"No one may display or present messages or items with political content at polling-site property the day of voting. Unlawful communications include — but are not limited to — buttons or badges, posters, clothing, logos, written materials, videos, recordings, and other verbal or nonverbal communication unaccepted by election judges. No organization may be represented that publicly has expressed a position on a political issue, whether or not that issue is specifically referred to on the ballot, and whether or not that issue has been supported by a candidate on the ballot. The final decision to dismiss an individual or not allow a particular means of communication must be agreed upon by a minimum of two election judges who are listed at the poll as members of different political parties."
The above rewording might not be perfect. But I hope it encourages others, including lawmakers and lawyers, to present improvements or alternatives.
The article about the push by governments to sue pharmaceutical manufacturers that make opioids ("Taking opioid makers to court," Nov. 19) says that governments claim that the manufacturers used deceptive marketing practices and misrepresented the addictive nature of the drugs. That is very unlikely. The product is approved by the FDA, and the FDA controls the marketing and the product literature. Product literature has to include all anticipated "adverse events," and there are strict rules about marketing. The article provided no evidence of what the deceptive marketing practices were or how they misrepresented the addictive nature of the drugs.
It seems to me that this is most likely a push to hold the corporations responsible simply because they have the deepest pockets. Unless they have actually done something wrong, they shouldn't be held responsible. I suspect that there are a variety of causes of this epidemic. Some possibilities include patients not following the drug use instructions, physicians overprescribing the drugs and distributors not being careful enough about who is receiving the drugs. This is a complex problem; it's too easy to simply blame the manufacturers.
After reading the Nov. 18 editorial "It's [James] Woods' hate that isn't welcome here," I am compelled to remind the staff that Hillary Clinton won the general election by a paltry 1.4 percentage points in Minnesota. Here in Crow Wing County, Donald Trump won with 64 percent to Clinton's 30 percent. Whether the Star Tribune Editorial Board wants to believe it or not, many of us do not agree with its liberal immigration policies. Same for Lutheran Social Service, Catholic Charities and the Democratic Party — the holy alliance of diversity; I hold none of those groups in high esteem.
The city of Minneapolis now must force people out of their shelters to hide them from the elite Super Bowl fans in a stadium I helped fund but can't afford to attend. We have an underfunded fight against the opiate epidemic that threatens the core of our existence. With the nation adding another 100 million people in your great-grandchild's lifetime, can we really afford unlimited chain migration? The editorial-page staff declared those of us who don't drink the immigration Kool-Aid as "hatemongers" and xenophobes. What I saw in the actor James Woods' footage on Twitter was a snapshot of the current and future face of Minneapolis, or is it Li'l Mogadishu?