Perhaps a question that should be on the table is, when looking at the product a sizable portion of the entertainment industry provides, why the surprise in behavior when looking at the acceptance of the product being promoted? When people go to movies, turn on a TV program or download a song that promote such excesses, that is exactly what one's entertainment dollar is supporting.
Call me naive, but for a promised "taxes one can file on a postcard," it seems strange that Congress would need a 426-page tax overhaul plan (photograph accompanying Nov. 12 editorial "U.S. tax reform is too important to rush"). It appears that the proposed legislation contains much more than simplicity.
A Nov. 11 letter writer bemoans the fact that news media did not highlight the fact that the man who killed 26 people at the church in Texas was himself stopped by a bullet from an assault rifle, wielded by another citizen. His point seems to be that assault rifles have gotten a bad rap and, by extension, that we would all be safer if more of us were toting them.
The logic is breathtaking. Over the past few decades, politicians in thrall to the NRA have blocked nearly all efforts to restrict access to dangerous weapons, and have in fact dismantled many of the sensible regulations that were in place. The result is that our country leads the world by a wide margin in two categories, and it's not even close: the number of guns in private possession, and the number of mass shootings. According to a recent article in the New York Times, America contains 4.4 percent of the world's population, but suffered 42 percent of the world's mass shootings over the period from 1966 to 2012. And a recent analysis published in the American Journal of Medicine found that Americans (a) have the highest number of guns per capita in the world, and (b) are 10 times more likely to be murdered by guns than residents of other developed countries. The correlation is clear: More guns do not make us more safe.
I have left it to others to raise the environmental concerns related to the PolyMet project. Instead, I have been raising the issue of paying for environmental cleanup after closure or a major mishap. In previous cases throughout the country the company goes belly up and the bank or financial institution backing it goes bankrupt at the same time. My solution would be to require a bond issued by a reputable institution like Lloyd's of London. Their refusal or proposal of an unmeetable rate should say something about possible project problems. Please join me in this request for an addition to copper sulfide mining proposals.
The writer is a former member of the Minnesota House.