Readers Write: Minnesota Twins, Enbridge Line 3, two-party political systems

In 1965, at age 5, my family moved to Bloomington, Minn. My dad introduced me to the game of baseball and the Minnesota Twins. In my formative years, we attended numerous Twins games.

In 1987, after 22 years of being a loyal fan, the Twins made it to the World Series and won. I attended all home games.

In 1990, then age 30, I was living in Australia. I watched as much Twins baseball as possible. I wasn't able to see all of the 1990 World Series games, so I ordered the DVDs.

When MLB.TV started, I subscribed. I've been a subscriber ever since so I don't miss a Twins game (I'm watching the Twins vs. Royals now).

In 2008, at age 48, my wife and I moved to New York City. Since then, as a continuing subscriber of MLB.TV, I've attended Twins games in Minneapolis, Boston, Philadelphia, Oakland and San Francisco.

Over the years, I've purchased hundreds of dollars' worth of Twins merchandise: authentic jerseys, caps, t-shirts and memorabilia.

I currently live in San Francisco. This morning, I was shocked to find that I was unable to purchase some of the postseason tickets that the Twins offered to the public last week because I live outside of the "five state area" of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, North Dakota and South Dakota.

Like many sports and businesses, Major League Baseball is global. Players and fans come from all over the world; borders and proximity no longer define markets. Is a North Dakota Twins fan more deserving of postseason tickets than a fan who lives in San Francisco?

Don't get me wrong. This setback won't stop me from attending the postseason games or change my loyalty. I now will go to the aftermarket for tickets, which ultimately might be what the Twins are trying to avoid.

Go Twins.

Mark Morris, San Francisco

LINE 3

We can defeat Enbridge for the sake of 'the unborn of the future'

On Wednesday, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied an appeal regarding the environmental and tribal case against the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline project, meaning the project is continuing ("Court rejects pipeline challenge," Sept. 18).

This is a project conceived and based in denial. That may be why the Minnesota Commerce Department recommended against it two years ago. There's no future in an oil pipeline.

On Friday, young people across Minnesota and around the world walked out of school to participate in the Youth Climate Strike. They spoke out to affirm that there is a future in renewable energy. Fresh air, blue sky and the safety of our loved ones are rights. To defend them, we must end the burning of fossil fuels.

Everybody knows this change is coming. The only question is, will it come sooner or later? Those who want change now seem hopeful and are already talking about next steps, like how to remove carbon dioxide from the air. Those who want change later seem to be compartmentalizing, as if they already believe we're too late — understandable, in an era of rain bombs and wildfire haze.

But you're never too late if you're still alive.

Imagine knowing you helped move the nation, and the world, toward this goal. We could stop being afraid of each other and start building an economy for our kids. On Sept. 28, Minnesotans will gather on the shores of Gichi-gami (Lake Superior) in Duluth, for a festival and rally to stop Line 3. Let's start making something that will last.

In 1776, with the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. was founded to guard the "future security" of all. A generation earlier, the founders of the Iroquois Confederacy were even more explicit about the responsibility of leaders: "In all your deliberations," they said, "have always in view not only the present, but also the coming generations ... the unborn of the future Nation."

We may be on borrowed time, but it is our moment. Imagine what we can do when we stop fearing the future and start planning for it.

PETER S. SCHOLTES, Minneapolis

• • •

When turning on a faucet, Minnesotans should be able to count on clean water. Yet that basic expectation will be in jeopardy if Enbridge's proposed Line 3 oil pipeline is built.

Enbridge's crude oil transportation route cuts across 200 bodies of water and 75 miles of wetlands in northern Minnesota. Twenty wild rice lakes, which our Native American neighbors rely on, are located within one mile of it. Now, if this cargo was nontoxic, and Enbridge ensured it could be moved safely, I wouldn't be concerned.

However, its crude oil contains more than a thousand chemicals, including benzene, a known carcinogen. When this oil seeps into our lakes, rivers and streams, it combines with sediment, sinks to the bottom and becomes very difficult to remove.

Plus, Enbridge's track record for safety is poor, with 60 leaks in Minnesota from 2002 to 2017. One of its Michigan pipelines ruptured in 2010, dumping crude oil into the Kalamazoo river. Nine years and more than $1 billion in cleanup costs later, oil remains on the river bottom. And, the current Line 3 gives us little reassurance, so riddled is it with corrosion and cracks that it carries only half its original capacity.

Hundreds of Minnesotans will gather by Lake Superior on Sept. 28 to communicate a clear, strong message to state agencies and elected officials: "Stop Line 3. Protect the water we, our children and grandchildren depend on for life." Stand with these Minnesotans and send our state officials the same message.

Rosemary Anne Ruffenach, St. Paul

TWO-PARTY-SYSTEM

Work for reform, yes, but cast your vote with utter pragmatism

Chris Holbrook's editorial counterpoint, "Vote for who you believe in," (Sept. 20), takes issue with Tom Horner and Lori Sturdevant regarding the strategy they advocate for defeating President Donald Trump in the next election ("Minnesotans, don't be the spoilers," Sept. 15). Horner and Sturdevant urge that people vote for the Democratic nominee rather than a third-party candidate. Holbrook sees things differently.

But what Holbrook overlooks is that even within each political party, people often choose their candidate based on who they think is most likely to win. Sometimes, at a caucus or in a primary, you vote for someone who is not your first choice but rather is the person you think is most likely to prevail in the general election. Horner and Sturdevant are saying the same thing: In the upcoming presidential election, vote for the Democratic nominee rather than a third-party candidate, because the Democrat has the best chance of toppling Trump.

Still, by all means, put your best effort toward structural reforms that many people advocate. Holbrook characterizes both major political parties as "evil." We could use a little less of this sort of inflammatory language. Personally, I would love to see ranked-choice voting expand to elections on every level and limits on the influence of big-money in elections. Let's work together toward structural reform of the political process.