for fundraising, volunteers and lawn signs. And doing it on the public’s dime! If the parties want to spend their own money running a primary, they certainly can. And they can weigh the value of pointless precinct caucuses against gathering the names of suckers by holding a pointless vote. (What? You thought the parties hadn’t already decided the platform before the caucuses?)

In summary, yes, let’s have a national holiday for Election Day. Yes, let’s give RCV a try, at least for state and local elections. And YES! Let’s stop subsidizing the name-gathering for political parties through publicly funded primaries.

Daniel Beckfield, New Brighton

I agree with the reader questioning the authenticity of the Star Tribune representing all of Minnesota (“All of Minnesota? Yeah, right,” Strib Voices, Nov. 20). To represent all of Minnesota means representing both liberal and conservative viewpoints in the news. Just reading the “news” section of the newspaper, I know exactly the political views of the Star Tribune’s editors. Just one example: Recreational cannabis was rejected in three states this past general election. The Star Tribune’s editors decided not to mention this in the newspaper. However, they have hired a cannabis editor, and I’m sure if recreational cannabis were approved in any of those three states (South Dakota, North Dakota and Florida), the Star Tribune would have highlighted those results in the newspaper. Another example, it would be interesting to do a word search and determine how many times the words “far-right” and “far-left” are used in the Star Tribune’s news articles. To me, “far” is a subjective term that shouldn’t be used in “impartial” news articles. I’m guessing the news articles that the Star Tribune decides to run use “far-right” at a 10-1 ratio over “far-left.” With Minnesota and the country becoming more polarized politically, mainly because people are moving to areas where they feel comfortable living, it would be great if Star Tribune editors would put their biases aside and champion a society that could actually understand the views and values of both liberals and conservatives. That’s how we’re going to truly move this country forward.

Pat Smith, Minneapolis

•••

A letter writer made a claim, apparently based on typical social media misinformation, that Kamala Harris’ campaign paid for celebrity endorsements. Her campaign paid some expenses that are standard for appearances. The writer’s claim has been examined by FactCheck.org. It’s false.

Jim Bartos, Maple Grove

•••

I have been a loyal subscriber to the Star Tribune for 52 years but have elected not to renew my subscription. I agree with the writer of “All of Minnesota? Yeah, right.” Your reprinting of hit pieces on the president-elect by the AP, Washington Post, and New York Times over the past six months is beyond the pale.

Thomas M. McGreevy, Maplewood

•••

A letter writer from Silver Bay wants more conservative writers on the staff of the Star Tribune, while also accusing the Harris campaign of paying for celebrity endorsements. There is no factual evidence of this, and of course the writer just offers that tidbit. Meanwhile, the double standard is that it’s OK for Donald Trump to use a private jet, but God forbid Harris use one! I’m guessing this is the style of journalism this reader wants? As a reader of the Star Tribune, I have found negligence in their reporting, along with that of other major news sources: of not telling us how well the United States has done, that we rebounded after a worldwide pandemic quicker than any other country, etc. If every news outlet had chronicled the steps that brought this country back from high inflation, poor jobs, among other factors, all of us would have a better sense of how lucky we are. Of course, most media outlets chose sensationalist news over our weary trek back from a near-recession. We need to be more informed on things that matter in our daily lives. Not the petty musings of a president-elect who seems intent on giving the wealthy even more tax breaks. If the news outlets just focused on Americans’ daily lives and struggles as opposed to giving airtime to a misogynistic narcissist, we would all be better off. However, wealthy people own the news outlets, so who am I kidding?

Rocky Olson, Minneapolis

Kudos to Jill Burcum for her columns on Trump’s Cabinet nominations and immigration issues that will impact Minnesota (“Minnesota may land on deportation front lines,” Nov. 17 and “Release House ethics report on Matt Gaetz,” Nov. 20).

Kristin O. Rao, Olney, Md.