Letters to the editor for Thursday, July 10

I would like to thank the Star Tribune for the July 6 editorial shedding some light on the mental health parity bill. Had this bill received the media attention it deserved, we would have had parity many years ago.

The late Sen. Paul Wellstone would be proud of his friend Rep. Jim Ramstad for his relentless efforts for this cause. I have followed this bill closely for the last six years and Ramstad has been the one constant voice from our great state. This is his last year as congressman, so its enactment would be a fitting tribute to Wellstone and a great way for Ramstad to end his career.

BOB ANDERSON, WOODBURY

A number of things troubled me about the July 8 Opinion Exchange article "Don't assume that the death penalty deters," including its title. After all, capital punishment is called the "ultimate punishment," and for good reason.

Your headline could suggest that if capital punishment doesn't deter crime, then no lesser form of punishment is likely to do so. So let's assume, until there is data to the contrary, that the death penalty deters, for if we don't, those who think that punishments that don't deter are cruel and unusual will be able to call for an end to any and all punishment of criminals!

The serious point of all of this is that it is a waste of time, money and effort to try to determine if the death penalty deters crime. The proper question concerns capital punishment's deterrence relative to other options. That is, we should be trying to determine whether capital punishment provides more of a deterrent than its current, and allegedly more humane, alternative -- life in prison without possibility of parole.

JOHN HUMPHREY, MANKATO

To carry the authors' illogic farther, one could say that at certain times the occurrence of, say, armed robbery increases, and the penalty of armed robbery being jail time, then it must not be a deterrence, so should we do away with jail time?

JIM FISHER, EDINA

Regarding your July 8 Business section article on a company that is thriving in northwest rural Minnesota: In a business era where only the strong survive, it is mind-boggling to me that there seems to be such a negative tone toward Minnesota companies working to build viable and successful enterprises.

Let's be clear: Otter Tail Power's customers do not subsidize the other businesses that Otter Tail Corporation has invested in. There are strong rules and regulations and oversight by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, with input from the office of Energy Security, the Attorney General's office and many others, that ensures that when Minnesotans pay their electric and gas bills, it is only for the utility service.

It is Otter Tail Corporation's shareholders, a majority of whom live in Minnesota, who are the ones investing in the diverse company portfolio. Shareholders -- many of them seniors who invested in the company 10, 20, 30 plus years ago and rely upon the company to be successful for much of their livelihood -- are taking the risk that Otter Tail Corporation is being smart not putting all of its eggs in one basket to be a successful company. In many cases, Otter Tail Corporation has invested in other Minnesota businesses -- they invest back into local communities.

ANNETTE HENKEL, PRESIDENT,

MINNESOTA UTILITY INVESTORS, ST. PAUL

If Zimbabwe had oil, the United States and allies would rightfully be there in a minute. Would have been years ago. The extreme oppression of the Mugabe years has only been exceeded by the brutal, savage oppression of this regime in this election period. Read of the savagery going on there; ask why we allow this without intervention. Answer: oil.

KATHY KOSNOFF, MINNEAPOLIS

The media are reporting that anarchy groups plan to block delegate access to the Republican National Convention. That is what Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. He and his followers used threats and intimidation to limit participation by their political opponents in the democratic process.

If you are allowed to trample the rights of others the same may happen to you. If you do not understand these simplest of principles, perhaps you are not yet ready to participate in our political process.

MARK PUPEZA, NEW HOPE

As reported in David Brooks' July 7 column "Obama donor list reflects the rising power base," Barack Obama claims that his campaign is 90 percent funded by small donors, but in reality only 45 percent of his money comes from donations of $200 or less. This and all other numbers to follow can be seen at OpenSecrets.org sponsored by the Federal Elections Commission.

Lawyers represent the largest number of dollars given to the Democratic Party. So far lawyers have donated about $18 million to Obama and $5 million to John McCain. Another such extreme is professors and other educators who have given Obama $7 million compared with $700,000 to McCain, a ratio of 10-1.

Obama claims that "Big Oil" and pharmaceutical companies own and control the Republican Party. Donations to Republicans from Big Oil amount to only 71 percent of Big Oil's total donations, and drug companies give 51 percent to Republicans and 49 percent to Democrats. This is not even close to the Democrats with 91 percent from labor unions and 88 percent from environmentalists.

Regarding the July 9 letter of the day, "Hate speech pays off big for Rush": I love having a newspaper that respects and prints all opinions -- that's America! But how come when Rush Limbaugh speaks it is "hate" and when Al Franken does it is "satire?"