Readers Write: The Lynx, election analyses
The inspiration from the Lynx only grows.
•••
I grew up watching the Lakers, Pistons and Bulls in the Finals. The Timberwolves emerged when I was 11; the Lynx, age 21. My childhood basketball camps and Saturday leagues were always with boys. So it is a moment of gratitude for me to reflect on where women’s basketball is today. To witness the Minnesota Lynx’s championships and playoff runs have been pure joy and inspiration. As a mother of three girls, I have been motivated to bring them to games and championship parades (some in strollers). Thank you to coach Cheryl Reeve for being the reliable strength and leader for so many women in this world. You are an incredible trailblazer, and it gives a boost to my belief in the possible because of what you’ve proven exists. For a little girl wanting to play basketball, you are the epitome of greatness.
Sue Magnuson, Brownton, Minn.
•••
On Aug. 18, in a 92-75 win against the Seattle Storm, the WNBA referees assessed Caitlin Clark a technical foul for hitting the backboard with her hand. The referee told her she was “being disrespectful to the game of basketball.”
The true disrespect to the game of basketball came from the referees in the Lynx’s Game 5 Finals loss to the Liberty this Sunday. Respect to the game of basketball consists of paying enough attention in the last six seconds of a two-point game to call a blatant travel. Respect to the game of basketball means overturning a phantom foul call, not doubling down. If the referees respect the game of basketball, the Lynx win in regulation.
Liberty fans claim the Lynx shot poorly, scoring only two points in overtime, and so deserved to lose. But the Liberty shot much worse in regulation — the only somewhat legitimate part of the game.
Women deserve consistent and competent referees. Women’s leagues deserve to have the best team win the championship, not the team in the largest market that will generate the most revenue. Fans are used to outsiders disrespecting the women’s game. But in this game, the real disrespect came from the referees within.
Elise Steichen, Minneapolis
•••
In his column on Cheryl Reeve’s postgame news conference (“Souhan: What should we think about Lynx coach Cheryl Reeve’s postgame rant?” Oct. 21), Jim Souhan wrote that “Reeve’s tone of voice suggested that she wasn’t painstakingly building a case.” Even worse, she was “rude” and ungrateful for the league’s success this year.
It’s difficult to imagine the same being said of NBA or NFL coaches. Not only is Reeve expected to be passionate and competent, she’s also supposed to build a logical case, monitor her tone of voice and consider future TV negotiations for the league. Like Ginger Rogers, it looks like she has to do what all the male coaches do backward and in heels — or Sabrinas.
Joseph Schattauer Paille, Minneapolis
•••
I was very disappointed with the sports headline about the WNBA Finals game, “Wrong side of history.” An awful headline for two reasons. First, it doesn’t fit the situation: Dictators and racists, for example, are on the wrong side of history; basketball teams are not. Second, it contained no acknowledgment of the truly special excitement and competitiveness of the series. Both teams played their hearts out. The underdog Lynx, especially, deserve credit for pushing the Liberty to the brink. How about something like “Liberty wins championship in historic five-game battle.”
Brett Smith, Minneapolis
ELECTION ANALYSES
Summaries are fine; missing info is not
I see this paper has gone a different direction this year with regard to endorsing political candidates. Rather than endorsing one over the other(s), the Minnesota Star Tribune Editorial Board is summarizing policy differences and prescriptions among the candidates and letting readers decide. I have no objection to this format other than one glaring omission: For each candidate, the board needed to report if the aspiring officeholder — at least those for federal office — believes the 2020 election was stolen. In other words, we readers need to understand if the GOP candidate seeking our vote has hitched their wagon to Donald Trump. If the answer is yes (or if they are evasive on the question), none of this candidate’s stances on the issues really matter. Should a Republican candidate confess their allegiance to Trump — by way of admitting skepticism that President Joe Biden won in 2020 — they are essentially telling us how they might vote on legal and constitutional matters under a Trump presidency. They are also telling readers that our vote may not count in future elections. For the readers’ full understanding of how candidates’ regard our democracy, this paper needs to ask, and report first and foremost, if a candidate is an election-denier.
Jill Schwimmer, Minneapolis
•••
Hooray for the Star Tribune refusing to post a favored candidate list!
Change happens bottom-up, measuring the collective decisionmaking of each of us, unique individuals all. The request by some readers for the Strib’s top-down trumpeting of who to vote for eliminates our big chance to have everyone heard.
Barbara Vaile, Northfield
•••
The recent column defending the Editorial Board’s decision to not endorse candidates in the upcoming election invoked the words of a Waverly, Minn., farmer, who said, in the context of the election and political divisiveness: “At the end of the day, we’re all people who want the same thing” (“What to expect from the Editorial Board as the election approaches,” Oct. 15.)
We all want the same thing. It’s a fine sentiment, but it’s as inscrutable as a fortune in a cookie. I want to believe it, but I cannot. If votes are a reflection of our desires and wants, people who vote for Trump in the upcoming election do not want the same things that I want.
I have no grievance with the farmer who wants us to seek common ground. Like him, I want to believe that we all want the same thing. It’s just not true. When somebody votes for a candidate, they endorse that candidate’s words, actions and promises. They want what he or she wants. I do not want the same thing(s) as people who support Trump.
I do not want to deny women their reproductive freedom. I do not want to deny the best science that climate change is caused by humans. I do not want to ignore the best science on vaccines. I do not want a president who did not accept the results of a free and fair election and who fomented an uprising at the Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power. I do not want a president who calls those who serve in the military “losers.” I do not want a president who trashes alliances with democratic nations and instead cozies up to authoritarian rulers. I do not want a president who plans to fire civil service employees (see Project 2025), and replace them with appointees loyal to him. I do not want a president who willfully lies. I do not want to excuse those lies, as half the electorate appears to be willing to do. I do not want a president who promises to seek vengeance and jail his political opponents. I do not want a president who has been criminally indicted four times, and convicted, thus far, once. I do not want a president who derides the judicial system as “rigged” unless it works in his favor, such as the recent Supreme Court decision granting him immunity from criminal liability for his official acts.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
There’s another list — a long list of Republicans who have taken a stand and will not vote for Trump. They recognize that the differences between the two presidential candidates are stark, and that the things Trump wants may be fatal to our nation.
The Star Tribune, by refusing to endorse political candidates, is unwilling to do the same. Instead, the editors hide behind the bromide that, at the end of the day, we all want the same thing. Sadly, it’s just not so.
Miriam Karmel, Minneapolis
