Netlets for Sunday, June 22

Engaged fathers, after the court rules

I read Katherine Kersten's June 15 column about the role of fathers in our society, and I truly am outraged.

I have been a divorce attorney in this community for 18 years, representing fathers and mothers. Never, once, have I had a mother say anything remotely approaching, "My husband is really involved with our children, but I want to cut him out." I have heard many mothers say, "My husband paid little to no attention to our children until this divorce."

If Kersten truly believes, as her column opines, that the "sexual revolution," "economic changes," "the divorce culture" and "sixties-era feminism" have placed "fatherhood under assault," I challenge her to spend a few days hearing what I hear -- or what any divorce attorney in this community hears. "We need dads 365 days a year" -- absolutely. How tragic that a large number of them fail to fulfill that aspiration until the court system is involved.

ELIZABETH B. BRYANT, ST. LOUIS PARK

Matters of faith and public charter schools

Regarding "Charter school Q & A: 'To familiarize, not proselytize' " (Opinion Exchange, June 15): Public charter schools receive funding from the state or from local school districts, so they must be governed by Article XIII, Section 2, of the Minnesota Constitution:

"In no case should any public money or property be appropriated or used for the support of schools wherein the distinctive doctrines, creeds or tenets of any particular Christian or other religious sect are promulgated or taught."

Catholic, Lutheran and other private schools were established by immigrant ethnic groups in years gone by. If more recent immigrants such as Somalis wish to use schools to sustain and promulgate their faith, they are free to do so, but not with public money or property. The Constitution is the state's highest law and its language is clear and unequivocal.

OLIVER STEINBERG, ST. PAUL

Mainstream media already have a platform

Neal Justin writing in the June 15 Star Tribune complains of the lack of inclusion of mainstream journalists in the recent National Conference of Media Reform.

On the surface Justin's complaint appears to have merit; where are the dissenting voices? Why don't mainstream journalists have a seat at the table in discussions of media reform? Unfortunately, granting Justin's perspective merit ignores the larger context of the conference, and I would argue the larger context of media in this country, and that is the role of media in a democracy.

When, as is the case, a tiny group of corporate interests own the many media outlets, the opportunity of the citizens to hear the spectrum of opinions and viewpoints is circumscribed. What we are left with is what currently passes for consumer choice, a number of choirs all singing the same tune under the direction of the same choir-master.

In other words, the corporate takeover of media has limited the range of opinion in this country in matters of national importance. The near lock-step promotion by the media in the lead up to the Iraq War is but one example of this degradation of a truly free press.

Another example is the near total absence of any meaningful discussion of media reform in the mainstream media. It seems to me, an ordinary citizen and not a member of the media, that mainstream media have a large and predominant platform from which to trumpet any news and opinion they wish. Justin, if he is truly interested in media reform, could have amplified the real democratic aims of the conference instead of bemoaning his lack of an invitation.

GREGORY CHAMBERLIN, HOPKINS

None of the above

Syl Jones ("She talks about the real America. Will she be heard?" June 15) would know about "roving" as he has apparently perfected the art. In almost 20 years of listening to conservative talk radio I have never once heard a characterization of African-Americans, Latinos or immigrants -- legal or otherwise -- as "those" people or not "like us." I have heard many serious and reasonable discussions of race and immigration, however the "us" and "them" accusation is a paranoid and dishonest fantasy. "Roving" is indeed a despicable practice. Jones is simply inventing unattributed and grossly vague "quotes" to support his rhetoric. His hypocrisy is epic and his journalism weak.

The idea that Barack Obama should be exempt from criticism, or that all criticism is rooted in racism is one that even he should find offensive. It seems that it is Democrats and supporters of Obama who wish to make his race an issue. I am supporting neither major candidate for president, and would no more vote for John McCain simply because he is white than I would not vote for Obama because he is black. While I see two candidates who are otherwise honorable and sincere Americans, I am opposed to both on principle and will vote "none of the above."

As an intellectually honest conservative, I believe that Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate and would have reluctantly supported her. That Syl Jones sees this as a campaign of an unassailable black candidate vs. white conservative treachery betrays the depth of his political analysis.

DAVID NEIMAN, MINNETONKA

Unearned label

Regarding the June 15 article "Unlicensed chiropractor suspected of murder": I think the headline was very misleading and demeaning to chiropractors in the world. A person is not a chiropractor until he is licensed. The license is the standard that tells us who he is.

EARL HAUGE, GLENWOOD, MINN.