I’d like to express agreement with the “Objecting to transparency?” letter to the editor on (May 7) regarding the kerfuffle about Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher.
That the Ramsey County Board of Commissioners wants to take the office of county sheriff away from the voters is outrageous. Someone might remind these (elected) commissioners that the will of the people still means something to most citizens and taxpayers. We don’t want our voices replaced by a diktat from on high.
The intrusion of the St. Paul City Council into the fray is equally outrageous. Apparently the content of the sheriff’s videos makes clear a level of crime and sordid behavior some council members prefer to pretend does not exist. They’d like to curate reality, a la Facebook.
But reality is stubborn. Over the past year, crime has skyrocketed in the Twin Cities, including St. Paul. Carjackings, homicides, street robberies, shots fired — all are way up. Last weekend, in three separate incidents on a Saturday night, nearly 150 bullets went careening every which way, terrifying residents and shocking even seasoned police. “I’ve been on this job in St. Paul for 32 years and I’ve never seen this happen before,” St. Paul Police Chief Todd Axtell summed it up, adding, “I want St. Paul to understand that all hands are on deck.”
To woke members of the St. Paul City Council, acknowledging this sad reality seems a job too hard. In an ideal world, we could defund the police, hire facilitators to talk thugs out of committing crimes, fill the street with mental health experts who would gently take guns away and put them in a safe place, and, by muzzling the sheriff’s video feed, convince everyone that we don’t have a problem. It’s just that darn sheriff …
Jean Wulterkens, St. Paul
Contradiction
It seems odd to me that today, with so many demanding transparency, especially with the Police Department that there should be any objection to Sheriff Fletcher’s “Live on Patrol.” Seems like a total contradiction to me.
Larry Geisen, Oakdale
Ideas on policing reform
Thank you for covering the current debate about policing reform. I’d like to suggest a couple of ideas that both sides of this debate might be able to agree on.
Start with these questions: As citizens, do we expect our police to protect people who live in neighborhoods where violence is most prevalent? Or do we want police to protect the rest of us FROM those neighborhoods? Do we want police to act like soldiers trying to contain violent crime in someone else’s neighborhood? Or do we want a police force whose goal is to protect everyone, regardless of where they live?
I think everyone deserves protection. It we can agree on that, then let’s look at how we can build well-being and stability in the neighborhoods where violence is most prevalent. How about a commitment at the state and local level to building the best schools, the best health care clinics, and the best job-training centers in these neighborhoods, and focusing public and private economic development projects on creating jobs there? How about building new community centers offering the services neighborhoods need to thrive, including police services, making them an integral part of building community well-being and safety?
At the same time, we can provide more support for police officers by assuring that they have access to the resources they need to maintain their physical, mental and emotional health. Police work is stressful; healthy police officers are less likely to make mistakes or misjudge a situation in ways that endanger themselves and others.
I believe that other kinds of policing reform are also needed, and the debate about that will continue. But if we look at the problem from a different angle, maybe we can improve the safety and well-being of both citizens and our police officers in ways that most community members can agree on.
Alan Williams, St. Paul
Who got it started?
In response to the Letter to Editor “During this pandemic” May 6: Just one question. Which elected officials are the ones who got the ball rolling in 2020 on getting these vaccines?
Michael Nohava, Prescott, Wis.
Pay their fair share
The French word “legerdemain” refers to the dexterity of magicians to engage in deception in their movements and manipulations. The Roman philosopher Seneca wrote that deceptive rhetoric is a verbal analog to the cunning of illusionists.
For example, it is alleged that the storming of the U.S. Capitol was an expression of patriotism allowed by the right of free speech. No, actually it was a riot. Or, it is asserted that a mandate to wear face masks during the coronavirus pandemic is a threat to our liberty. No, actually it is a way to suppress the spread of a deadly virus.
A recent legerdemain is the assertion that President Biden’s request for corporations to pay higher taxes is an abuse of power. Biden answered, we’re just asking for them to pay their fair share of the nation’s infrastructure burden. Apple Inc. is a glaring example of this need.
Apple is the highest valued public U.S. company of all time with a market value of nearly a trillion dollars but is intentionally adept at suppressing U.S. taxes on its gargantuan profits. Like many other multinationals, Apple uses accounting maneuvers to transfer massive portions of its U.S. profits to tax havens overseas, thereby paying no U.S. taxes on those hidden profits.
Apple Inc. at its headquarters in Cupertino, Calif., and other facilities in the U.S. enjoys the protection of public servants, the use of roads and bridges in our communities, the availability of our natural resources, and so forth. Many prominent corporations in America pay no federal income taxes on their profits. President Biden is right. Just asking for their fair share.
