Oh, joy. The season of our most cherished American traditions is here: college bowl games, the NFL playoffs and, especially, the butchering of "The Star-Spangled Banner" live on national television. Ah, yes. Which diva will forget the lyrics this year? Who will add the most extraneous notes? And who will give us the flat-out weirdest national anthem of the season?
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for American individualism and artistic interpretation. But it has always seemed to me, especially in the context of big national events, that these "performances" always miss the point. I hate to say it, celebs, but it's not about you. Just once I'd like the "it" voice of the moment to step to the microphone and say something like:
"Ladies and gentlemen, the world is full of gorgeous arias and beautiful solos. Our national anthem is not one of them. There is nothing individual about it. There is not a single 'I,' 'me' or 'mine' in any of the four stanzas. Not one. Instead, the words of our 'Star-Spangled Banner' are all plurals: 'you,' 'we,' 'us' and 'our.' With that in mind, please fill your lungs and lift your voices as we sing our national anthem in unison."
The chances of this ever happening are zero. So I suggest that instead of inviting a celebrity to sing, we invite a great national choir (Mormon Tabernacle?) to lead us in our national anthem at the start of the Minnesota Super Bowl in 2018.
Timothy Kessler, Detroit Lakes, Minn.
TRADE AGREEMENTS
Editorial Board's confidence misplaced
The Star Tribune Editorial Board's robust endorsement of trade deals, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular, myopically focuses on the impact to Minnesota businesses ("More trade means Minnesota jobs," Dec. 27). We should not only be looking at the effects on Minnesota, but on the world. Those who crow about these agreements turn a blind eye to their darker side. NAFTA may have been great for fat-cat corporations that get to keep their profits from outsourcing American jobs, but the flow of cheap (Minnesota) corn into Mexico has had a devastating effect on that country's agrarian culture.
The editorial cites "justifiable concerns about labor, environmental and other standards" but brusquely dismisses them, assuring us that these concerns will be accommodated in the "fast-track" process. Fast-track dictates an up-or-down vote — by its very nature disallowing discussion.
There are some 500 corporate "advisers" currently shaping this policy. With Washington awash in corporate lobbyists — pretty much buying our politicians (thanks to Citizens United) — the Editorial Board's assurance rings hollow. If this is such a great deal, why is it being "negotiated" so secretly? Some of what has been leaked is alarming. For instance, corporations are allowed to run roughshod over local environmental laws.
Perhaps the Star Tribune has a lot of faith in the benevolence of Minnesota's corporations, but can we trust outside companies to play nice when they move into our state? These trade deals are bad news.
Peter Murphy, Minneapolis
• • •
I'm disappointed that the Editorial Board would choose to support fast-tracking the TPP. We depend on access to the information the newspaper is expected to provide. Since the interests of workers, those wanting a world that respects the environment — really, the interests of the vast majority of us — are not represented, we need journalists to do their job. The Editorial Board should be demanding openness.
The evidence that we should place no trust in the motives of the multinational corporations negotiating this deal is broad and deep. It would be supremely naive to leave our economic security in their hands and expect a result that respects the rights and aspirations of the 99 percent of us.
Tom Kelly, St. Paul
CUBA
Marshall Plan is not an apt comparison
A reader writes (Dec. 26) of U.S. magnanimity toward Germany and Japan after World War II, arguing that it should now be extended to Cuba as well. Yes, the Marshall Plan did rebuild both Germany and Europe, and the United States also rebuilt Japan after the war. However, this occurred only after unilateral surrender and regime change. Adolf Hitler and Emperor Hirohito were removed from power, and their governments perished.
Cuba has undergone no regime change — the authoritarian Castro regime still reigns supreme. Nor has this regime surrendered its use of force in denying its citizens individual freedoms and liberty, while incarcerating political adversaries. What President Obama has accomplished is the surrender of American ideals to an aging Castro, gaining only vague, empty promises in return.
The Obama endgame likely includes the closure of Gitmo, as well as relinquishing its sovereignty. Small wonder these days that our allies are confused, while our adversaries think us feeble.
Forget about chess. Checkers, anyone?
Thomas R. Schwebach, Eden Prairie
MONEY IN POLITICS
Analysis incomplete without dark money
A Dec. 30 letter writer ("Money in politics: Where it goes might surprise you"), argues that wealthy Democrats contribute more money than do wealthy Republicans to political campaigns and that is the "honest reality" that we must all come to grips with. This conclusion, however, is little more than partisan propaganda.
The source that the writer refers to, OpenSecrets.org, relies upon publicly available campaign contribution information provided to the Federal Election Commission. With the advent of PACs and super PACs, the more crafty contributors are now able to keep their identities secret such that the total amount that, for instance, the Koch brothers, are spending on political messaging is not revealed. Republicans have donated to such nondisclosing groups more than Democrats. We also know, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, that right-wing nonprofits outspent liberal groups by 5 to 1 in the 2012 election cycle and by nearly 2 to 1 in the 2014 elections. Even using the publicly available data via OpenSecrets.org, we know that in the 2012 election cycle the top 100 donors gave 41 percent of all money collected by outside groups and 71 percent went to right-wing groups or candidates.
The real issue to be addressed in our democracy is the disclosure of the identity of the "money" behind the prominent political messages. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue.
David R. Ludwigson, Fredericksburg, Texas
ENERGY USE
If idling autos are what ails us …
After reading "Hit the road: Cars don't need to idle in low temps" (Dec. 30), I thought of all the times that I have had to idle while waiting for traffic lights to change. Am I missing something? Isn't that the same wasting of fuel and giving off of greenhouse gases as warming up cars on a cold morning?
