Readers Write: Kamala Harris’ turnaround, legal weed, trapping season, Uptown

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Let’s imagine that I just awoke from a six-month coma. I would not be able to believe my eyes and ears as I caught up on the latest presidential campaign news. Vice President Kamala Harris was anointed the Democratic candidate! (Apparently, the democratic primary process — like stop signs — is just a suggestion.)

But that’s not all. She’s suddenly being lionized in the media. Time magazine put her on its cover, portraying her with a reverence normally reserved for demigods like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. along with the caption, “Her moment.” People are referring to her as a pop culture phenomenon and making liberal use of the word “vibes” to describe her and her running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and their emotional hold on the country. (Yes, that Tim Walz!)

(Insert “Twilight Zone” musical theme here.) Wait a minute. Are we sure we’re talking about the same Kamala Harris? The one who just months ago was considered a party pariah, who party bosses publicly said must go because she’s unelectable? The 2020 presidential candidate who couldn’t even make it to Iowa, let alone beyond it? The linguistically challenged, word-salad-spewing, “border czar” flunkie? She is now the greatest hope for the Democrat party since Mr. Hope himself, Barack Obama?

This has to be one of those alternate universe moments you see in sci-fi movies. Or maybe I’m still in a coma and this is all a dream. Or maybe, just maybe, voters are that fickle and easily played by the media. Talk about “weird.”

Doug deGrood, Edina

•••

The recent letter writer questioning where Kamala Harris’ economic ideas were three years ago seems to have a short memory (“Where were these three years ago?” Readers Write, Aug. 20). When Joe Biden and Harris came into office, we had lost 2.7 million jobs, including 178,000 manufacturing jobs and over 12,000 coal jobs (see FactChecker.org). Unemployment was at 6.4%, the trade deficit increased 36.3% from 2016, over 3 million people had lost their health care and the prior administration had left with a 50% increase in the federal debt (going from $14.4 trillion to $21.6 trillion).

The good news was the prior administration did have a major increase in corporate earnings — the stock market returns and even weekly earnings had gone up. The vaccine for the global COVID pandemic was authorized in February 2021 and the states administering it by April. There were still supply-chain shortages due to the pandemic.

So where were Harris and her economic ideas three years ago? She and Biden were doing their best to keep the American people safe and dealing with an economy that was on the brink of collapse and a global pandemic that had affected the life of every American!

Jan McCarthy, Eden Prairie

•••

I read Michael Brodkorb’s Aug. 13 commentary with intense interest (“My time for choosing: I’m a Republican and I’m endorsing Harris and Walz”). I’m wasting my time, but here goes ... subsequent letters evidenced Jan. 6 as a driving reason for Trump’s disloyalty to democracy, despite videos, independent studies and hearings which debunked that causality. Yet Walz’s penchant for prosecuting businesses for lockdown violations and catching neighborhood offenders via tip line, reminiscent of the Cold War, gets crickets. As for policy, one writer aptly criticized the lack of Democratic policy other than the recently proposed Soviet-modeled food and rent controls. Even their candidate selection process was anything but democratic.

Leadership is leading, not following orders from intelligence agencies, oligarchs, donors, military-industrial giants and Big Pharma, to mention a few. Trump made promises in 2016 and kept most of them despite the flimsy impeachments, collusion conspiracies and recently creative legal challenges.

I was better off four years ago than I am now. Harris/Walz will perpetuate inflation, prolong war, stifle innovation, inhibit growth, raise taxes and besmirch the good name of the United States. Have fun with that!

Donald Pitsch, Eden Prairie

Discussions of how to regulate the Minnesota’s approaching cannabis retail market, set to begin in early 2025, often draw parallels to the alcohol industry, one of many points raised in the Aug. 18 letter about legalization titled “A bad idea? How?”

There are three features of the alcohol retail and regulatory scene that provide a degree of consumer protection: health warnings (e.g., risks of drinking and driving; general health risks), potency limits and availability of a lower-potency option (such as beer). The Minnesota cannabis industry should follow suit and require these consumer protection features.

Health and safety warnings can now be based on decades of rigorous science. For example, we know from several European studies that use of high-potency cannabis (e.g., leaf products above the 10% THC level) significantly increases the risk of psychosis, and numerous recent studies, including reports from the National Academy of Sciences and a group of international experts in their 2017 report on Lower-Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines, conclude the scientific evidence is moderate to strong that THC use is associated with driving impairment, harm to the unborn, risk for addiction and harm to brain development, among other health problems. Also, there should be a requirement that all retail outlets have low potency products (e.g., under 3%) available to consumers in retail stores. Providing such options gives consumers choices that are potentially less harmful than the higher-potency products.

The imminent cannabis retail marketplace in Minnesota can take advantage of lessons learned from alcohol industry regulations and standards.

Ken Winters, Falcon Heights

The writer is a research adviser and co-founder of Smart Approaches to Marijuana Minnesota.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources claims that drastically extending the river otter trapping season “shouldn’t result in a meaningful increase” in mortality (“New rules take effect for hunting, trapping,” Aug. 16). One has to wonder how the DNR defines “meaningful,” since an appalling four additional months of trapping surely means more agonizing deaths for this intelligent and playful species so highly valued by the public.

Because river otters swim fast and have slender bodies and muscular necks, research finds that the spring-loaded traps intended to crush them underwater often strike in the wrong place and don’t kill quickly. Instead, these aquatic mammals — which can hold their breath for as long as eight minutes — may endure prolonged suffering and terror as they struggle and drown. Scientists report that most otters captured in leghold traps endured injures as well.

A hunting group survey has revealed that the American public opposes the trapping of animals for their fur or for money. And due to growing awareness about the inherent cruelties of fur production, its demand is evaporating as imports and international markets decline and prominent fashion designers and apparel companies reject it.

River otters and all wildlife are public trust assets to be managed for the benefit of all Minnesotans, not just the approximately 0.1% of them who trap. So before approving an increase in trapping, the DNR should have surveyed the Minnesota public’s values and attitudes toward this cruel and widely despised practice.

Aaron Zellhoefer, Minneapolis

The writer is the Minnesota state director for the Humane Society of the United States.

When I was a kid, my dad owned a duplex on Fremont Avenue South. From his shoulders I glimpsed my first ‘90s punk on Hennepin Avenue and Lake Street (fewer memories of mine are more vivid than that electric blue mohawk). Turning a quarter into the giant gumball machine outside of the Sanrio store at Calhoun Square was practically a sacred ritual. Sneaking sips of SlimFast behind my mom’s back on hot summer Saturdays as she attempted to Rollerblade, Barbie-style, with my aunt around the lake felt chic and rebellious. Some of the most precious — and granted, weirdest — moments of my childhood occurred in Uptown. I’ve reveled in its vibrancy, I’ve witnessed it thrive, and I’ve resolved to not give up on it (”Eight hours in Uptown,” Aug. 18). The Star Tribune staff shouldn’t either.

Sabrina Crews, Minneapolis