Category: Letter

Your piece about the Paul Bunyan Trail [Good Intentions, October] overlooked something. Perhaps the State of Minnesota ignored the fact that railroad rights-of-way fit into many different categories ranging from outright ownership to easements for railroad use. Perhaps it wasn’t overlooked, and the decision was to take a chance. If the latter, it was bound to blow up some time. I’ve been a licensed attorney, specializing in real estate law, for fifty years. Since retirement, I’ve lectured to lawyers and surveyors on the ins and outs of the law relating to railroad rights-of-way and public streets. One element I’ve always stressed is that everything depends on how they were created. You’ve got to know the facts. The results of the state trail case have been widely quoted, but not the underlying facts. I’m waiting to read the court of Appeals decision. There is a decision relating to a similar trail in Washington County in which it was decided that the right-of-way was really for “transportation purposes.” I’m sure the state must have argued this decision, but the Court of Appeals decided that it didn’t apply. I suspect that the evidence may have shown that the right-of-way had been abandoned for some time before it was incorporated into the trail system. If so, both the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota’s Constitution require that the underlying owners must be compensated.
Charles L. Horn
Bloomington

Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh are two sides to the same coin. I remember these wacky feuds from my childhood. My brother and I would accuse each other of lies, deceit, and manipulation. Like most parents, mine were wise to our claims. We never could sway parental opinion, and gave up trying at about age 10. What childish notion is it that makes Franken think he has discovered something significant about the evil opposition? Just like Limbaugh, Franken is not swaying my opinion. They can continue bleating to their own herds of sheep.
Peter Kind
St. Paul

I liked the Franken interview, despite myself. As a spokesman for the Squishy Left wing of the Democratic Party, Franken’s awfully good, and always entertaining, and he’s best when he’s debunking factual inaccuracies of right-wingers. Of course, to Franken, a right-wing commentator or politician can’t be simply wrong on a matter of fact; they’re lying liars telling lying lies—Franken uses the word “lie” more often than Paul Simon does in the chorus of “The Boxer.” And, sure enough, Franken himself doesn’t lie. His claims about the overreaching of some critics of the Paul Wellstone memorial/campaign rally are utterly true, if incomplete. Sarah Janecek did misunderstand the “applause” captions on the Jumbotron as a deliberate, scripted incitement to the crowd, rather than the accidental one it was. Rush Limbaugh did devote his next day’s show to the rally. It’s what he leaves out and minimizes that misleads. Franken suggests that the outrage only started when it was hyped up by right-wingers. No, it started immediately, during the rally. Wellstone’s campaign manager almost immediately—apparently without needing to get his instructions from Rush Limbaugh—apologized for the turn that the memorial took. Didn’t Franken notice that? He does have a point, though. Given the nature of Wellstone’s politics, it was almost inevitable that there would be elements of a rally in what was billed as a memorial service. Which made it even more important that those who wanted to have this remain a memorial take steps to do so. They didn’t.
Joel Rosenberg
Minneapolis

If we want to blame someone for divorce, let’s blame the instigator and his or her attorney. I have a word of warning: The more you fight, the bigger the chance that the winner will be the attorney, who ultimately gets the money. The sad part about my recent divorce is that because of this ridiculous and long fight in court, we wasted a lot of money that could have been better spent on our kid’s needs. Money that could have been used for the kid’s education, or medical emergencies, or even to help the ex-spouse (especially if a stay-at-home parent) go back to school or rebuild a career, because that is what really makes sense. A divorce doesn’t have to be ugly and cut-throat on top of being a source of pain for everyone. Because this way everybody wins, especially the kids. The goal should be the well-being of the child, even if that means giving up on fighting for child custody. Your children know who loves them, and if you stay involved and keep on being a good parent, no court paper can take away your child’s love.
Name withheld by request

As an attorney who has practiced family law for twenty years, I agreed with the majority of Jeannine Ouellette’s article describing the marriage dissolution process in Minnesota [“Dealing From the Bottom,” September]. If our legislature had intentionally set out to create a system producing inequitable, shortsighted results inflicting the maximum degree of harm on children, it succeeded. Ouellette correctly noted that many dissolution statutes are the result of efforts by gender-based advocacy groups to advance their agenda with little thought to the children whose lives will be directly affected by the legislation. However, she perpetuated a troublesome stereotype by reprinting the claim of an unidentified attorney that while many fathers ask for joint physical custody of their children “only ten percent really want it” and, for most fathers, joint physical custody is simply a ploy to reduce child support. My experience is precisely the opposite. What most fathers object to is a legal system that ignores and devalues a father’s relationship with his children. The litigation system in our country uses an adversarial model—each side fights to “win.” This makes little sense when the custody of children is at stake. Assuming one parent should have “primary” custody of the children means the noncustodial parent’s status is diminished and rendered less meaningful. When a father sees his children on alternating weekends, he cannot function as a parent—he is more akin to an uncle. It is children who suffer as the result of this diminished role.
The Minnesota guidelines effectively assume the custodial parent has no economic responsibility for the child. This may be plausible for an unwed mother receiving public assistance but is dubious when a marriage ends. As a practical matter there is little difference in actual childcare costs between a custodial mother and noncustodial father. In this context the child support guidelines are simply a naked transfer of funds from one parent to another and have no relationship to the child’s actual needs.
Glenn P. Bruder
Edina

Craig Cox [“The Long Bomb,” October] states that the Gophers generate “less revenue in a season that the University of Michigan rakes in during a couple of home games.” This would seem to imply that Michigan has several times the revenue that the Gophers have. Later, he states that Michigan generates twice what the Gophers generate. It is true this is a disparity, but it’s not as great as he initially makes it appear. The author admits that the football program makes money, and these revenues fund the other sports programs. That seems to stand in contrast to other parts of the article, which seems to imply that the football is somehow stealing revenues from other sports. Perhaps he is familiar with the story of the goose that laid the golden egg? Is there evidence that revenues from football, hockey and basketball benefit the entire athletic department? Yes. The money the athletic department has comes from the sports that generate more than they spend. If these revenue-generating sports were canceled, there would be less money available for the whole athletic department.
If people want to donate their own money to build an on-campus stadium, I don’t see the problem with it. The Gophers have a terrible lease at the Metrodome. A new stadium would certainly bring in more revenue. If he is going to call supporters of an on-campus stadium deluded, at least he could have the courtesy of saying why he thinks it is a deluded idea. Much of his argument centers on the Gophers’ lack of success. However, the Gophers have been to bowl games three out of the last four years, and will go to another bowl game this year. It has not been such a long time since just getting to a bowl game—any bowl game—was a mere dream. It is a sign of success that expectations have been raised so much. He also suggests that college football could reduce the number of scholarships. He may not have noticed, but the NCAA has already done this, with the result of increased parity in Division I football.

Robert Lent
Minneapolis

Congratulations to Craig Cox for his article about what the esteemed writer-broadcaster Frank Deford once called “the cesspool of college athletics.” Along with “military intelligence,” “business ethics,” and “President Bush,” the term “student-athlete” is one of the great oxymorons of our time (emphasis on “morons”). Instead of wasting valuable resources on athletics, the university should concentrate on trying to educate our young people and prepare them to take their places in society. Instead of building stadiums, we should be building more classrooms. Instead of vastly overpaid coaches, we should be spending money to hire and retain the best possible faculty and making tuition as student-accessible as possible. I wouldn’t care if the U won every game in every sport; Minnesota no longer can afford bigtime college athletics. If it’s unrealistic to expect total abandonment of the intercollegiate program, the U at the very least should downgrade from the Big Ten to a much less demanding and costly conference or a modest independent schedule. The Metrodome may not be an ideal facility for the Gophers, the Twins, or the Vikings, but I believe it’s financially stable. For Gopher football fans who yearn for those long-gone golden autumn Saturday afternoons on campus, paint a mural on the ceiling. The Rake would be doing its readers a great service by corroborating Cox’s article with a reprint of Deford’s historic and quite accurate appraisal of college athletics. We know for sure the booster-minded Star Tribune and Pioneer Press never will.
Willard B. Shapira
Minneapolis

One element of downsizing college football that might enable smaller rosters would be a rule change that mirrors college football in the 1950s. For a period of some years, only one substitution was allowed per down. While this provided for a small measure of specialization (e.g., a punter on fourth down, a fragile quarterback who shouldn’t play defense), it basically required most players to line up on both offense and defense. The net result would be a need for smaller rosters and some interesting coaching challenges when you don’t have the luxury of shuttling in well-rested specialists. But frankly, anything that eliminates jobs and roster spots will be resisted by the coaching and athletic department fraternity.
Jeff Peterson
Minneapolis

Frank Jossi’s golf article, “The Missing Links” [September], is on target. Golf and cigars were here before they got trendy and will survive. Golf is not for everyone. But it is time to cut back on the overbuilding and let laws of supply and demand take over.
Jim Bohn
St. Paul

I like it that Stuart Greene is unabashedly a fan of his wife’s front and back porch [“More Than a Mouthful,” October], but there’s one thing he’s missing, summed up in the ancient adage “It’s not what you have, it’s what you do with what you have.” It’s not trivial for two reasons: 1) gravity and age take their toll on both sexes and especially on women after childbirth; and 2) no matter how perfectly proportioned your spouse might be in your mind, a male’s propensity for variety lurks in any marriage. What’s needed is more attention on how us marrieds can keep the sparks flying with the assets we each have. I’ve got ideas and some experience, but I can’t go into details without stirring things up in a bad way on the home front. So Stuart, let’s have more.
Griff Wigley
Northfield

As one of the many who are annoyed by telemarketing calls, I am not annoyed enough to support a statewide ban on them [“Unlisted Numbers,” September]. The telephone is only one of many vehicles that businesses use to market their wares; I am also annoyed with billboards and commercials, but advertising makes many things we enjoy possible, like TV shows, news, radio programs, and an awareness of products and services we would otherwise not know about. For some people, it’s the opportunity to buy a timeshare or get a discount on aluminum siding. There are lots of ways to reduce the number of telemarketing calls. Don’t buy products or services from businesses that sell your contact information. Get an unlisted number. Add that great feature to your phone service that asks solicitors to remove your name from the calling list and hangs up. But most important, it’s silly to make a law forbidding something that is “annoying” — especially something that can be easily modified by the one who is annoyed. Using the telephone is optional. If folks don’t want calls during dinnertime, the most reasonable thing to do is take the phone off the hook, turn the ringer off, or let their voice mail pick it up until they’re finished eating. It’s simple. I’d rather see our state invest that money in education and community development.
Rebecca St. Martin
Robbinsdale

I was very disappointed to read your article regarding child custody [“Dealing From the Bottom,” September]. As an attorney who practices exclusively in the area of family law, I felt that the article did a great disservice to attorneys, the court, mediators, and child psychologists who try to assist couples in resolving their parenting issues. I also believe it provided misleading information to the public. First, it is the rare attorney who encourages her client to “say every horrible thing that you can come up with about the other person.” Most attorneys know that the courts discourage these types of statements/affidavits in custody cases. Experienced family law attorneys know that if you start off a case in this manner, there is little hope of reaching an amicable resolution on any issue. A custody evaluation is only one part of the evidence that a court considers in making a determination of child custody in those few cases where parents do not reach agreement. Minnesota statute 518.17 lists thirteen criteria for the court to consider when making a decision. While I think most attorneys and judges would agree that the custody evaluation is important, I don’t know of any judges in the metro area that rely solely on the custody study. Also, it should be noted that many litigants agree to having one psychologist do the study (and many psychologists will only do a study if both parents hire them). Further, it is rare that a custody study would cost $25,000. I also found it interesting that the reporter only cites out-of-state psychologists and “experts” for her proposition that psychologists are “hired guns.” While that may be true in other states, the custody evaluators that I have worked with in the metro area do their very best to remain neutral. While some of the evaluators have preferences on different issues, they are diligent in obtaining accurate information and they present the information in a neutral and unbiased fashion. I wonder why the reporter did not talk to a single psychological expert in the metro area. I appreciated the information on collaborative law; I am a collaborative law attorney. However, the reporter’s dismissive statement regarding mediation does a disservice to the alternative dispute resolution process, which is very advanced in Minnesota. Mediation is not a “pit stop” on the way to court. I am sure if the reporter had taken the time to research the issue, speak to the chief judges in family court, and interview some respected mediators, she would have found out otherwise. The people getting divorced are in charge, from the criteria they use in hiring an attorney, to the process they want to use to resolve their case—litigation, mediation, or collaborative law. My advice to people is not to listen to horror stories, or rely on unresearched articles, but to decide how they want their divorce to proceed, and then do the research to find a competent attorney to assist them in reaching their goals.

Kathleen M. Picotte Newman Minneapolis

Thank you for the extremely thorough, gender-neutral, and well-researched article on child-custody problems. These problems are further damaging already fractured families. While I disagree with many of the opinions of Sarah Ramsey, you did a good job of balancing her comments with another expert opinion, to provide one of the most impartial articles describing this problem that I have ever read. You were able to take the emotion out of it and create an “intellectual” look at the problem. Your analysis was right on target.

Molly K. Olson
executive director
Center for Parental Responsibility
Roseville

I read Frank Jossi’s piece on the golfing industry [“The Missing Links,” September] with particular interest in the “Youth Only” or “Youth With an Adult” facility at the National Sports Center in Blaine. That is what we were promised back in 1998 by proponents of the project. Yes, a “youth only facility,” which was to potentially host a PGA Tour event by the year 2002. I would ask Jossi if he is certain this eighteen-hole facility is for youth only. According to the MASC, the eighteen-hole course is their “Events” course. Three years ago, the First Tee people described the nine-hole course as the “youth only” course. However, according to the EIS report on the Anoka County Airport released earlier this year, the MASC dropped that nine-hole course back in 2000, citing wetland issues. I have been involved with this sham since 1998. Representative Phil Krinkie did the right thing by asking for an investigation into this matter. After all, if you had 450 acres to build a 270-acre project, why would you spend $2 million to buy up a 75-acre sod farm nowhere near where the golf course was being built? Especially when there already was a $1.7 million appropriation to purchase the same land?

Bill Folkes
Coon Rapids

A popular myth, perpetuated even in China, is that the Great Wall is the only man-made structure that can be seen from outer space or, some will say, seen from the moon [“Red-Handed,” Letters, September]. For an object to be visible from a distance, it needs both size and visual contrast with its surroundings. The Great Wall has neither. As for size, at the most it is only twenty-five feet wide; many four- or six-lane highways are far wider. As for visual contrast, the wall is made of mostly gray stone surrounded by gray rock and brownish vegetation. Many highways are whitish concrete passing through green farm fields and no one claims to see them from space. If there was a man-made structure visible from a great distance, it would more likely be something like the space shuttle assembly building in Florida, the Superdome or the Metrodome, or even a large airport. While I’m at it, my bet is that reader Sam Woelm is a better Photoshop artist than traveler. I’ll take his T-shirt.

Tom Peterson
Edina

A number of readers wrote to correct us on the Great Wall paradox. Science tells us that many man-made objects are visible from outer space, while none can be seen from the surface of the moon. And we think Peterson is onto something with the Photoshop conspiracy theory, too. That photo is looking more fake every time we look at it! But we’d still send Mr. Woelm a T-shirt for his industriousness.—Editors