Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor page, (where I get to offer my philosophically sophisticated opinions on topical matters which get under my skin such that I cannot think straight until I get my complaint in print, etc., etc., etc.,).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letters dated, Nov. 15, 2000 to Dec. 31, 2001

To the Editor:

I find it hard to believe that the recent column (Nov. 14, Mankato Free Press) with George Will's byline was in fact written by George Will. For Will is no clown but the column could only have been written by one. Then again, partisanship can make clowns of us all. So perhaps Will could have written the column.

Only a clown would suggest that Gore is "strictly speaking, unbelievable", and that it was Gore's unbelievability that kept him from easily winning the election. Nonclowns know that the biggest obstacle to Gore winning was Bill Clinton's mendacity, not Gore's. Only a clown would suggest that Gore and the Democrats are rejecting the Constitution by seeking a hand count of the Florida vote. Nonclowns know that in normal circumstances, a machine count is fine, and missed ballots can be ignored without danger of electing someone who got fewer votes than another. Nonclowns also know that hand counts provide a much more accurate count of votes than does a machine. Machines have one virtue over hand counts, viz., speed. As such, nonclowns know that Bush's attempt to prevent a hand count of ballots in Florida is an attempt to keep us from finding out who really got the most votes in Florida. Shame on you Mr. Bush.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the Editor:

I'm still trying to make sense of today's (11/30/01) editorial, "Council's snub of DM&E deal costly". My current best explanation is that someone on the editorial staff either doesn't like one or more persons on the council, including the mayor, or someone on the editorial staff has friends who want to replace one or more council members in the next election. A close second best explanation is that the writer of the editorial is an easy mark, someone who could be easily persuaded to put down some money to buy a famous bridge in New York City. For the record, as far as I know it, the council never received a bill for "snubbing" the DM&E deal. But I would like to know where the "up to" 25 million dollar figure that was allegedly part of the original agreement comes from? Is that what Kevin Schieffer claimed it could cost to "mitigate" (Note: 'mitigate' does not mean 'eliminate', nor 'render acceptable') the noise and pollution from 40 trains a day?

Having been around the block once or twice, I am suspicious of claims by business people about the cost of what they are going to do for me. I would also like to point out that your editorial said nothing to rebut the claims of Kagermeier, Twedt, Considine and Freyberg that the original agreement promised nothing and couldn't be enforced. They are correct about this and I applaud them for their vote to reject the agreement. I hope that they have the good sense and courage to continue to do all they can to block the DM&E project. Finally, I must register a complaint about the unfairness (and disingenuousness) of your line: "The council's action on the DM&E negotiations were disappointing not because of the decision they made but by the way they arrived at that decision." Unless the Free Press can offer us a nondisappointing manner for the council to have arrived at the same decision, this line is a lot like the original agreement: All ink, no substance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming soon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Letter # 3

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Top of Page | WRPL Ultimate HomePage

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last modified Nov. 30, 2001
JAH, Professor
Dept. of Philosophy