TO THE EDITOR:
Conflict exists in the world. We can choose to deal with this in a constructive or destructive way. I hope that we can all take a breath or a break in this to determine how we can best move forward (together constructively is my choice). Could it be that both presentations provided to the board are right? Are there some ideas there that, taken too far, are wrong? Is there a way to blend the two together in a constructive way that will meet the needs of ALL? I know this can be done. I too believe there are not two sides here, so why put me (or anyone else) on a side by shouting down and disrespecting? Let’s work together on a way forward that protects ALL students, that respects ALL people and brings us together.
Mark Swanson,
Becker, MN
TO THE EDITOR:
So we learned that Supreme Court Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson chose not to following Federal sentencing guidelines in cases involving child porn because these guidelines were written back when these individuals received child pornographic images through the mail as compared to today when computers and the internet allows for easier child porn distribution. Well now that makes sense doesn’t it? Based upon her brand of logic, we now have a window into how she may rule on various Constitutional cases. Take for example the 2nd Amendment. Since bullets were not even invented until the 1830’s, well after the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the right to keep and bear arms would not apply to guns and rifles that utilize bullets, but only muzzle loaded guns. And then to cases involving the 1st amendment which was written when information was disseminated via word of mouth or printed on paper, again using Judge Jackson’s brand of logic, the 1st amendment would not apply to speech on television, radio or internet. I just can’t wait for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to be seated on the Supreme Court!
Bret R. Collier
Big Lake, MN
TO THE EDITOR:
Adding to the long goodbye we Minnesotans are already saying to our moose, we are now on our way to losing the iconic boreal forest of our North Shore, BWCA, and Voyageurs National Park. Everything depends on how long we continue to spew greenhouse gas into our air, changing the temperature and precipitation patterns of our weather. But it’s not just up north. It also means a growing Kansas-ification of our entire North Star State. We may see much of our forested lands retreat north and east, as prairie moves in from the west to potentially swallow up 70% of Minnesota - all the way to Duluth and east of the Twin Cities. Yes, this concerns me. I hope it concerns you. Lee Frelich, from the Department of Forest Resources at the U of M, and others, have painted alternative pictures of what a future Minnesota may look like. The various scenarios depend on whether we continue business as usual (the stance of the fossil fuel industry, their enablers, and those who don’t believe science) or act with seriousness and haste in moving away from fossil fuels now. Midterm elections are this year. I’m interested in where my elected representatives stand. If they’re still sharing a bed with fossil fuel interests rather than supporting the rapid transition to renewable energy, we need to hold them accountable with our voices and votes. Divest from fossil fuel companies, invest in renewables, and support an organization on the front lines of the fight. Otherwise, Minnesota and the places we love could become unrecognizable within decades, and I’m not for that. Are you?
Karen Lohn
Annandale, MN
TO THE EDITOR:
Although I am fairly certain someone is pulling a Ben Franklin on the community of Becker, I would like to acknowledge the genuineness of the lived experiences of the student in last week’s letter to the editor. There are, however, two things I would like to add to their words. First, the feelings you are experiencing in your senior year of high school are feelings that some of your peers and classmates have felt their entire school existence. Second, laying the blame for your experiences on the individuals you named is ill-placed. Instead of crediting us, you should be casting your gaze on every and all individuals who invited a hate group to speak in a public school. Citing Gender Justice, in recent correspondence: Becker Public Schools school board invited an anti-transgender and anti-gay hate group to speak at their school board meeting. When it comes to protecting the health, safety, and well-being of marginalized youth in your school district, there are no “two sides” to the question. There is certainly no valid “side” that would involve a group of adults taking the stage in a room full of children and parents and likening gay and transgender youth to “social contagions.” Your students are human beings, not “political issues.”
Joe Rand ,
Clearwater, MN
Heather Abrahamson,
Becker, MN
TO THE EDITOR:
I strongly urge the school board to continue live streaming the board meetings as well as continuing to allow everyone the opportunity to openly address the school board. Unfortunately, in the wake of the March 14 protests, some have suggested discontinuing live streaming and shutting down public participation. Maybe school administrators will claim they don’t have the technical staff available to continue live streaming board meetings? As citizens, we should be very skeptical of such lame excuses limiting our freedoms. Now, more than ever, we need to protect our 1st Amendment rights. Across the country, parents and students alike are getting involved in discussing important issues impacting our schools. Now is not the time to be silenced. Now is the time to encourage the open and honest exchange of ideas especially because so many of our citizens are finally raising their voices. Our school district owes us full transparency. I applaud our school board’s efforts in creating a new board policy promoting full transparency to all our school’s curriculum. Please urge our board representatives to continue live streaming all their sessions and allow us to speak to them in the open forum. Our kids’ futures depend upon it.
Sam Gullickson,
Clear Lake, MN
