A couple of weeks ago I was asked what I thought of the GOP presidential debates. I responded that I did not watch them; I don't have cable and I don't get CNN in the comfort of my home. The surprise gasp I thought I would hear did not happen. Instead, I got an understanding nod.
It's 2015, and apparently a lot of people have opted out of cable. There are even terms for us — those who have had cable and then stopped are "cord cutters." The "cord nevers" are people who have yet to pay a cable bill. According to a March 29, 2015, PBS "NewsHour" report, over the past five years 3.8 million homes have opted to cancel their cable subscriptions. Millennials constitute a significant percentage of this group, and elderly individuals are also part of the cord-cutter demographic. When one is on a fixed income, letting the cable bill go when things get tight is a no-brainer.
The Democratic debates are happening Tuesday evening. I wonder if any of the candidates will address the fact that sitting on a couch in front of the television to see the debate is a luxury that a lot of people don't have. The situation so clearly reflects the growing wealth disparity in our culture and the limited opportunities for middle-class and low-income folks to engage in our nation's political dialogue. I wonder if this situation will influence how candidates respond to questions. But then it might not be on their radar. I'm thinking that none of the candidates has had to think about whether he or she can afford the cable bill.
Julie Risser, Edina
COLUMBUS DAY
When it comes to these cultural changes, let the voters decide
The Oct. 12 Star Tribune had a story on changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day ("St. Paul among cities to ditch Columbus, recognize Indians"), in Opinion Exchange, an article on Italian Americans being miffed by this change ("Italian-Americans need inclusion, respect too") and in the Variety section, an article on the need for Asian inclusion in the conversation of American history ("Asian inclusion").
Apparently, in order to recognize one group, the exclusion of another will happen. I guess it depends on which group you talk to. As with the name change of Lake Calhoun, it brings out both sides of the conversation with provocative questions and comments. In the end, this is always determined by a handful of city, state or federal officials. These items are never up for public vote, which should be a consideration. On a November ballot, I would rather have a vote on an issue like this, rather than reading over mind-numbing choices, like water works commissioner or judges whom I have never heard of until seeing the ballot.
By allowing citizens to vote on issues such as these gives us all a sense of participation — in our favor or not — in determining changes such as these. We are in an age when citizens are feeling more alienated by government intrusion into our lives, without a voice in the process. Participation would go a long way toward giving people a sense of empowerment on issues that affect them and their cultural history. In a democratic society, let's bring back the adage that the majority rules.
Ty Yasukawa, Burnsville
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
A few suggestions offered for innovative leadership
The Star Tribune Editorial Board endorsing Paul Ryan and John Kline for the speaker position ("Nation needs either Ryan or Kline to serve," Oct. 10) is as outlandish and absurd as the current chaos unfolding in Washington. What has happened is that a third party has elbowed its way into Congress. They run as Republicans, but they are actually anarchists with a radical right-wing agenda not far ideologically from the Taliban or the ultraorthodox Jewish extremists who cause equal amounts of trouble elsewhere. These verbal bomb-throwers like Mike Huckabee openly speak about violence: " … It's about burning the corrupt Washington political machine to the ground and rebuilding our country."