Readers write: Sunday, March 27

Your editorial would have us believe that serving as governor of Minnesota for eight years doesn't constitute suitable preparation for serving as president of the United States ("A native son, a so-so-record," March 23).

Perhaps you would be more impressed with Tim Pawlenty's credentials if the sum total of his résumé consisted of standing on a street corner in Chicago handing out community action leaflets. Sound familiar?

DAVID OSTLUND, NISSWA, MINN.

When are people going to appreciate the need for a racino at Canterbury Park and the benefits it would provide the state? Look at it as a business, recreational and agricultural issue.

More horses would be brought to Minnesota to race. That means more barns would be built, more hay grown and more grain sold. Veterinarians, horseshoers and other jobs related to the horse industry would increase.

I would rather the money that 1,500 slot machines would generate be used for students than have our education system face ongoing budget cuts.

Students are the future leaders of our country. They're being robbed of a quality education. Please look at the racino facts to help solve our state's budget problems.

• • •

The racino plan proposed by the local horse tracks has several benefits for the state. Adding slot machines to the existing entertainment complexes enhances them as tourist attractions. It would also create much-needed jobs.

The competition racinos would bring into the gaming market will improve the management and quality of all Minnesota casinos. Racing improves with enhanced purses -- a plus for racing enthusiasts, the substantial horse community and ag-related businesses.

Finally, the tax dollars generated by a users tax means only those who play would pay a state tax. If the emphasis is kept on the industry and sport of horse racing -- and the taxes aren't paralyzing -- a good and valuable business like Canterbury Park will bring us a great product.

SHANNON RILEY, STILLWATER

Syl Jones' excoriation of Juan Williams was sly and insincere ("To blacks, the media all look alike," March 21). I'm a business owner with a conservative viewpoint.

I listen to public radio in my car while commuting because I have trouble with the grinding, over-the-top sensationalism found on conservative talk radio.

I always appreciated Juan's balanced and reasonable perspectives on NPR, no matter the topic. I was deeply disturbed by his departure, which, in my eyes, diminished the very balance that National Public Radio purports to pursue.

The reputation that he earned for sincerity certainly gave him the credentials to pursue an income at Fox News.

JIM CONN, ALEXANDRIA, MINN.

Jones is wrong in trying to equate the extreme right-wing bias of Fox with some type of liberal bias at NPR. The Tea Party is a radical right-wing movement embraced by Fox. Williams isn't a liberal.

NPR has always tried to give all the sides of any issue a complete airing, something Fox is incapable of doing.

In fact, NPR is often conservative in its approach. Its economic and financial coverage might as well originate from a hedge fund manager.

Minnesota Public Radio frequently editorializes that people will have to do with less because times are tough. That isn't a liberal perspective, but a cover for shifting wealth to the rich.

Jones is way off the mark.

* * *

Jason Lewis' commentary highlights the dangerous rhetoric of the "climate skeptics" perfectly ("Getting warm. Or cool. Let's make policy!," March 20). Unfortunately, people who are rightfully anxious about what's happening to our planet will cling to this uninformed drivel for hope.

Lewis uses the outdated term "global warming" in conjunction with the fact that "the last few winters have been exceedingly harsh" to claim that "global warming" must not be happening.

The truth is, there's a lot more to climate change than a rise in global temperature. We are not going to experience climate change through a uniform increase in temperature within our historical weather patterns.

We are going to experience climate change through unprecedented disruptions in weather systems across the globe, causing extreme weather that even Lewis admits has been happening recently. Climate change is not a matter of belief: It's a scientific phenomenon.

• • •

The problem Lewis has with climate change science is the implication it has for the conservative worldview. So he chooses to deny its existence.

Otherwise, conservatives would have to rethink the free trade agenda because of its energy inefficiency. That would mean moving away from globalization to localized economies.

It would also mean dealing with inequities and the redistribution of wealth. Those who profited from pollution would have to pay for its cleanup.

You would also have to regulate corporations, intervene in the economy and subsidize renewable energy. All of this goes against the individualistic conservative worldview.

As individuals, we need to understand that we are only safe and secure to the extent that the planet and everyone on it is safe and secure.