Readers Write: Replacing the national anthem, bike lanes, paying college athletes

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

•••

Mark Bradley’s opinion piece about our national anthem did an excellent job of making the case for replacing “The Star-Spangled Banner” with “America the Beautiful.” This is a good moment in our history to do it (“O say why should you even have to try to sing ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’?” Strib Voices, July 9).

Do you believe we need to make America great again? Do you believe America already is great? Either way, a vision of what great means for America is important. “America the Beautiful” speaks poetically about what has constituted the original vision of America. Its lyrics sing not just of its physical beauty but, more important, the beauty of the ideas embedded in our Constitution. The poetry helps us remember and unite us.

The anthem made official in 1931 does not sing of that. It focuses on the flag, not the Constitution and the ideals embedded in it. On battle. Rockets and bombs. On there being no refuge for the hireling and slave from terror and gloom. It’s set to an English tune intentioned comedically unsingable by drunks. None of these inspire a guiding vision of a good and great America.

Our political discourse seems focused on what’s wrong with America. We could use a national anthem that shines a light on what is right about America. “America the Beautiful” does that every time it is sung. It recalls our shared ideals to a singable tune. It’s uniting. It’s bipartisan. It sings our values to the world. It’s everything a national anthem should be.

Let’s tell our representatives in Washington it’s time to make it so.

Robert Sykes, Hopkins

•••

To anyone who feels “The Star-Spangled Banner” should be replaced as our national anthem by “America the Beautiful,” you need to listen to a narrative rendition by Mona Rose of what the song really means. If after listening to that in its entirety — it is around 10 minutes long — you still feel that way, then you at least have had the chance to understand what our national anthem is really about.

David Corbett, St. Michael

•••

I love “The Star-Spangled Banner” and sing it every chance I get, but I’ve noticed that most Americans don’t. I think that Bradley missed this very important phenomenon in his recent piece. Unfortunately, the anthem has become a performance piece for famous musical artists to show their love of country and also boost their careers. The arrangements and performances, I think, often inadvertently discourage people from participating and say more about the singer than about the purpose of the singing. The contrast couldn’t have been any more stark than during last month’s Stanley Cup Finals.

In Sunrise, Fla., the singer gave a very nice rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner” and the crowd either listened or muddled along, lip-syncing the words and adding a nice cheer at the end. But compare that with the games in Edmonton, Alberta. Robert Clark, a perfectly capable tenor, merely cued the crowd and the thousands of Oilers fans blew the roof off of Rogers Place with a stirring, chills-up-your-spine rendition of my second favorite anthem, “O Canada.” So the next time you’re at your favorite venue and you hear that snare drum roll, stand up, cover your heart, take a deep breathe and sing it — sing your national anthem with pride.

Jeffrey Wells, Minneapolis

Monday’s unbalanced letter to the editor “Are Minneapolis’ investments losing their balance?” on bike infrastructure cries out for a response. One of our most onerous financial responsibilities — and one that remains invisible and undiscussed — is the public cost of the automobile. Sure, auto owners pay sales tax on their vehicles and gasoline, and buy tabs, but this only covers about 60% of the cost, which totals about $689,000 in the life of the car. The rest, $275,000, is borne by the taxpayer, even those who are carless (this was reported in Forbes).

If we are to be fans of the automobile, at the very least let us also be fans of usage fees that cover the enormous public responsibility. Which is to say, let’s increase auto sales tax, tab fees and gas tax to cover the $275,000 deficit. Let’s also acknowledge this won’t speak to other troubles: air pollution, climate disturbance and micro particles from tires. A change like this would have aesthetic implications, as well. The city built around foot and bike traffic is more attractive and humane. Contrast, for example, the pedestrian delights of Paris with the bituminous nightmare of Las Vegas — or Boston vs. Phoenix, or San Francisco vs. Dallas. We have a choice to have Minneapolis “lean” toward the former. Let’s build non-auto infrastructure and have Minneapolis become even more beautiful.

Joe Kendrick and Mary Ford, Minneapolis

•••

A recent letter writer offered his opinion that investment in bike lanes and off-street bike trails should be reconsidered. Let me explain why the writer is off in his assessment. He complains that ridership is down. Why is that? Is that because our blithe acceptance of our complete addiction to cars feels normal? Any minimally informed citizen understands that our heavy reliance on cars is having a devastating impact on our planet, as well as our health. And with our political “leaders” going 180 degrees in the wrong direction, we must look in the mirror and ask ourselves what we can do, personally.

Yes, some people cannot commute to their jobs by bicycle. But where can you reduce your use of that car? I commute from Minneapolis to the east side of St. Paul for my job, 12 miles each way. Twice a week in fall, winter and spring I’m on my bike. It takes a bit of time, some preparation and a certain dedication, but it is what I can do to make a small difference.

The writer accuses cyclists of ignoring traffic signals and implies that this is the reason for many bike-auto collisions. Yes, some bikers are disrespectful in their habits in traffic, and that is regrettable. But I cannot tell you how many times I have stood and straddled my bike at an intersection, watched my red light turn to green, and then have a 1- to 2-ton auto roar through the intersection against the red light a few feet from me in the very space that I have the current lawful right to occupy. Sadly, this is not uncommon. Bicycle/car interactions never, ever end well for the bicyclist.

You don’t have to be a bike fanatic to make a difference. Start small. Going to the grocery store 2 miles away? Ride your bike. Meeting friends for coffee a mile away? Ride your bike. Your body and your planet will thank you, and you will sleep much better.

Thomas Kendrick, Minneapolis

Chip Scoggins’ description of how the millions of dollars generated by Division I athletics is to be distributed to college athletic programs nationwide was missing one reference: the fact that paying college athletes to play football, basketball and hockey is nothing more than providing farm clubs for the NFL, NBA and NHL (“New system to pay out $20.5M to U athletes,” July 11). And what ought to be a disturbing aspect of this system is this: Those professional sports programs are paying not one single dime for developing these athletes from which they will eventually pick their players on draft days down the road.

The universities (and often taxpayers) provide the stadiums, the posh living quarters, the coaching staffs and now income to the semipro, scholarship players who already are receiving a free college education, often with free room and board. Noticeable also in Scoggins’ report was the absence of payment going to players in the baseball program at the University of Minnesota. Is that because Major League Baseball already has its own funded, semipro farm system for this sport? Now those who frequent football, basketball and hockey at our state’s largest Division I university can enjoy watching what many have recognized all along: farm clubs for professional sports.

Bob Statz, Onamia, Minn.