How about a Super Bowl bid with a social conscience?
SUPER BOWL BID
Let’s get one thing more for the money
Pity the long-suffering Star Tribune Editorial Board, having to put up with the “anti-stadium crowd” and our “tiresome reprise of arguments ignoring the benefits of major league status.” (“Is Super Bowl worth the effort? No doubt,” April 1.) Tell you what. I will happily support our bid for the Super Bowl if we sweeten the pot even more: Add a fund for brain autopsies on players upon their deaths to better understand the prevalence of chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Along with the tax breaks for billionaires, we will learn the true “cost of doing business with the NFL.”
Brian Malloy, Minneapolis
Disclosure can only be good for democracy
Why are organizations that fund political messages opposed to being identified? (“Dayton adds his voice to push for campaign cash disclosure,” March 31.) Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life says that such identification would inhibit its “ability to engage in grass-roots issue advocacy.” But it’s not really a grass-roots thing if an organization is driving it, is it? Just because that organization is hiding? The National Rifle Association says that disclosing campaign ad sponsorship threatens freedom of speech. Really? I don’t see why that group couldn’t say whatever it likes, as long as its name was included in the ad — just as my name appears at the end of this letter.
Maneuvers to prevent the association between a message and its sponsor undermine the democratic process because they deprive voters of important information. In addition, such efforts smack of underhanded cowardice.
Jeff Naylor, Minneapolis
Freedom ultimately leads to wise decisions
The question posed to conservatives in the April 1 Letter of the Day regarding the intersection of birth control, government mandates and overpopulation deserves an answer.
The letter writer asks what plan we have for either limiting population growth or providing for the material and spiritual needs of billions more human beings. The plan is simple. Live and let live. Let people pursue their own values and leave them responsible for the consequences of their actions. If we summon the courage to trust our neighbors, we will find they enjoy life as much as we do. They want to eat safe food, drink clean water and enjoy the bounty of creation. Motivated by such desires, we each work to produce not only what we need to survive but higher values required to thrive.
Freedom is the best form of population control. The Property and Environment Research Center concludes that “market-enhancing economic institutions lower fertility rates.” In other words, a free and prosperous people choose to bear fewer children.
Compelling a handful of conscientious objectors to provide birth control for employees will not save the planet. Even if it somehow could, such mandates violate individual rights. Leaving people free to pursue their own interests will foster self-interested judgments, like buying contraception with money earned. Under freedom, prosperity rises and fertility rates fall.
Walter Hudson, Albertville
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.