Readers Write (Dec. 20): Minneapolis schools, Cuba, North Korea, government 'bigness'

The Minneapolis school board needs to review an informative study by the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution that was published in September. The study focused on whether superintendents of large school districts really make any difference to student achievement, and the answer it found was "no." In fact, it found, they account for a very small fraction of a percent (0.3 percent) of achievement differences.

Every few years, large school districts expend valuable resources and time searching countrywide to get the "right" superintendent. These districts pay tons of money to superintendents in salaries and benefits (more than $500,000 a year in states like New York and New Jersey, and more than $200,000 in the Twin Cities), while students receive very little benefit.

Now that Minneapolis Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson has resigned, the school board should concentrate more on supporting teachers and principals than on trying to find a supposed savior from some other large district. Maybe the board should look within its own district.

I am against the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with Cuba. The Castro brothers and the dictatorial regime they perpetuated did great harm to our country and on one occasion put us in great peril. They stole (nationalized) American property; allowed the Soviets to install intercontinental missiles in Cuba, close to our borders; fomented revolution in South America and supported communist regimes in Central America; dumped hundreds of common criminals on our shores, and incessantly demonized America. (The Europeans who long ago established diplomatic ties with communist Cuba had none of that.)

That is the past. More important, recognition sanitizes, if not legitimizes, the sycophants and opportunists who served the Castro regime at the expense of the Cuban people. When the Castro brothers are gone and the time comes for regime change, these usurpers will be able to salvage their ill-gotten political and financial power and will be a stumbling block to a clean and decisive transition to democracy, as happened in the former Soviet satellite countries of Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

• • •

A question raised by a Dec. 19 letter writer about whether President Obama's announced program of normalization of relations with Cuba is "yet another illegal edict" must be answered with a resounding "no."

As for any legal challenge, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the president's authority to deal with foreign government is exclusive and binding. The breadth of the authority, however, is being addressed in a case pending before the high court, Zivotofsky vs. Kerry, which concerns the validity of a 2003 law that requires the secretary of state to note "Israel" on both the birth certificate and passport of an American citizen born in Jerusalem, when requested by the individual. The measure was opposed by President George W. Bush, although he signed it, as well as by the Obama administration, which views it as an infringement on the president's authority over foreign policy.

Whatever the outcome of that case, it is unlikely to impact the president's prerogative to foster more normalized relations with Cuba. It might not be a wise decision, but it definitely is not an "illegal" one.

Friday morning on CNN, news anchor Carol Costello said: "Surely, we're not going to go to war over a Seth Rogen movie," as if that were the extent of the issue. I submit that it's not! What we're talking about is an overt attack by a foreign government on the exercise of U.S. constitutional rights inside of our own borders, using threats and intimidation, as in extortion ("N. Korea linked to Sony attack," Dec. 18). We can respond militarily, or economically with sanctions, but whichever way we go, we must aim to devastate the power of Kim Jung Un, especially now that Sony has caved. We have to make an example of him to the rest of the world. It's either that, or get ready for extortion to be the new normal.

• • •

So a Dec. 19 letter writer is upset that the recently shelved film "The Interview" was a comedic movie about murdering another human being, as if this were something new. Apparently, she's never heard of "Horrible Bosses," "Zoolander," "Death to Smoochy," "Teaching Mrs. Tingle," "Death Becomes Her" or "Weekend at Bernies," to name a few.

How many murdered citizens would he suggest should equate to an officer being disciplined? How many beatings? Maybe "double-secret probation" would work?

Instead, how about a criminal justice system led by prosecution teams that don't make the 1919 Chicago White Sox look like a group that gave it their all in a system that isn't grossly skewed to exonerate police?

• • •

Tice makes a good point that big government can be oppressive. The example he uses is policing. Another example of government oppression is the Affordable Care Act. It forces companies to provide health insurance to their employees; it forces individuals to buy health insurance; it forces men to subsidize women's health insurance and the young to subsidize insurance for the elderly. It also arbitrarily levies taxes on some groups while leaving others unscathed. It dictates what coverage insurance plans must provide rather than leaving that up to the market to decide.

The founding fathers set up a government that afforded individuals the maximum possible freedom. We have strayed too far from that vision. In some areas, our government has become a burden.