Readers Write: Trump’s military parade, 3.2 beer, the arts

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

•••

Since 1993 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (paid for by private donations) has sponsored the “In Memory” program for those who served in the war and died later due in some part to their service. My late partner is one of this year’s inductees. It always occurs on Father’s Day weekend and this year the “In Memory” inductee program has been scheduled for June 14 for over a year. It takes place on the Washington Mall and families and friends (as of now, over 3,000) of this year’s inductees are invited and attend the ceremony. The name of each of the 2024 inductees will be read aloud by one of those family members. This involves months and months of planning and work on the part of the staff of the VVMF. Hotels, shuttles, coordinating information and schedules with those visitors, preparation of materials, etc., are parts of that work.

With only a month’s notice, and clearly no contact with nor consideration for any of the veteran memorials on the Washington Mall, President Donald Trump has decided to have a costly military parade on the same date that will likely go by the Vietnam Memorial (“Military parade to be held in D.C. on Trump’s birthday,” May 3). This has forced the staff of the VVMF to scramble. An alternate location and total changes to shuttles, equipment and repeated updates to attendees are likely necessitated. Families have had flight and hotel reservations in place for months, so rescheduling this longstanding event is not feasible.

Interesting that this last-minute celebration for the birthday of the U.S. Army also coincides with Trump’s birthday. I wonder if he plans similar celebrations for the 250th birthday of the Marine Corps in November. Had heel bone spurs not prevented Trump from serving in the Vietnam War, or if any of his children had served in the military, perhaps he would have more consideration for the families of these men. I am a staunch supporter of veterans but given the massive cuts to programs supporting veterans’ needs, having a parade costing millions of dollars seems disingenuous at best and certainly inappropriate.

Janet Grieder, Maple Grove

•••

The people who deserve a special parade are all the soldiers who have served our country with honor and loyalty. Certainly not the man occupying the White House, who is a draft-dodger with a bone spur and the one who considers people in the service as losers.

Ilene Holen, Richfield

•••

After callous firings, layoffs and buyouts of hundreds of thousands of federal workers and eliminating critical funding for domestic and foreign aid programs all in the name of government efficiency and cost savings, Trump now wants to spend an estimated tens of millions of dollars on a totally unnecessary military parade. What an insult to all those caught in the Department of Government Efficiency meat grinder. And as if that is not enough, Trump suggested changing Veteran’s Day to “Victory Day for World War I.”

Veteran’s Day is a day to honor and thank all who have served in the United States Armed Forces. Taking that recognition away from our vets is nothing short of dishonorable.

Mark Warne, Hopkins

Columnist Rochelle Olson’s “cheer” to state Sen. Karin Housley “for consistently seeking to end the scourge of 3.2% beer” on May 2 strikes me as gratuitous. I heard wisecracks about this product from Minnesotans way more than 50 years before I moved to Minnesota. It is an easy slur, and makes people think they are big shots.

I am a lifelong beer lover, having started with gulps at my pappy’s knee when I was 10. But age and chemistry have caught up with me. My doctors are happy that I cut down with low-cal beer during the daylight hours (regular beer for dinner if I’m not driving). Lunchtime business meetings at my home are welcomed by people who often bring pizza, to be accompanied by my good-tasting “low-cal.” They then go about the rest of their day, quick and sharp.

Low-cal beer is in fact sold all over the country, a fact which you and the senator deny; a group of friends recommend good-tasting beers of this type to each other on Facebook all the time. The Strib’s beer columnist can guide you. Why don’t you wake up and smell the hops?

Vivian Ramalingam, St. Paul

•••

Olson’s column on May 1 contained several misleading statements regarding 3.2 beer. As somebody who has been in the alcohol retail industry for almost 35 years, I can tell you she is dramatically mistaken about the prospects of lower-alcohol beer.

Minnesota is not the last state to sell 3.2 beer. [Opinion editor’s note: Minnesota is the last state with a law restricting beer sales at grocery and convenience stores to those with 3.2% alcohol.] In fact, all 50 states sell 3.2 beer, which is about 4% alcohol-by-volume, a lower-alcohol beer. Liquor laws and regulations vary state to state but 3.2 beer — such as Amstel Light, White Claw 70 and Miller 64 — are available everywhere.

3.2 beer is not going away because it’s a growing trend for consumers. There are more low-alcohol beverage options available to consumers than ever before. The current system gives consumers unprecedented choices at below-average prices for Minnesotans.

Paul Kaspszak, Minneapolis

The writer is executive director of the Minnesota Municipal Beverage Association.

We express deep concern over the recent National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funding cuts to Minnesota arts organizations, threatening our state’s cultural landscape (“Minnesota arts groups reel from abrupt NEA cuts to grants,” StarTribune.com, May 6). We are facing the threat of losing crucial funding for our programming and many of our theater partners and collaborators have already lost funding as a result of these cuts.

Despite these challenges, the Twin Cities arts community continues to show resilience. The “Don’t Expect Indifference: A Twin Cities Theater Cabaret” event on April 22 at the Jungle Theater united local theaters, performers and staff to voice concerns. Organizations like Jungle Theater, Teatro del Pueblo, Yellow Tree Theatre, Mixed Blood Theatre, Pillsbury House Theatre, Trademark Theater, Theater Latté Da, Theater Mu, Park Square Theatre, An Opera Theatre and Nautilus Music Theater demonstrated resistance to federal arts funding policies. Over 400 people viewed the performance, either at the Jungle or via livestream (tinyurl.com/dont-expect-indifference).

This event shows our artistic community’s strength. We hosted a performance to reinforce creativity and strength as a force for hope. In response to new NEA restrictions on grant applications regarding diversity, equity and inclusion programs and gender ideology, arts venues stand together to ensure diverse voices are heard.

The Twin Cities arts community is committed to unity and communicating concerns about funding changes. It’s vital to support the arts and their contribution to our community. We must not silence these voices. To those implementing these cuts, we say, “Don’t expect indifference!”

This letter was signed by Rachel Murch-D’Olimpio and Christina Baldwin, managing director and artistic director, respectively, at the Jungle Theater.

A recent column by Chris Hewitt addressed an article on summer reading as “Five books we can’t wait to read in May.” My question is: Who is “we”? Hewitt and his family? Hewitt and his editors? Hewitt and me? Please don’t tell me the very good critic Hewitt is falling into the same rut as the Star Tribune’s music critics.

I know I am not alone when I say that “we” reeks of false intimacy with the reader. The practice is not dissimilar to a server saying to a group of diners, “How did we like those first bites, guys?” Did the server like those first bites, too? Huh? A solitary critic is responsible for his or her own opinion. Can you imagine the famous New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael writing, “We loved ‘Rosemary’s Baby’”?

So how about leaving “me” out of the “we”? That would make me (we?) very happy.

David Zander, Minneapolis