West metro letters

I'm furious with the coverage of the protesters in St. Paul. Three hundred idiots get three minutes, while the other 10,000 of us get 10 seconds?

No wonder they continue to organize these violent dangerous events. You cover them.

Cover the thoughtful and peaceful in the same way, and maybe we'll see more of that!

GRETCHEN LONG

BLOOMINGTON

That's a flood? So the headline in the Star Tribune is that 10,000 protesters "flood" St. Paul. More people show up for Vixen and Lynx games.

Even with the generous support of this newspaper, these protest groups can barely muster a whisper and must resort to violence in order to be heard. In a country of 300 million, 10,000 is nothing.

JOSEPH DMOWSKI

EDINA

The real crime Now I get it. It's a worse crime to break a Macy's window protesting the system that causes us to kill a million people for their oil than it is to actually kill a million people for their oil. Makes sense.

CATHY MURPHY

ST LOUIS PARK

Slander when directed at Democrats is abhorrent, but when directed at Republicans it is red meat for the media under the guise of family values hypocrisy.

Does the Star Tribune deserve praise for not sinking to this level? Or as Jack Web used to say, is it "Just doing my job, ma'am"?

I truly hope it is the latter.

PHIL VAN SCHEPEN

MAPLE GROVE

First, I can't help but wonder what conservative Christians would be saying if Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama had five children and a 17-year-old pregnant daughter. Are we really to believe that they would be as gracious as Mr. Obama?

Second, why isn't this an issue among conservatives who believe abstinence is the only form of birth control? Is it because they truly sympathize with Ms. Palin and her daughter (maybe they all saw the movie Juno)? Or is it because of Ms. Palin's pro-life, anti-evolution, pro-gun, and pro-Arctic refuge drilling stances that she gets a bye on this issue? I truly hope it's the latter, for this would mean private familial concerns would no longer play a role in national politics; but I have my doubts.

Third, does this mean that conservative Republicans are sacrificing their stance on premarital sex as being morally reprehensible, or is it just premarital sex while using contraceptives they have a problem with? What if it had become public knowledge that Mrs. Palin's daughter was practicing safe sex with her boyfriend? Would she still be the nominee for vice president?

And lastly, what would the religious right's reaction be if both her daughter and her boyfriend chose not to marry, as is many times the more mature decision? Are we regressing to the days of the shotgun wedding just so Ms. Palin can run for office?

You can see by these questions I am spending way too much time pondering this conundrum. If anyone has any answers so I can go back to thinking about simple issues like the war and the economy, I would greatly appreciate it.

PLYMOUTH

Palin's fairy tale While the teenage pregnancy in Gov. Palin's family should not be a campaign issue, it needs to be remembered that Palin knew this would come out and chose to put her daughter in the national headlines by accepting this nomination. She and her husband also allowed the McCain campaign to put out a press release stating how proud they are of their daughter and announcing the upcoming wedding of she and the baby's father.

Sarah Palin has the eyes and ears of the nation watching her, including young women and girls across the country. These young people need to hear that, as a mother, she is disappointed in her daughter becoming pregnant, is concerned for her daughter's future, and that some of her dreams for her daughter have been shattered.

In the position she has accepted, she has the responsibility not to allow a fairy tale spin to be placed on this situation.

DIANA BEUNTER

The fall of Keillor What happened to Garrison Keillor? He used to be funny. Now his column keeps repeating itself, as if we, his readers, still miss his point after the last 15 iterations. The "Old Scout" has turned into the "Old Curmudgeon."

Unfortunately for himself, and for his former fans, Mr. Keillor demonstrates what so many people find offensive about liberalism: He comes across as elitist, knowing better, scornful, sneering, supercilious, bitter: looking down at the "little people" -- conservatives, churchgoers, bowlers, fat people and motorcyclists -- who can't seem to understand that we need to be governed and ruled by people like him.

MICHAEL W. BIRD