Letters to the editor for Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2008

I must respond to unfair criticism of Sen. Hillary Clinton's statement that Martin Luther King's dream was implemented by Lyndon Johnson, as somehow "downplaying Dr. King's role."

Any dream to right a wrong or practice -- whether it is racial oppression against any minority, protection of an environmental jewel, health care for all, etc. -- remains only a dream, no matter how devoutly hoped for, until the action of the political process fulfills it.

Sadly, there are many unfair and untrue accusations being hurled back and forth in the campaigns, but that statement was not one of them.

RUTH HALVERSON, ST. LOUIS PARK

Don't forget HHH In regard to the reported "clash" between Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the roles of Lyndon B. Johnson and Martin Luther King in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, let's not forget Hubert H. Humphrey.

From his early efforts as mayor of Minneapolis to his historic speech at the 1948 Democratic Convention to his support and work behind the scenes to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Humphrey did more to genuinely advance the cause of human rights than Johnson and King put together.

JEFF HATFIELD, RICHFIELD

Some students feel their privacy was invaded. This is true. Someone took their pictures and posted them on the Internet without their permission. Other students protest the punishments because they feel the photos are insufficient evidence for such strong consequences. They are correct. But what nobody is telling them is that the photos are not the only evidence. The main evidence would be the testimony of the 42 students who came in and spoke to the administrators. Thanks to this testimony, the administrators do have sufficient evidence to give out the punishments they did.

Only a few of these students are guilty of bragging of their misdeeds then being surprised when they got caught. The rest should not be ridiculed for feeling something unfair was happening. They could not apply good logic without all the facts.

PAUL SHRIVER, MINNEAPOLIS

The Jan. 8 commentary by Kip Sullivan on health care report cards ("Report cards won't improve health care") missed an important fact. Public reporting of health care quality is already improving care in Minnesota. Ask your own physician next time you see him or her. Our surveys show that most of the medical leaders in this community believe that patients benefit when we share information on the quality of care. And most medical groups and hospitals are using this public information to improve the care they provide.

What the health care reform committees are proposing isn't new and untested. We know sharing information with consumers is working. And these public reports are being developed with the help of leading health care organizations in the community including the Minnesota Medical Association, the Minnesota Hospital Association, Minnesota Council of Health Plans, consumer groups, state agencies and employers.

JAMES CHASE, ST. PAUL;

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

MINNESOTA COMMUNITY MEASUREMENT

Does this paper need a refresher course on history? The Electoral College was designed to not let a handful of states be the decider for the presidential election ("One person, one vote: what a concept," Jan. 9).

If we went by a true popular vote, the states of Florida, Texas, California, Ohio and New York would be full of candidate attention and awash with government money. The Electoral College helps solve that problem. It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than the alternatives (can you also say recount?).

BOB PETERSEN, BLAINE

No, they don't I whole-heartedly agree with the Jan. 9 editorial pertaining to the Electoral College.

For too long the good citizens of New York, Florida and California have been held hostage to the whims of the hicks and hay seeds of Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas. These states can barely cough up enough people to warrant representation in Congress! Their combined populations are less than that of Los Angeles County. Why should they have any say at all in who the president should be? Who cares if each of these states votes 100 percent for one candidate.

Let's pass a law to force their electors to cast their ballots for the other candidate simply because he got the majority of the votes in Houston.

While we are at it, we need to consider taking this to the next step. We need to end having two senators from each state. Is it really fair that South Dakota should have the same representation in the Senate as New York? Talk about disenfranchisement.