Opinion Editor's Note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters to the editor daily online and in print. To contribute, click here.
•••
I was dismayed to read John C. “Chuck” Chalberg’s commentary comparing Walter Judd and Ilhan Omar (“Tale of two Mpls. pols shows how the U.S. has changed,” Opinion Exchange, Dec. 10). The entire article is about Walter Judd until the last few paragraphs, which appears to have been written to disparage Omar. As one of her constituents, I am very pleased with the way Omar represents our district in Congress and how she reflects my values. Because of her popularity with the district's voters, many others feel the same way.
Chalberg writes: “By now, one would think that a young girl from Somalia would be overflowing with gratitude to a country that sheltered her, welcomed her, and elevated her to national leadership, and to a city that welcomed her with all the nonchalance that it brings with it.” could show a newcomer from, for example, Rising City, Nebraska. Yet Omar seems to have little doubt about the failings and sins of her America.” As President Joe Biden would say, “What nonsense.” Through her tireless and diligent service in Minnesota and now in Washington, Omar demonstrates her gratitude and faith this country. I have attended several of Omar's town hall meetings and she has never said anything that suggests she does not love our country and respect its values. By speaking truth to power and pointing out when our country makes mistakes, Omar exemplifies exactly the kind of patriotism and belief in America that I admire in our leaders. Like any of us, she is not perfect, but she represents her constituents with integrity, thoughtfulness, and an understanding of the values our country claims to stand for. When we betray these values through the way we treat our citizens and through our actions around the world, Omar has the courage to speak out.
She is 41 years old, and the fact that Chalberg refers to her as a “young girl from Somalia” seems condescending. I am confident that she will respond to crises with the “Omar Vision” that makes our foreign policy more compassionate and reflective of the values our country claims to hold dear. As long as Omar continues to advocate for individuals and organizations in her district, secure millions of dollars for local programs, and reflect my values in her sensible policy positions, I will continue to enthusiastically vote for her.
Tony Keenan, Columbia Heights
•••
Chalberg's commentary on Judd fails on several counts. First, it reminds me of Mark Anthony's eulogy to Caesar: “I have not come to praise Judd; I came to beat up Omar. He explains: “For Ilhan Omar and the American Left, this country has largely been a force for evil in the world…” On the contrary, Omar and the American Left believe that America can be a force for good in the world if it adheres to its principles: equality, justice and self-determination. We only become a “force for evil” when we ignore what we consider our core principles. Although Chalberg praises Judd for advocating for “freedom at home and abroad,” he despises Omar for demanding freedom for the Palestinian people. Omar espouses the same American principles that Chalberg Judd praises.
The American left is crying for Israel, not only because of Hamas's horrific October 7 attack, but also because Israel's disproportionate response threatens its future. In the eyes of many people around the world, Israel has lost its moral superiority.
Finally, Chalberg must understand the definition of “isolationism.” Like Judd, I spent many years abroad as a medical missionary. Like Judd, I am an internationalist, not an isolationist. However, opposing an unjust war does not make one an “isolationist.” In fact, opposing an unjust war means supporting the population decimated by war, which makes one an “internationalist.”
John Fredell, Minneapolis
MENTAL HEALTH
The article “Police partners calm down in crises” (December 10) reports on alternative answers for people with mental illnesses in crises. When we call 911, we always want the right response – the fire department if there's a fire, EMS if there's a heart attack, and a mental health team if it's a mental health crisis. We know it works and has for decades, because all 87 counties in Minnesota are covered by mental health crisis teams and operate under the standards of state law. The teams consist of mental health professionals, practitioners or peer specialists who provide immediate and weeks-long stabilization services to someone struggling with their mental health, which can lead to positive outcomes. They follow HIPAA so people's information is private.
More recently, we have seen police departments or cities hire their own mental health professionals. We would prefer they contract with the existing teams so that people's health records remain confidential and we work to create a single system – rather than multiple systems. Build on what we have. In light of 988 and Travis Law (where 911 directs calls to crisis teams), it is more important than ever that Minnesotans know what to expect from our mental health crisis system. Law enforcement will point out that these teams cannot respond as quickly as the police – which is, frankly, due to funding. Our statewide budget for all crisis teams is not even as large as the St. Paul Police Department's budget.
We definitely want people struggling with their mental health to receive the care and support they need. But let's create a system, not a patchwork of programs. This past session, lawmakers increased funding for statewide crisis teams — but only for a two-year period. In some ways, it's not about some police departments collaborating with their crisis teams, it's about us not investing in what we know works.
Sue Abderholden, St. Paul
The author is executive director of NAMI Minnesota.
THE ECONOMY
In the 19th paragraph of his essay “Economic Reality Catches Up with the State” (December 10), Evan Ramstad acknowledges that “Minnesotans' personal income increased 3.9% in the second quarter.” At the end of the article, he worries that while economic data continues to improve, people's perceptions of the economy are not.
So.
Under a frightening headline about “economic realities” and citing a state forecast that changes by hundreds of millions of dollars every quarter, Ramstad noted at that point that the state was “no more.” [an] exceptional economic performance,” that the “large budget increase combined with Minnesota's slow growth will create a problem,” that “there is not much room for upside,” that “everything touched by government spending will soon become more difficult, “And we should “forget the tax cuts.” By the time I forced myself to notice Minnesota's strong income growth and people's paradoxical economic perceptions, this reader was ready for a stiff drink.
Has Ramstad noticed that after 19 paragraphs of doom and gloom, it's no wonder the public finds it hard to believe the continued positive economic statistics? Peering into the darkest depths of Ramstad's economic crystal ball may keep us captivated, but it is precisely this focus on the negative that ironically provides fundamental support for the public economic misperceptions that he so deplores.
Peter Hill, Minnetonka
Comments are closed.