Putin is Hitler reincarnated

Amid a world gone bonkers we ponder a scary future. With a planet about to self-destruct, we gaze upon a reincarnated Hitler in Russia who has a perverse delight in killing innocents. Putin’s frozen stare into cameras around a weary news report should get us all to say “WTF?”

This heartless excuse for a human being should be up on collective charges for war crimes. But this dirtbag is insulated by an obedient military which obeys deranged directives.

Our singular prayer is that a miraculous coup could unfold that would take this SOB to hell where he belongs with the other devilish dictators in history.

Ken Bracken
Minneapolis Veterans’ Home

IPCC Report: It’s now or never to avoid climate disaste

Too often we humans fail to plan ahead, or successfully address simultaneous multiple problems, particularly if we are not directly affected. With the ongoing global pandemic, war in Ukraine, and rampant inflation, now comes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Sixth Assessment Report on Climate Change (ipcc.ch).

This latest Report bluntly warns that it’s now or never to stave off the worst effects of climate change.  The conclusion of the planet’s leading scientists is: we must end rising greenhouse gas emissions before 2025 to keep average global heating below 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7F); beyond which severe climate and environmental impacts will increase, adversely affecting billions of people. The bad news is our continuing addiction to fossil fuels is already causing increased property damage, supply chain disruptions, food shortages, and refugee crises. The good news is we know what must be done and have the technology to change current climate trends.  

The needed changes will be costly, but the cost of inaction will be far greater; for human life and suffering, planetary ecosystems, and money. Climate scientists and economists agree that the cost of change is an investment to avoid the far greater cost of a less livable planet. If we know the consequences of our current habits, and know what must be done, the question is: when will we find sufficient public and political will to do what is needed?

John LIndell
Bayfield, Wisconsin

The immovable tyrant

The immovable tyrant will eventually have to come to the table to reach out for an understanding and find a solution and agreement with other peacemakers. Time is not a luxury now with the daily, ruthless slaughtering of innocents.

The world holds its breath as one leader pleads for sanity and another despot might very well be beyond reaching.

Gerald Norrgard
Duluth, Minnesota

Questions gun column
 
In the April 7 Reader, Phil Anderson outdid himself in his anti-gun rant. He began with an alarming list of recent “mass shootings,” defined as shootings with four or more victims. Given the current practice of giving nationwide exposure to every such incident, it might appear that our population is being decimated by mass shooters. Let us, however, seek some perspective. In a paper titled “The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy” from the Harvard Business School, it is revealed that mass shootings (defined there as three or more victims not romantically connected) comprise just 0.13% of all deaths with guns (presumably including suicide), and 0.34%, still well under half of one percent, of murders in which guns were used, between 1989 and 2014. The other 99+% are non-mass shootings, which in our country include all those associated with our continuing “war on drugs,” which in its current form marks 50+ years of abject failure.

Remarkably, Anderson concludes from his recitation that “guns do not protect anyone.” He even says such a conclusion is “crystal clear,” though he offers no evidence or argument whatever. He then moves on to blame the recent spike in violent crime on the increase in civilian gun ownership.  Given that since 1990 or so the number of guns has steadily climbed while the violent crime rate has steadily fallen, it seems unlikely in the extreme that the continued rise in guns is now responsible for increased crime. Is it not more likely reflective of other changes, such as police “defunding,” abolition of cash bail, and attempts to limit Covid transmission by thinning prison and jail populations? Just a guess.

By this time Anderson is blaming all his complaints on Republicans, including the 2008 Heller decision by a “Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court” (I can think of nine people who would all object to that characterization). Here he makes the astounding claim that Heller, by declaring the right protected by the Second Amendment an individual right, “overturned 200 years of precedents on interpreting” the amendment. Had he actually read the Heller decision, he could not possibly reach such a conclusion. Had he read writings from the founding era, including those of James Madison, who authored the amendment (Federalist #46, for example), he would have understood that an individual right was intended from the start. There are NO legal precedents contradicting the individual-right interpretation, let alone 200 years’ worth.

For you to use your published column to promulgate such a bizarre claim is morally questionable, at best.  Morals aside, don’t you think you owe your readers a higher standard of scholarship?

Jon Eggleston
Duluth, Minnesota