Readers Write: 'Why north?', tax reform, Olga Viso, cranberries

In his Nov. 19 essay "Why North?", Michael Nesset writes "Do not the encroaching winter darkness, the cold, the … death/dormancy of the natural world remind us, perhaps subconsciously, of the dark, cold dormancy that awaits us all at the end of our lives?" But there is no evidence that we are absolutely condemned to oblivion, and there is abundant evidence that we may live again.

I was educated scientifically (in meteorology), so I always look for hard evidence to back any assertion, especially one so foreign to our culture as the idea of reincarnation. It's easy to dismiss the occasional sensational news stories of children's memories of the names and circumstances of their previous life turning out to be accurate. But it is a denial of the very essence of the scientific method for our culture to ignore or ridicule the work of scientists who — through rigorous interviews concerning the alleged memories of children, their families and related people — conclude that reincarnation is a more logical explanation of the child's memories than coincidence or fraud.

Ian Stevenson (1918-2007) was a psychiatrist who was chair of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia from 1957 to 1967, the Carlson Professor of Psychiatry from 1967 to 2001, and a research professor of psychiatry from 2002 to 2015. He was also the founder and director of the university's Division of Perceptual Studies, investigating parapsychological phenomena such as reincarnation. Over a period of 40 years, he investigated 3,000 cases of children around the world who recalled having past lives. Stevenson's meticulous investigation of these children concluded that more than half of them had real memories of real previous lives.

It is reasonable, not nutty, to nurture a morsel of rational hope that Nesset's vision of death as only a "dark, cold dormancy" may only reflect the reflexive denial of our culture of anything that is not yet within the purview of today's scientific paradigm, which is, without any doubt, woefully incomplete.

• • •

Nesset's article reminded me of why I prefer the well-written word: Passionate and descriptive imagery, majesty and clarity. I wish every human interaction could be thusly conveyed.

Thank you, Lori Sturdevant, for saying that the Republican tax plan(s) will be bad for middle-class Minnesotans ("Don't forget: Tax bill," Nov. 19). After studying up a bit on the plans, it would seem that we can make the following conclusions. First, they will benefit large corporations and wealthy individuals far more than anyone else. Second, they will add to the deficit and national debt in a big way. This will increase the pressure to further reduce services and infrastructure spending in the future. This, I suspect, is a hidden goal of the legislation. Third, they will likely not lead to significant new economic growth in an economy that is already running well (low unemployment, Federal Reserve increasing interest rates).

So, why would our Republican representatives from districts that will be hurt by the tax plan vote for it? Just guessing here, but I suspect that the Citizens United case had something to do with it. Our leaders are far too beholden to rich donors and corporations than to the citizens that they are supposed to be representing.

• • •

Twenty-some column inches of weeping and wailing about the tax bill, and Sturdevant completely missed the moral question:

Why should citizens in other states be forced to subsidize the tax-and-spend government style that she so loves? The proposed tax bill is not "skewed" against Minnesota. It is the current tax law that is "skewed." It is skewed against innocent bystanders in other states who are being forced to subsidize Minnesota's expensive government.

And, yes, Minnesotans being forced to pay their own tax bills will probably "ramp up pressure on state and local government to spend less." We can only hope.

I think Lori Sturdevant has it exactly wrong when she says the House tax bill "runs counter to more than two centuries of federalism." Eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes eliminates a subsidy that distorts what our high services in Minnesota cost. Federalism is not in jeopardy here. Minnesota and other states that offer high services need to fund those from the citizens of the state, and we who enjoy those services or who value them because they improve the quality of our lives or who deem them essential for those in need should willingly pay for them. Our state and local governments will need to be creative in how they raise revenue and how they distribute the burden. That is the essence of federalism, as Sturdevant states — "the idea that American states should be free to run their own financial ships and serve their people as they see fit."

When the burdens of state, local and federal taxes are not distorted by deductibility, we can better understand them and can exert pressure more directly on taxing authorities to distribute those burdens equitably and progressively, as we call on governments to use those revenues fairly. Likewise, if we Minnesotans believe we are net contributors to federal coffers, we need to hold our congressional delegation to account.

The Nov. 19 article musing on Olga Viso's legacy as leader of Walker Art Center omitted at least one of her contributions to our community. Over 18 months of her tenure, Olga worked with Artspace leader Kelley Lindquist and me to develop a detailed plan for a cultural district centered on Hennepin Avenue and running from the Walker to our Mississippi Riverfront. Olga spent countless hours helping us bring together more than 1,500 people as we developed our vision and secured its approval by our respective boards and the city of Minneapolis. Part of Olga's legacy will be her insightful, collaborative and results-oriented work on this project, which set the stage for a more vibrant, inclusive and arts-based future in the heart of our city. We are so much better for Olga's work. Thank you, Olga.

The writer is a former president of the Hennepin Theatre Trust.

Well, I may not have been persuaded to actually eat a cranberry, but Steve Hoffman's manifesto for our own sour little fruit (Variety, Nov. 19) was the best piece of writing I've read recently. Thank you. I just might give one a try.