Can a lawmaker really still be detained for political reasons?
Does the original motivation still matter?
I applaud Concordia University Prof. Jayne Jones and her political science students and the Star Tribune for highlighting the Legislature’s “privilege from arrest” card. It should not be used for getting out of DWI arrests. That just doesn’t pass the red-face test.
However, I am of the opinion that they are not going far enough in their efforts. I see no reason that legislators should be privileged from any arrest during the session. Surely the threat of English monarchs abusing their authority is no longer an issue. If our government is so corrupt that legislators are being thrown in jail to prevent them from voting on a particular issue, then a whole bunch of people need to be thrown out of office and into jail.
Tom Eyre, St. Paul
• • •
Jon Tevlin and his crusade against legislators opposing the anti-DWI waiver bill (“Legislators should not be exempt from getting DWIs,” March 23, and “These legislators won’t let go of DWI exemption,” April 6) is completely missing the mark. If you can be repeatedly audited by the IRS and even fired as the CEO from Mozilla, simply for disagreeing with left-wing ideology, is it really a stretch to think a legislator could be unnecessarily detained to prevent a vote or even imprisoned for retribution for a previous vote? Sadly, no.
Carter Anderson, Orono
Women as a workplace bargain? Perpetuation.
Today — April 8 — is Equal Pay Day, an event intended to raise public awareness of the gap between men’s and women’s wages.
Catherine Rampell’s April 7 article “Good employees at good prices” states that in 1983, Alan Greenspan expressed his own hiring preferences. “Hiring women,” he said, “does two things: It gives us better-quality work for less money, and it raises the market value of women.” Rampell does encourage employers to hire women, but she reinforces Greenspan’s statement by prefacing the quote by saying: “[T]he fact that women’s pay is lower does mean they’re a better deal for employers.” For those who think alike, these words shamelessly summarize why this gap exists.
Yolanda Dewar, Cottage Grove
World isn’t forgiving of military slack
The April 6 Letter of the Day (“Pentagon directs some money toward people, where it belongs”) by a legislator from Rochester was an attack on the U.S. Department of Defense while at the same time seeking money for a pet project (“Mayo Clinic aims for more Pentagon funding,” March 27). The Defense Department spends billions on military health care and R&D, which arguably is not enough. But calling the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter wasteful in order to get leverage for $30 million from the department really shows a lack of understanding of national defense and the political environment in Washington.
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.