Red Wing Newsroom
- Member for
- 3 years 5 months
To the Editor: Nearly 10 months ago on a cold and snowy January night, over 100 supporters and I gathered to launch our campaign for state Senate in District 21. Since that night we've worked tirelessly to get our name and message out to every corner of the district.
To the Editor: I met Matt Schmit 10 years ago following my own election to the Minnesota Senate. As vice chair of the Education Finance Committee, I was an experienced lawmaker looking for help getting through an ominous 2003 session. Matt was an aspiring graduate student looking for some hands-on experience in public policy.
To the Editor: I commend the Red Wing City Council, Planning and Sustainability commissions, administration and city attorney for creating strong, forward-thinking silica frac sand ordinances and regulations. They spent many hours pulling together one of the state's most comprehensive plans. This was done without spending city monies to hire experts.
To the Editor: Erik is our son, so he will have the vote of his parents. Ward 3 and 4 voters, however, want other reasons to vote for Erik Fridell. This letter is to explain what Erik has done for the city these past two years. As a member of the Sustainability Commission, Erik did all the research and most of the writing of a stop-frac-sand-mining ordinance for Red Wing. Erik advocated a ban on all frac mining within the city limits.
To the Editor: Soon the voters of Senate District 21 will select various government representatives and leaders, including their state senator for the next four years. As a retired educator, with 35 years as a teacher, high school principal, and district superintendent, I believe that no one should "automatically" reject or vote for any candidate for political office due to a particular organization's endorsement of that candidate.
To the Editor: Growing up in Red Wing, I was proud to have a diverse group of friends and family around me. We looked out for each other and, for the most part, treated each other with respect. I regularly read the Republican Eagle online, have seen folks from my hometown in the news and on the radio, and the marriage amendment has been front and center. The biggest argument I have seen has come from religion. The problem is not only the idea of separation of church and state, but also not all religions hold the same views.
To the Editor: I was at a ministers' meeting that kept coming back to our concerns about Minnesota's proposed "marriage amendment" that would codify an "Adam and Eve" model as the only legal marriage. As I've thought about my own approach to the "undecided," the following list of "thought experiments" came to mind. It was my smarter, older brother Albert Einstein who pioneered "thought experiments" to open up new ways of thinking about physics and cosmology. Perhaps they could also be useful in ethics and politics. Experiment No.
To the Editor: "We the people in order to form a more perfect union ... insure domestic tranquility ... secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... ." What elegant language to show us what a constitution should be. Too bad our state legislators want to clutter up our Minnesota Constitution with amendments to limit the "blessings of liberty" to all of us. It seems they were more concerned with not being on the record as voting either way on these issues than they were with doing their jobs and legislating. Could the election have anything to do with that?
To the Editor: The Red Wing School Board is an active committee engaged in setting local educational polices for the schools, determining curriculum, and authorizing operating and capital expenditures within an adopted budget. All of us in the community are affected by decisions made by the board whether you have children in the district or pay local taxes. It is important to have board members who are effective during their years of service and have the ability to be an effective communicator, consensus builder, leader, community participant, decision maker and a team player.
To the Editor: To anyone still planning to vote "yes" on either or both of the proposed amendments to the Minnesota Constitution, please reconsider. The process itself is neither fair nor particularly American. I don't believe it represents the way we want to govern ourselves. Think of all the other issues, besides these two, on which there is no broad consensus, on which the numbers on either side are more or less equal. Would you like them all settled in favor of whichever side musters a mere plurality of voters?