Two billionaires get together, and each hires some guys for millions of dollars each to go out and play against one another so that the billionaires can make billions more — and, somehow this is a deeply moving, "patriotic" national event that demands the raising of the flag and the playing of the national anthem. What the hell is patriotic about two billionaires huckstering us to give them more money? They're merely "opening for business" for the day. Why not raise the flag and play the anthem for every business that opens its doors in the morning? Imagine being obligated to stop at each door as we make our way down the sidewalk and stand with our hand over our heart and wait for the anthem to finish at each shop. Same thing! Why are we even playing our anthem for this? What is so honorable about sports/business events like these? I don't care that it's a "tradition." Traditional is not synonymous with proper.
The raising of the flag and playing of the anthem should be reserved for truly patriotic events, not trivialized. As a veteran, I don't have a monopoly on patriotism. All who fight for freedoms and equality, whether as a soldier or through peaceful protest, are patriots. Like many other veterans, we deplore the idea of unchecked nationalism. The flag and anthem are about us all and what we can be. The ideals are probably unattainable, but worth the effort.
Just curious. How many of you complaining about the kneeling are in front of your TVs standing with your hand over your heart during the anthem?
Philip L. Carufel, Brooklyn Park
WATER AND AGRICULTURE
It is not, in fact, a contradiction to seek both safety and profits
The Oct. 10 article "Fertilizer rules pit clean water vs. profits" addresses an incredibly pertinent issue. But the head of the Minnesota Health Department's drinking water section is quoted in the article as saying that "it's impossible to raise crops without an impact on groundwater," and that's an unfortunate and uninformed statement.
In fact, solutions to this challenge are available and involve both reduced nitrogen fertilizer and increased farmer profitability.
Soil health practices, which include the use of continuous cover crops on the land, minimal tillage, increased crop diversity and adding livestock to the land, are proven to protect and restore water quality while boosting farmers' bottom line. This is because the restoration of soil health, using these common-sense practices, reduces chemical runoff and soil erosion that is damaging to our rivers, lakes and streams while building up the soil and diversifying revenue streams.
Scores of farmers in the region like me have been adding cover crops, reducing soil disturbances and putting livestock back on the landscape, and are realizing the economic benefit of these practices. I often hear them say: "I sure wish I would have done this a lot sooner." The Sustainable Farming Association has been leading the charge by holding conferences and workshops all over the state in partnership with other groups and agencies to give farmers practical tools and hands-on examples of how to work with nature, not against it, as they raise corn and soybeans.
Farmers are proving that they can be successful while using little to no chemicals on the land and stopping costly, polluting runoff. There should be no "contradiction between supporting farmers and protecting water," as the article stated, because we have the knowledge and capability to shift the paradigm of agriculture production to an environmentally sustainable model. It's time to shine a spotlight on those who are restoring soil health and ensuring continuous living cover on the land. That's where the solution to this dilemma lies.