Readers Write: President Donald Trump at the United Nations, Brett Kavanaugh, school budgets, single-parent households

It was quite frightening to hear President Donald Trump, in an address Tuesday at the United Nations, reject "globalism" and propose going it alone as the official strategy of our country ("On the world stage, Trump goes solo," editorial, Sept. 26). Western Europe appears to be our new enemy.

The reality is that many of us ordinary Americans owe much of our lives to some form of global cooperation. For five years, I worked for a British software company that developed a product that was largely sold here in America — creating well over 100 jobs. In the other direction, I worked for a large American company, and more than half of our revenue came from sales to Europe. I now work for an early startup, and our first customer is a large Swedish-based call center company.

Ironically, even the Trump business is largely global, with properties all over the world. We will walk away from globalism at our own peril.

• • •

The U.N. speech is not the first time that a large audience has guffawed at a Trump remark ("World leaders laugh as Trump boasts of his achievements," StarTribune.com, Sept. 25). In 2016, I attended the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington along with 16,000 other well-informed persons. AIPAC is a nonpartisan organization that supports strong American-Israel ties. It had deeply studied and publicly opposed the Iran nuclear deal. In speaking to a packed arena, candidate Trump remarked that he knew that deal "better than anyone" in the room. A loud, and involuntary, guffaw echoed across the arena. Unlike his speech at the U.N., Trump did not acknowledge the reaction.

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court needs to be withdrawn, at least temporarily, if not permanently. There are too many uninvestigated allegations of misconduct on the part of Kavanaugh to allow him to be considered for the position. Those allegations and his complete denial of any truth to them present the American people, of which I am one, with the sense that something is clearly wrong. It would be outrageous to allow Kavanaugh to occupy a seat on the Supreme Court without having cleared up this matter. Otherwise a taint will be upon the court that will cast into doubt all of its decisions. We don't want that. We need a Supreme Court to exemplify dignity, values, respect for the American people, and respect for liberty and freedom. If the humble request for an investigation into the truth of these matters cannot be met, then all senators should vote "no" on the nomination.

I ask the Senate to show respect for the Supreme Court and the American people. Do not taint the court any further.

Criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence. Kavanaugh is a job applicant. There is no burden of proof for hiring him. If we, his potential employers, think an accusation against him could be true, we should hire someone else.

• • •

My understanding is that the Senate Judiciary Committee is designated to assess approving the nominee. I would like to see the senators on that committee performing their job by asking the questions ("Prosecutor picked to question Kavanaugh, accuser called fair," StarTribune.com, Sept. 26).

We the people need an accurate picture of decisions being made on our behalf by our officials elected to serve us. If the men on the committee are worried about embarrassing themselves, so be it. The country needs to know the quality of our representation so we can assess their ability to govern fairly. If there is a problem of patriarchy, hiding it is not the way forward. Exposing it is the way forward.

Further, all relevant documents must be presented, not hidden. Just because Judge Merrick Garland did not receive a hearing when he was nominated by President Barack Obama in 2016 for a Supreme Court opening is not reason to do less than a complete job on the current hearing.

The writer is a retired Minnesota teacher.

I appreciated the sensitivity shown by Mitch Pearlstein (Opinion Exchange, Sept. 20) in addressing some of the misunderstandings left by the Sept 17 commentary from Detroit Free Press writer Nancy Kaffer about single parents. Pearlstein properly acknowledged the millions of kids growing up in single-parent households who are doing great and the millions in two-parent households who are not. But the big picture is clear. Here is a data set completely independent of the census data Kaffer mistrusts: The massive study by the Centers for Disease Control and Kaiser Permanente showing the high correlation between adverse childhood experiences and adult health and behavioral problems assigned equal weight to each of 10 adverse childhood experiences. Nine were just what you would expect: psychological, physical or sexual abuse; emotional or physical neglect; or household dysfunction involving substance abuse, mental illness, domestic abuse or an incarcerated parent. The 10th adverse childhood experience? Parents who were divorced or separated at any time. The prevalence among the adults surveyed was 23 percent. We can squabble over the number now, but that big picture is that we are engaged in an unprecedented social experiment with children, and the results so far are not good.

The writer is a Hennepin County district judge.

I have to question the placement of "The high cost of motherhood" (Sept. 25) in the Variety section. Women represent a majority in college enrollment (Forbes) and constitute about 47 percent of the U.S. workforce (Pew). Women are a key demographic in the workforce, and the decline in their participation is an important trend. Why is this article included with the horoscopes, advice columns and TV listings rather than in the Business section?

• • •