JOHN PAUL STEVENS
Supreme Court justice defied easy labeling
The retirements of both Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and the Supreme Court's John Paul Stevens should open our collective eyes to the sad state of political discussion in this country. They can offer all of us lessons regarding the unnecessarily polarizing nature of political debate and the do-more-harm-than-good nature of shortcut, buzz words like "liberal" and "conservative."
Stupak has been almost universally maligned in the past few months for his role in the health care debate. A pro-life Democrat, it is tempting to think of Stupak as a congressional contradiction, but it's only our preference for easy categorization that pushes us in that direction.
Stevens defies summary as well. Appointed by a Republican, a self-proclaimed middle-right conservative, Stevens is called the court's most liberal member. Throughout his career, Justice Stevens has often dissented from the court's majority, yet he has always done so with a deeply held respect for the judicial process.
It isn't easy to call Stevens a "liberal," but he's not in line with the current court's "conservative" majority, either.
The more digging we do, the clearer it becomes that we've grossly oversimplified political debate. We look for similarity in labels rather than through contextual empathy. Recognizing the difficult decisions and contradictions that surround every cooperative decision does not make for nearly as compelling a narrative as the kind of hero/villain pigeonholing we seem to crave at this moment in history.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with Stupak or Stevens, it is important to engage with their ideas. Considering their retirements, perhaps we should retire the more vitriolic, simplicity-hungry parts of ourselves. Without understanding, without a willingness to disagree productively, we're left tearing each other apart.
Embrace complexity. Embrace difficulty. As we near another election cycle, take a lesson from today's retirements and embrace real discussion.
BRETT BIEBEL, MINNEAPOLIS
• • •
Saturday's headline proclaims that the exit of Supreme Court Justice Stevens will give President Obama a chance to shape the court.
Hardly, as long as the conservatives still have the majority.
PAUL SLATON, HOPKINS
Fighting sioux
What's in a nickname? Plenty of passion
Victory at last: The Fighting Sioux are no more ("Fighting Sioux gone for good," April 9).
The NCAA considered the nickname hostile and offensive, but considers the nickname for Notre Dame, the Fighting Irish, perfectly acceptable.
Hypocrisy?
ALAN E. RICHTER, MINNEAPOLIS
• • •
I'm gonna go stand in the corner over here and wait for the Norwegian uprising over the abhorrent use of the word "Viking" in Minnesota sports.
Anyone want to join me?
RYAN JUEL, WAYZATA
• • •
I don't believe the North Dakota Supreme Court and the Board of Higher Education went far enough to neutralize the hostilities surrounding the higher education institution in Grand Forks.
To complete their efforts, they should change the University of North Dakota's name to the University of the Northern Plains. Then its nickname could be the Pure Vanilla.
JEFF MILLER, SAUK CENTRE, MINN.
confederate history
GOP, Tea Party should condemn 'honor'
Regarding the online story on Virginia bringing back Confederate History Month for the first time since 2001:
When will a responsible Republican leader or member of the Tea Party movement come out and condemn Virginia's Gov. Bob McDonnell for "honoring" the Confederacy?
The Confederacy served one purpose: to perpetuate slavery. To honor it is to honor murder, torture, rape and treason.
How can people who claim their watchword is freedom be so silent about the praise of slave-holders?
JAY MISKOWIEC, MINNEAPOLIS
taxing alcohol
Bars survived smoking ban; they'd survive tax
Dan O'Gara and Pat Mancini make some interesting points about the negative aspect of adding a dime-per-drink tax ("Tax alcohol, destroy jobs and businesses," April 6).
Their comments about alcohol taxing being very regressive makes a lot of sense. But instead of proposing a tweak to the solution, such as a higher tax on top-shelf drinks, they want to throw out the entire idea. Their main point is, of course, preserving jobs.
It seems to me that business owners tried the same scare tactic several years ago when the statewide smoking ban went into place.
Interesting thing about that argument is that, funny, I see no shortages of places to eat and drink. In fact, the Star Tribune recently ran an article about all sorts of new bars and restaurants opening in the Warehouse District around Target Field.
Is it possible that the correlation between taxes and service jobs may be more complicated than restaurant owners want to admit?
Maybe if these owners spent as much time making their establishments attractive to customers as they do trying to represent their special interests at the State Capitol and in public forums, they wouldn't have much to worry about at all.
ANDY ROTERING, MINNEAPOLIS
