Readers Write (Jan. 11): GLBT issues, the military, hockey, St. Croix bridge

I weep for Minnesota. It has come down to hate groups like the Parents Action League receiving equal time to broadcast outrageous misconceptions and lies concerning homosexuals and finding support to enshrine them in the Anoka-Hennepin School District's official policy ("Parents league presents demands," Jan. 10).

Anoka-Hennepin's "neutrality" policy is horrendous enough in its intolerance toward sexual orientation. Now a hate group comes forward to exacerbate the stereotypes and misinformation.

BILL PAPPAS, STILLWATER

* * *

I was dumbfounded by Robert H. Scales' recent criticism of President Obama's plan to downsize the military, in which he suggests that the reason behind the United States' repeated military failures since World War II was inadequate troop levels ("Another president fails the military," Jan. 9).

For one who extols looking to the past for guidance on military policy, Scales curiously has his head buried in the proverbial sands of history.

Here is a cursory review of the major U.S. military interventions since the Second World War: In Korea, the United States intervened on the false assumption that communism, once it conquered the Korean peninsula, would take over the world.

The result was a military disaster and international embarrassment, at the cost of 58,000 U.S. lives. In Afghanistan, the United States intervened on legitimate grounds, but due to yet another war undertaken on false pretenses (Iraq), 10 years and 1,800 U.S. lives later, we have yet to declare it a success.

Finally, in Iraq, after nine years and 4,500 lives lost, we left yet another country divided and on the verge of collapse with no clear victory on our part.

To pretend that this miserable history would be different if we'd only had more troops or more money is laughable. Had we avoided these foolish wars in the first place, we would have saved 100,000 American lives and trillions of dollars.

What we need is better foreign policy, not a land army of 8 million, as Scales suggests.

When we do go to war, we ought to do so with a clear goal in mind, a clear time frame for success and a sober understanding of the costs involved.

* * *

A Jan. 9 letter writer sees the outpouring of support for Jack Jablonski ("Family says hockey player won't be able to walk again," Jan. 5) and, while not belittling his injury or the response, wonders why so many other tragedies go "unacknowledged."

I'd like to attempt an honest answer. I wholeheartedly agree that our world is filled with tragedy and suffering and need.

I use the analogy of the body going into shock when physical injuries are overwhelming -- it's a necessary survival technique. As a finite man, if I were to acknowledge and grieve the sum total of worldwide suffering, I couldn't handle it.

As a moral man, I cannot ignore it. Therefore I do my best to choose a handful of worthy charities and causes to support with my time and money.

The church is active in every part of the globe to minister to suffering and needy people. And I find people, regardless of their religious belief or practice, to be compassionate and giving. Americans' charitable giving for 2010 was more than $290 billion.

Last November on Give to the Max Day, Minnesotans responded with $13.5 million for almost 4,000 nonprofit organizations. My workplace donates money and toys each Christmas.

So as a Christian, an American, a Minnesotan and an employee, and as an individual, I don't think we are ignoring people who are in need. Unfortunately, the amount of need still outstrips our generosity and our resources.

Jablonski's story has touched many of us. It has broken through our coping mechanisms, and people are praying and donating and following the story because we have connected with him and his family in the healthiest human way -- compassionately.

We are incapable of connecting with everybody in need, and we have chosen to connect with the Jablonskis. That is a blessing with no downside.

* * *

The Jan. 7 Letter of the Day ("Is a bridge only valuable to those who need to cross it?") claims that critics of the proposed St. Croix River Crossing are behaving selfishly, showing a "what's in it for me?" mentality.

As if the promoters are not doing exactly that, including Stillwater merchants, western Wisconsin landowners and developers, interstate commuters and their employers, and pandering politicians? Don't we all?

But for the opponents I know, "self-interest" is a bit more generous: Call us altruistic, but we want to preserve the St. Croix Valley for us and future generations to enjoy as intended when laws were passed to prevent the sprawl and traffic that a freeway bridge will surely encourage.

And we don't want to put at risk the nation's 200 or so other protected rivers by weakening the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Act with the dangerous precedent an amendment allowing another bridge would establish.