I have no argument against Ron Way's focus on prevention as an effective way to fight cancer ("Can we cure cancer? Or just keep up?"), but I wish the medical establishment paid more attention to the proven connection between emotions and physical ailments. I was expected to die of breast cancer in 1987. When I met my oncologist, I told him I got cancer as the result of stress. He dismissed it. The second time I got cancer, a few years later, he said, "The American Cancer Society now says psychological stress can cause physical problems."
I got cancer a third time in 1994, when a radiation oncologist estimated I had four more years to live. Without giving details, I attribute my recovery to my emotional/spiritual work, not to my mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation. If the relationship between the emotions and bodily health exists, and scientists no longer deny this, why does the medical community not use this information to treat cancer?
Jeanette Blonigen Clancy, Avon, Minn.
OBAMA'S LEGACY
No scandals, says Star Tribune Editorial Board, unseeingly
I don't see the point of the Star Tribune Editorial Board actually putting down in print that there were no scandals under President Barack Obama ("The hits and misses of the Obama years," Jan. 15).
The general definition of scandal is an action or event that brings with it wide disclosure and produces shock or surprise. I read this "no hint of scandal" phrase in Time magazine a few weeks ago. I heard it during a CNN interview. Is this "Let's play pretend"?
Off the top of my head: Benghazi; the IRS targeting of conservative groups; paying Iran for hostages; former Attorney General Eric Holder and "Fast and Furious"; lies about Obamacare; Hillary Clinton's private server while secretary of state; the Secret Service and prostitutes, and trading Guantanamo terrorists for a deserting American soldier. In Obama's final week in office, the administration announced the release of Chelsea Manning, a classified documents leaker, after weeks of criticizing WikiLeaks.
Please, Editorial Board: Have some respect for your readers. They actually have a brain.
Eugene Gomes, Richfield
• • •
In their retrospective on the Obama presidency, the members of the Editorial Board appear mystified over deteriorating race relations and failures of bipartisanship.
Could it be that both phenomena might be explained by the New-Jim-Crow-Republican Party's decision to obstruct our first black president from day one and at every point? Just two unprecedented examples from dozens:
• Then-House Speaker John Boehner's disrespectful refusal on Sept. 1, 2011, during our worst financial crisis in eight decades, to allow the president to address a joint session of Congress to present his American Jobs Act on a date that conflicted with early Republican presidential debates.
• The refusal of Senate Republicans to fulfill their constitutional duty of advice and consent on the president's March 16, 2016, nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.
By definition, bipartisanship cannot exist if one of the two sides refuses under any condition to engage the other, even if the other has the audacity to be born black. Double mystery solved!
Sadly, you may look no further than the ongoing failure to acknowledge these facts in order to understand the election of an incoherent, hate-tweeting "birther" as president, and his appointment of an attorney general named after both Confederate President Jefferson Davis and P.T.G. Beauregard, the treasonous general who bombarded Fort Sumter to start the Civil War.
William Beyer, St. Louis Park
RACE RELATIONS
Commentary choice was a swing and a miss on a serious subject
After reading Christine Flowers' Jan. 15 commentary "A week to remember in an endless journey," I was left feeling disappointed, frustrated and sad. Minnesota is home to myriad writers of color who discuss race, identity and American culture with nuance, acuity and beauty. Many such writers are featured in the breathtaking 2016 collection "A Good Time For The Truth: Race in Minnesota" edited by Minnesota author Sun Yung Shin. Taking a different tack in her piece, Flowers, of the Philadelphia Daily News, discusses race and racism in cartoonish extremes. She declares Dylann Roof "the real face of racism," and extols the leaders of the 1960s civil-rights movement for possessing "quiet dignity, steel-backed and patient." She points to increasing diversity in Hollywood films as a sign of racial progress. She condemns the civil-rights leaders of today as "spoiled, embittered children." She implores America to "move on." In doing so, she fails to recognize that racism has never been as simple or one-dimensional as Roof's brand of loud, deplorable bigotry, and misrepresents the spirit of King's movement and vision. She conflates tokenism with equal representation. She insults the dignity of the Movement for Black Lives. As questions of race and identity continue to dominate American news cycles, I hope the Star Tribune will turn to Minnesota's writers of color for more nuanced commentary and analysis, instead of relying on heavy-handed reactions from out-of-town white folks.
Andy Stermer, St. Paul
• • •
To those who think that the slogan "Black Lives Matter" doesn't pay enough attention to other lives, I offer this Flowers' commentary: "Black lives do matter, of course, but so do good manners." Black lives and good manners, equally important and valuable, I guess. Would the Star Tribune print an article that said: "Police lives matter, of course, but so do good manners"? In a single sentence, Flowers epitomizes the intrinsic racism of our society and shows why repeating "Black Lives Matter" over and over is essential if we're ever going to liberate black people from our racist past.
P.T. Magee, St. Paul
ETHICS
Why good people do bad things
Two Jan. 15 articles deal with related issues: ethics and conflict of interest. Jon Tevlin's interview with Michele Kelm-Helgen emphasized her wish to have a do-over on the use of stadium suites by public officials, their families, friends and like-mined politicians. Dr. Aasma Shaukat's letter to the editor about ethics described efforts in medicine to address conflict of interest, pointing out that similar efforts are needed among public officials.
I served for eight years on the Conflict of Interest Board of one of Minnesota's largest not-for-profit entities, where I observed that good people can do conflicting things because they have not thought their actions through adequately. Ethics, and the definition of conflict of interest (COI), are very complex issues not easily defined or described. However, one simple concept makes it easy to understand: If your actions were published on the front page of this newspaper, would your mother be embarrassed? Successful strategies to eliminate COI include clear, written rules of behavior and expectations, defined penalties (including expulsion) for failure to follow the rules, and regular (annual) review of actions likely to create COI or perceived COI by an unconflicted group of individuals experienced in the field but not selected by the group to be reviewed. Our federal and state elected officials, appointed administrators and their staffs must submit to these strategies to regain public confidence in their activities. Absent such actions, public opinion of our elected leaders will continue to diminish.
