Readers write for Tuesday, March 22

There is a substantial difference between National Public Radio and Fox News.

Fox is a commercial enterprise and is subject to whims of the marketplace. If people don't watch it, it will die a quick death or change to become viable.

NPR is taxpayer-supported, and private donations to it are tax-deductible. I am not a fan of NPR because it makes a point of insulting a broad variety of institutions I generally like.

I feel the same way about MSNBC, but I choose not to watch it nor support its advertisers. I don't get that kind of say with NPR.

If NPR is such a great thing and taxpayer support is rescinded, it will change its name, buy a license from the FCC and enter the rough-and-tumble world of free markets.

We will see if it flourishes like Fox has or goes the way of the dinosaurs. I don't object to its availability for those who choose it. I object to its hand being in my pocket without my choice.

JAY HUYCK, MAPLE GROVE

Examining the initiatives brought thus far to the floors of the House and Senate has lead me to this conclusion: Let's throw as much much mud up on the wall and see what sticks.

Voters: Is this what you expected when you voted in a Republican majority in the House and Senate?

ALAN PETRI, APPLE VALLEY

* * *

Let me begin by saying that I have been very satisfied with UCare since my retirement. However, I also have questions for the insurance provider ("UCare donation raises questions," editorial, March 20).

Then, within weeks, I learned that UCare has donated $30 million to help Minnesota solve its budget problem.

I'm all for helping out the state financially. Indeed, it takes whatever money I have lying around. But why raise the premium for people on Medicare when it obviously isn't needed?

HAL MILLER, MINNEAPOLIS

* * *

Just when I think I can put my recent experience as a University of Minnesota regent candidate behind me as a bad dream, I get pulled back in by the disturbing disclosure that new regent Steve Sviggum is a U employee ("New regent's U job raises concern," March 12).

What they need time to do apparently is to try to come up with methods and procedures to make it workable. It is not workable.

I have no doubt that Sviggum is an honorable man who believes it when he says there is no problem. But his actions demonstrate that he doesn't understand what a conflict is.

He inked his new deal with the U on Feb. 4 when we all were in the middle of the candidate process. Why wasn't that disclosed?

Even a perceived conflict should be a concern, let alone a direct financial relationship.

The bigger issue is, of course, the well-documented political bias in regent selection that has resulted in the opposite of what the Legislature was originally charged to do -- have a truly representative body to oversee the university.

Like the U of M Foundation. Like the U of M Alumni Association. Both have broad, diverse and impressive governing boards of their own. They, instead of former legislators, should "own" a third of the regent seats.

NORM RICKEMAN, WOODLAND

* * *

To offer an opinion considered for publication as a letter to the editor, please fill out this form. Letters should be no more than 250 words.