About that comment feature
Regarding Nancy Barnes July 13 column, "Reader comments open way to freewheeling debate": It seems that the debate got a little too freewheeling for the civilized sensibilities of Barnes and Will Tacy, the online managing editor.
But never fear. They've solved the problem. Now the Star Tribune is anticipating in advance what types of stories might spark "ugly" comments they deem lacking in "community standards." Since the Star Tribune is not able to sufficiently control the debate, now we are simply not allowed to comment on these stories at all.
If the Star Tribune can't handle it, then it should remove the comments feature all together. Or it could simply not have the comments visible on the same page as the stories. Just require one more click to see the comments. No one who doesn't what to read the comments section would have to read them. This would be better than unleashing the thought police on the uncivilized folk.
DARRIN LEE, BLOOMINGTON
On public assistance, and giving birth
In response to Rep. Patti Fritz's letter "Abortion statistics / Family cap law hurts" (July 11): I was an employment counselor for 14 years, understand all of the dynamics of people on public assistance and saw many clients having more children than they could afford.
Responsible adults, who know that they can't afford another child, don't have one -- anything else is blatant manipulation of the programs. Any client, who knows the rules and consequences and has another child, is playing the victim and assuming that we'll all feel sorry for the children (and who doesn't?). Buying into this behavior only makes us all codependent. If the child suffers from neglect or abuse because the parent isn't getting more money, that becomes another issue.
Ultimately, anyone involved in this business is responsible to the client within the boundaries of their job, but none is responsible for the client and the choices that they make.
PAT KAMINSKI, ROCHESTER