Victim’s family sets a powerful example
Homicide victim Lila Warwick’s legacy includes a family whose courage is truly amazing (“Teen killer’s remorse met with grace, life sentence,” April 10). They are inspirations to all of us. I couldn’t help but think of how their attitude reflects the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi: “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.” And this is especially appropriate: “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
Would that all of us could be as strong as these women are. They have my greatest respect.
L.A. ANDERSON, Eden Prairie
As recent stories show, its benefits will ripple
Three recent stories about the need for supportive housing in Minnesota (“Hennepin County expands help for sexually exploited youth,” March 26, “Brooklyn Park plans to open shelter for homeless kids,” March 21, and “Single parents work to hold on,” April 6) remind us that the lack of affordable housing has a significant, negative impact on our children. Half of the homeless citizens in our state are under age 21. Unless we invest in them now, they will go through their most vulnerable years being undernourished, undereducated, unhealthy, underappreciated and uninspired.
Every $1 of public money invested in supportive housing returns $1.44 to state coffers. It is critical, therefore — both economically and morally — that the Legislature approve $100 million for supportive housing. By investing in housing, we are investing in our children, and investing in them is a wise and lucrative investment for us all.
KAREN BARSTAD, Minneapolis
The word ‘priority’ is getting a workout
Regarding state legislation that would allow law enforcement personnel and other first responders to administer Narcan to counter the effects of a heroin overdose but provide legal immunity for those who sought the help, I submit the following definition of the word “priority” — “something that is more important than other things and that needs to be done or dealt with first” — and the following quotes.
“I would agree that a priority is to save lives, but that should not allow those who have put those lives in jeopardy but who ‘harbored no intent’ to gain immunity.”
MIKE AUSPOS, a retired police officer, in a letter to the editor published April 11
“We got into this for the right reason, which was to save lives. We did not get into this to save lives and get immunity for everyone.”
RICH STANEK, Hennepin County sheriff, in an April 9 article explaining why he once supported the legislation but no longer does
The point of having priorities is to help choose between things that don’t exist together. Because drug dealers and drug users do not normally call 911, due to their culpability and the fear of prosecution, should our priority be saving the lives of dying drug users or arresting drug pushers?
JOHN NORBLOM, Minneapolis
Some are conflating speech and access
Michael Kinsley (“Here’s the solution to money in politics,” April 11) misunderstands, or attempts to mislead, about the primary problem with unlimited contributions to politicians and campaigns. He cleverly makes an analogy between the amount of political speech money can buy and the power media themselves have to disseminate political speech in an attempt to show that unlimited political contributions are similar. However, the analogy is misleading. The problem is not the amount of political speech more money can buy. The problem is the amount of access to politicians money can buy. No amount of media political speech buys access.
Although access itself doesn’t automatically ensure voting the way a moneyed contributor wants, it certainly helps grease the skids for such influence. And that is the main difference between the influence of a citizen who cannot afford a large contribution and a corporation that can.
LUCYAN MECH, St. Paul
If papyrus scrap is right, the story only improves
OK, so a scrap of what appears to be genuine ancient papyrus indicates that Jesus had a wife and that he thought she should be one of his disciples (“Jesus ‘wife’ papyrus is likely ancient,” April 11). Does that change anything important? Not for me. We’ve long known that in all likelihood all or most of those men were married. That’s what young Jewish men did: They married. Some are known to have taken wives with them on their missionary journeys. Scripture contains references to Jesus’ love and concern for Mary Magdalene. He treated women with respect. We read that he discussed theology with the woman at the well.
Are women still considered too stupid and inferior to qualify for discipleship? Check out those others; most of them didn’t look very promising when they were chosen. But they grew. Not the women?
I’m here to tell you that, as a category, we women are not inferior to men in intellectual acuity, spiritual dimension or other worthy qualities. Did men marry us thinking we were? One hopes not. If Jesus was married, that’s one more reason for me to see him as a real and a human being. Tell me how it lessens him.
ALVHILD M. SLEN SHERVE, Northfield
Doctors already have an example to follow
In response to “Poetry for pre-meds to practice precision” (April 10): Believe it or not, there is already a system in place to “explain a medical crisis to bewildered patients.” We’re called nurses.
MELISSA KADRMAS, Plymouth